Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?

[dannyboy]

By KATHLEEN KINGSBURY Kathleen Kingsbury Fri Nov 7, 4:45 am ET

High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school.

Once implemented, the new battery of tests is expected to guarantee higher competency in core school subjects, lower dropout rates and free up millions of education dollars. Students may take the exams - which are modeled on existing AP or International Baccalaureate tests - as many times as they need to pass. Or those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years, taking a second, more difficult set of exams senior year. "We want students who are ready to be able to move on to their higher education," says Lyonel Tracy, New Hampshire's Commissioner for Education. "And then we can focus even more attention on those kids who need more help to get there."

But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests.

The rest of the story. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081107/us_time/shouldkidsbeabletograduateafter10thgrade)

[Dirk]

I think it there is no way it can work unless colleges adjust their courses. It works in the rest of the world because colleges expect students who are 16 years old and only have 10 years of schooling. US colleges expect 18 year olds with 12 years of schooling, so anyone with less may be smart but may very well be missing some of the basics that colleges expect them to have.

[markalot]

How does this effect college savings? I know I need all the years I can get.

[drougan]

Since it only seems to be geared towards technical and community colleges, I see no reason why the "higher" education institutions should have to change a thing. There's already a set of standards usually in place for college prep track and gen ed track anyway. If you can get the kid into a technical or other kind of post-secondary training for the last two years then do it.

[classicgrrl]

the US is far different that the other countries. our kids are not ready to go college at the age of 16. that doesn't mean they are less than other kids in countries, it just means that we view childhood differently here and are less homoginized.

our k-12 schools still suck donkey balls, however.

[berzerker]

Huh. So, that means kids will start drinking in earnest 2 years earlier? :confused:

[Yale Delay]

Huh. So, that means kids will start drinking in earnest 2 years earlier? :confused:

Most kids are drinking by 16 anyway...

[lutz]

But half the point of uni is to get away from your parents and learn how to fend for yourself. 16 is too young for that. And I think the work level would put them under too much pressure.

[Tweeks_Coffee]

Well, I did have to essentially repeat quite a few classes when i went to college. So I guess I could've shaved a year off my time at school if I had been allowed to just take those classes at college and skip them in HS. Of course I went to a pretty good school, it'd be asking an awful lot for every 16-year old to be ready for college.

[mongoose]

Absolutely not. Teenagers have a multitude of weird hormonal things going on.

[juggles]

If kids are ready to move on, let them move on. Give the schools more time to concentrate on the kids who want or need to be there. It'd be good for everybody.

[Arkansas]

Why does our society have a fascination with growing up so quickly? I don't want my kids to join the rat race so soon. What's the point? I'm encouraging my kids to be kids for as long as they can. I'm still holding on to my youth. Being an adult sucks.

[juggles]

Why does our society have a fascination with growing up so quickly? I don't want my kids to join the rat race so soon. What's the point? I'm encouraging my kids to be kids for as long as they can. I'm still holding on to my youth. Being an adult sucks.

I don't think we do. Adolescence extends into grad school for many "kids" today. A couple generations ago, you were going to work when you were 17 or 18. Most of the kids I know that age could use a healthy dose of real world responsibility.

Edited to add: what part of the world are you thinking of where kids grow up more slowly than they do here?

[the happy prole]

I think it there is no way it can work unless colleges adjust their courses.

I think you have to go the other way. K-12 or I guess K-10 will have to adjust their curriculum to churn out college-ready kids.

My parents taught me how to add and multiply and stuff when I was five, and of course I grew up speaking a foreign language. I kind of did nothing for 8 years of school (and developed some really crappy habits as a result).

Thing is, there's too many kids who actually go the full four years of HS and get a diploma and still have to take remedial courses, so why rush it? And the truth is, high school dual enrollment courses kind of suck ass. They are not as rigorous as a good AP class and a 4 or 5 test score and I know a lot of colleges that won't take them.

The danger is that these kids end up in limbo. They graduate HS early and go to technical colleges where they take classes that are supposed to be like regular baccalaureate-level gen. ed. courses but are in actuality dumbed down, so they are not ready to switch over into a baccalaureate program after two years.

But they're two years ahead, so what's the problem? The problem is-- you're paying for those two years in community college where you otherwise wouldn't be. The other problem is that in a community college you're in a more unstructured environment. The other thing is that it's frustrating as hell to fail out. Students don't just shake that off.

The mentality we have is to shove as many kids into post-secondary education as we can and hope that the quantity makes up for quality. I think it's a mistake because letting a kid get 1 or 2 years in and then fail out puts them in a worse position than had they not gone.

I can see what they're trying to do, and I guess I'm not against it. But if I had a kid that was bright enough to graduate from HS in two years, I'd do like markalot and keep them there. It's two more years of savings, two more years where they can develop themselves personally and professionally by taking AP classes, doing extracurricular activities. Hell, travel to Europe or something. And they get their prom and to play some starting sports if they want.

For a kid that is pretty bright, they have the smarts and can easily acquire the extra knowledge to succeed in college. The critical growth at that phase is in gaining maturity and becoming well-rounded and well-adjusted, not knowledge.

[the happy prole]

Good point, although I would argue that if you're bright enough to pass a for real AP or IB level exam as a Sophomore in HS the US educational system really ought have you on a university track or at least be strongly encouraging it.

I'm not saying everyone has to go to college, but you look at the salaries now for non-college graduates and it's a grim situation; fair or not. If you're a bright kid, good with your hands and/or technically smart and can go it without the degree, perhaps you should have this option. But even then man, I'd still want you to take another year and think about it. Take a dual enrollment class or take a Community College class during the summer and see how you like it. You're making a big life/future career decision at a pretty tender age.

Now if we did revamp the entire system from K on up to a European/Asian style I'd have no problem with it. But for the next 10 years or so while we're on a dual track kind of system, I just can't see taking my kid out of HS early.

Really, kids should just be taught more at all ages, full-stop. They should know at 15 what they aren't learning at until 17 right now. Whether they go to community college or a four-year or stay in HS taking more advanced courses is not so important.

[dannyboy]

The thing about our educational system is that the curriculum is often "one size fits all". I was an advanced student in school and soaked up new material, more often than not, like a sponge. I remember many of my school days from elementary school through high school being bored out of my mind because I was so far ahead of most other students. AP classes were definitely more challenging and more interesting, but those didn't come along until high school and they weren't offered for every class. The required courses for graduation such a U.S. Government and American History were painful for me to have to sit through because I pretty much already knew the material being presented and probably could have passed the final exam without ever having to show up in person for a class, but of course high school isn't college and they don't allow you to do that.

[classicgrrl]

Please. 'our society'? American society coddles its youth like few other.

this is what I was referring to.....I don't think we coddle our youth I prefer to think that we actually allow them to have a childhood and grow up a bit rather than forcing them.

afterall - our children are not forced to marry when they are 13 and have 5 kids by the time they are 17; unless they live in TX. nor do we have the suicide rates of japan where not getting into the correct university is akin to being working poor all your life.

the article is short-sighted. we need to fix the system we have not change it to fit someone else's version of childhood or homogenized culture.

besides, many highschool already give kids the ability to go "vococational" if they want. Diamond Oaks and Scarlet Oaks here in Cincinnati are very popular and I work in setting that has 4 different "diplomas" to choose from - three of which do not require one to have graduated from highschool (meaning they don't need a GED either - called Ability to Benefit or ATB).

[the happy prole]

True. I was the same way, until I got to HS with a bunch of Nobel Prize winners-in-training supergeeks who were all much smarter than the majority of people I met in college.

Maybe I'm just a snob about it but your average community college/tech student... not a winner. You stay in HS in an accelerated program or a magnet school then you're taking classes with a bunch of pretty bright people.

If you want to do the sort of thing you're talking about, group all the smart HS students together in advanced classes. You're better off taking an accelerated course with other smart 15 year olds than dumb 18 year olds.

[juggles]

True. I was the same way, until I got to HS with a bunch of Nobel Prize winners-in-training supergeeks who were all much smarter than the majority of people I met in college.

Maybe I'm just a snob about it but your average community college/tech student... not a winner. You stay in HS in an accelerated program or a magnet school then you're taking classes with a bunch of pretty bright people.

If you want to do the sort of thing you're talking about, group all the smart HS students together in advanced classes. You're better off taking an accelerated course with other smart 15 year olds than dumb 18 year olds.

So clearly this program is not for you. That doesn't make it a bad idea though. I can't see where the harm is in giving kids this option.

[Measure Up!]

Many Ohio high schoolers already take college classes through the PSEOP program, earning dual HS and college credit. Students benefit in that they can get some extra time to get acclimated to college-level courses, families benefit since the college tuition bill is picked up by the state. If a student participates in the program and takes AP tests, it's possible to be a sophomore in college right out of high school. The challenge for colleges is accommodating these students without sacrificing the quality of instruction for the other students, though many HS students thrive and perform better than their traditional classmates. Those who don't do well have the option of going back to a regular HS curriculum. I think it's a good program overall.

[classicgrrl]

I gather from your comments that you aren't a fan of these vocational programs. Admittedly, I'm not particularly informed when it comes to New Hampshire's educational system, but it seems to me that this program is just another vocational track similar to the ones you mention, only that it shifts the cost away from the K-10 system and onto the technical/community colleges.

There's a lot of fine print I'm sure I'm missing in the plan, but it seems to be serving both the kids as well as the system.

no, I actually work in somewhat of a vocational setting.

[the happy prole]

I gather from your comments that you aren't a fan of these vocational programs. Admittedly, I'm not particularly informed when it comes to New Hampshire's educational system, but it seems to me that this program is just another vocational track similar to the ones you mention, only that it shifts the cost away from the K-10 system and onto the technical/community colleges.

But what it really does is shift the costs to the children and/or their parents. High school is free, community colleges are not.

It's a huge misconception that choice is good and getting kids to college is good. The truth is that if you go to college and don't graduate you are worse off than if you hadn't gone. For one, you're several thousand dollars poorer. For another, you get soured on the experience. There are not that many people who go to college, fail out or don't do so hot, and then come back.

I'm the kid who could have left HS after my sophomore year. Instead I stayed. Now, my local HS has a graduation rate of 95%. My magnet high school had to be like 99.99%. And then I used that HS experience to get into a good college that has a first-time full-time graduation rate of 92%.

Why would you want to funnel me into a community college where the typical graduation rate is like 25%-- and we're talking for just an Associate's Degree?

There is not a problem in this country with educating the really smart kids. And if they really want to leave HS early, they can. The problem is with the not-so-smart kids.

[classicgrrl]

But what it really does is shift the costs to the children and/or their parents. High school is free, community colleges are not.

It's a huge misconception that choice is good and getting kids to college is good. The truth is that if you go to college and don't graduate you are worse off than if you hadn't gone.

FAIL! even if you don't graduate your income is still higher if you have some college beneath you than none at all.

the key is to pick the right program and school for the person. not everyone can make it in an ivy league nor a 4 year research university. I chose a teaching college for my masters because of working 60 hours per week and requiring some empathy and instructors who gave a shit to get me through it. no way I could've gone to Xavier University and done the MBA program and made it through. not working 60+ hours per week...

[the happy prole]

FAIL! even if you don't graduate your income is still higher if you have some college beneath you than none at all.

Nope. Not if you include average debt amount. And anyway, I doubt it's the college experience that lands them the better job. I don't know how many people put "1 1/2 semesters of college" on their resume. If you do, someone's going to ask what happened, and "I failed out" is not a helpful response.

And remember, we're talking about students that are smart enough to graduate from HS two years early. As a policy matter, "some college" for those students amounts to a failure. They should all be graduating from four-year institutions, unless they choose not to go. There's no reason any of them should ever drop out, whether it's because they failed or run out of money. These are your best and brightest.

[the happy prole]

And again, I don't see how this program could be considered beneficial for the over-achievers as there's little being done at the technical college/community college level that isn't already available or even applicable to furthering those individuals aspirations.

I guess that's my point. As of now, it's the over-achievers who are in position to test out and graduate HS early. And we agree that this doesn't do much for that demographic.

Now if you want to revamp the entire system so that we separate the over-achievers from the rest early and put them on two different tracks at 15... well, it'd be a lot of work. And I think it would be the ones who don't test well that ought to go off to the technical schools. The kids who are good at computers or some other technical skill but just aren't very interested in high-falutin' education. Those are the ones that get bored in classes and lose interest.

I don't know if I like the idea of separating kids at such a young age, but if the whole system were reworked so that a Sophomore in HS knows as much or more as a Senior in HS does now, then I guess it works okay.

The thing to me is, it really doesn't matter that much how long it takes for a student to finish to 20th grade or whatever, nor the track they take to do it. You just want them to be as prepared as possible when they decide they are done with formal schooling and not in debt.

If this program is really just a way to emphasize kids learning more at younger ages so they learn in 10 years what now takes them 12, I guess I got no problem with it.