Failing the Wrong Grades

EVERYBODY who is anybody seems to have decided that the American high school is responsible for the failings of American students. The Bush administration, many governors and even Bill Gates have now called for radical reforms. Reflecting this growing consensus that the high school is, in Mr. Gates's words, an "obsolete" institution, the governors of 13 states have pledged an overhaul of the high school system, and more are expected to jump on the bandwagon of reform.

Let's slow down here. American education is famous for inspiring crusades, and the history of the 20th century is littered with the remains of of failed reform movements. This 21st century campaign will fall flat, too, unless the proponents are clear-headed about the nature of the problem and willing to rethink their proposed solutions.

It is true that American student performance is appalling. Only a minority of students - whether in 4th, 8th or 12th grade - reach proficiency as measured by the Education Department's National Assessment of Educational Progress. On a scale that has three levels - basic, proficient and advanced - most students score at the basic level or even below basic in every subject. American students also perform poorly when compared with their peers in other developed countries on tests of mathematics and science, and many other nations now have a higher proportion of their students completing high school.

While the problems of low achievement and poor high-school graduation rates are clear, however, their solutions are not. The reformist governors, for example, want to require all students to take a college-preparatory curriculum and to meet more rigorous standards for graduation. These steps will very likely increase the dropout rate, not reduce it.

To understand why, you have to consider what the high schools are dealing with. When American students arrive as freshmen, nearly 70 percent are reading below grade level. Equally large numbers are ill prepared in mathematics, science and history.

It is hardly fair to blame high schools for the poor skills of their entering students. If students start high school without the basic skills needed to read, write and solve mathematics problems, then the governors should focus on strengthening the standards of their states' junior high schools.

And that first year of high school is often the most important one - many students who eventually drop out do so after becoming discouraged when they can't earn the credits to advance beyond ninth grade. Ninth grade is often referred to by educators as a "parking lot." This is because social promotion - the endemic practice of moving students up to the next grade whether they have earned it or not - comes to a crashing halt in high school.

It makes no sense to blame the high schools for their ill-prepared incoming students. To really get at the problem, we have to make changes across our educational system. The most important is to stress the importance of academic achievement. Sorry to say, we have a long history of reforms by pedagogues to de-emphasize academic achievement and to make school more "relevant," "fun" and like "real life." These efforts have produced whole-language instruction, where phonics, grammar and spelling are abandoned in favor of "creativity," and fuzzy math, where students are supposed to "construct" their own solutions to math problems instead of finding the right answers.

Besides, in many ways our high schools are better than our primary system. They are the part of our educational system where students are most likely to have teachers who have a degree in the subject they are teaching. In the lower grades, most teachers are likely to have majored in education, not in mathematics or science or history; some even have both a major and a minor in pedagogy, yet end up teaching core academic subjects.

This does not mean, of course, that our high schools are ideal. To some extent, the present-day comprehensive high school, in which most American students are enrolled, tries and fails to be all things to all students. It does not adequately challenge high-performing students, who get low scores when compared with their peers in other nations. It does a poor job preparing average students, nearly half of whom need remedial courses when they enter college. And it loses low-performing students, who are likely to drop out while still lacking the skills they need for gainful employment.

A report released last month by the National Association of Scholars, an independent group of educators, outlined proposals that make more sense than those endorsed by the governors. Written by Sandra Stotsky, a former associate commissioner of education for Massachusetts, it proposes that students entering ninth grade be given a choice between a subject-centered curriculum or a technical, career-oriented course of study. The former would look like a traditional college-preparatory curriculum, with an emphasis on humanities, sciences or arts. The latter would include a number of technologically rigorous programs and apprenticeships. All students, regardless of their concentration, would be required to complete a core curriculum of four years of English and at least three years of mathematics, science and history. Students graduating from either program would be well educated and prepared for higher education.

THE report also recommends that teachers of core subjects have a solid background - at least an undergraduate major - in the main subject they teach, that teachers of technical subjects have either solid academic training or work experience in their fields, and that American schools have a longer school day and school year.

In addition, contrary to the philosophy of Mr. Gates's foundation, which has spent millions to create hundreds of small high schools with no more than 500 students, the report recommends that schools should have a minimum of 500 students. Larger schools provide better staff depth and stability - imagine how disruptive it is to a tiny high school if just a couple of teachers leave over the summer - and have a broader range of music, art, drama, debate and sports offerings. And research by Richard Ingersoll of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that small high schools are more likely than large ones to have out-of-field teachers - that is, teachers who have neither a major nor a minor in their subject.

Our officials should be lauded for their concern about high school graduation rates. But the governors should scrutinize with great care the popular reforms of the day before imposing them on their states' schools. Just because Bill Gates is ready to pour millions of dollars into a big new idea doesn't make it a good one.

Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University, is the author of "Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform."

I agree with at least portions of the National Association of Scholars - though I believe they recommend larger schools, and I think that's a mistake. But unless or until we dispose of the federal Department of Edumacation, there is no way our public education system will ever get on the right track.

The Times actually prints something sensible for once.

Well I, for one, think that we ought to look at streamlining the system.

There's no real reason to keep people in school for nearly twenty years in many cases.

If the educator class has their way, we'll have the average person going to an organized school for something like twenty-two years (from pre-school through a Graduate Degree).

"...proposes that students entering ninth grade be given a choice between a subject-centered curriculum or a technical, career-oriented course of study."

Uh, we used to have those - they were called "tracks" and were done away with decades ago for reasons of political correctness and "mainstreaming". Good luck trying to revive that idea!

As far as having larger high schools - no, I'm adamantly against it. Students become anonymous in large schools. Some theorists may consider large schools more efficient in terms of classroom/teacher use, but they're soul killers. Nashua, NH was considering building a new, bigger school to house all 4,000 high school students - until Columbine happened. Instead, Nashua has two schools - 2,000 students each. That's still way too big, though.

Yep taking advice from someone whose career and vested interests are in that profession is idiotic.

Its like asking a prison union if we need to have longer prison sentences.

"All students, regardless of their concentration, would be required to complete a core curriculum of four years of English and at least three years of mathematics, science and history. Students graduating from either program would be well educated and prepared for higher education."

How is this reform? They've been promising this for how many years!?!?!

We will never get educated people graduating from public schools en masse. Public education isn't. Primary education doesn't. Secondary education is.

But unless or until we dispose of the federal Department of Edumacation, there is no way our public education system will ever get on the right track.

I am in total agreement here.

Actually, shockingly enough the article makes some sense, particularly when it comes to giving students a choice of technical or academic tracking.

However, the original problem stemmed from insulting certain ethnic groups by assuming their educational capacity was limited. This led to lowest common denominator type of teaching, which in turn led to political correctness, which in turn led to moral eqivalency, a denial of American exceptionalism.

The good news is that slowly but surely, some (but not many) libs are starting to face the many problems they've caused over the past 40 years, and are actually beginning to suggest some conservative,ie. sensible solutions. Once people like Ted Kennedy and Dick Durban start doing that, we can declare victory and have one big party (with a small"p").

WOW - the biggest school in Washington has 2200, and it's the biggest by far. Bigger schools are a terrible idea on every front.

Go New Hampshire, one of my favorite states.

I don't think they are looking back far enough. Schools need to be re-thought at the kindergarten level. If a kindergartener is struggling, many times because they are just too young, the ultimate decision is left to the parents in regards to retention. While you want and need parent involvement, often times it is the parents that are least involved that refuse to entertain the idea of retention for their child. As the child ages, retention becomes more complicated. These children tend to struggle their way through grade after grade, giving up and getting out as soon as they can. Just some of my observations.

I don't think Bill Gates has any real credibility on this issue, at least not compared to education admins (and that's saying a lot.) He went to Lakeside, the Philips Andover of the west coast, and railed against Washington's I-200 which barred racial consideration in state hiring.

I think he's just fishing for a new market for his products, and school reform is a good chance to slip in some Microsoft materials.

"And that first year of high school is often the most important one - many students who eventually drop out do so after becoming discouraged when they can't earn the credits to advance beyond ninth grade. Ninth grade is often referred to by educators as a "parking lot." This is because social promotion - the endemic practice of moving students up to the next grade whether they have earned it or not - comes to a crashing halt in high school. "

Hang on, I though we were graduating kids who couldn't read their diplomas. Now they're getting axed at the ninth grade. Which one is it?

"As far as having larger high schools - no, I'm adamantly against it"

Depends on what is meant by large. I agree with the author that under 500 is too small. On the other hand I don't think they should be over about 800 or so. When I was in HS we had about 600 or so, 9th thru 12th. It was the perfect size. We had wonderful programs - foreign languages, etc. We had a business program that employers would hire before they hired someone who attended business college. We had graphic arts, auto mechanics, electronics, etc. We had a 150 member band.

A few years after graduating, the school size started declining. They are now down to 300 or less, and essentially have NOTHING. No choir. No orchestra. No marching band. Supposed to have a pep band (only about 15 kids now) but they don't even play at the games anymore.

It's pitiful. Small is not better.

I don't want to sound snobbish...but I'm going to bag this whole issue by sending my kids to Catholic schools, where the administrators are beholden to Jesus the Lord and me (not necessarily in that order.)

I forget who did the study, but the best public schools in the country were in one of the farm states, and one educational study tried to figure out why.

The answer, they discovered after eliminating all the other variables: School size.

Evidently after a school gets larger than about 600 students, the principal cannot know them all. The education doesn't improve if the school is smaller, but it markedly worsens as the school gets larger.

I can't find that study I'm looking for, wish I could, but here's one from NYC on the topic:

http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/publications/effects/effects.pdf

Look at page iv.

As usual, the bureaucrats will be penny wise and pound foolish: Though these smaller schools have somewhat higher costs per student, their much higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates produce among the lowest cost per graduate in the entire New York City system.

So NY will probably build more mega-schools like the rest of the country.

Hang on, I though we were graduating kids who couldn't read their diplomas. Now they're getting axed at the ninth grade. Which one is it?

Probably both, depending on where you look.

I think a revamp of the system is in order, but assigning kids to a specific direction so early would seem to have it's drawbacks.

My son is 16. He skipped high school and is about to earn his AA, the problem is, he's 16 and has to decide a major.

We've suggested math/science fields and engineering, and he has the pre-req courses to start in that direction, but now that the rubber's hitting the road and he has to decide a major, he says his real interest is in politics and journalism (and every prof he's written papers for always compliment him on his writing skill). So the issue is raised, do you follow your passion, or do you follow the seemingly more profitable degree? At 16 these are daunting questions.

Speaking of drop-outs, Gates seemed to do pretty good for someone who "dropped out" of college and didn't even complete his junior year.

"That must mean that you back school vouchers. I send my kid to a private school, as well."

Absolutely. I favor anything to wrest control and accountability away from school-board bureaucracies.

As for private school, vouchers or no, I'll do whatever it takes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.