Monday, November 10, 2008


College at 16?

An alert reader sent me a link to this story about New Hampshire. Apparently, the Granite State is considering funneling most high school students into community colleges after tenth grade. (Tellingly, the story allows that "those who want to go to a prestigious university may stay and finish the final two years.")

This is one of those ideas that carries in it a real grain of truth, but that takes it much too far.

The grain of truth is that the later part of high school is frequently academically spotty. Since many states only require, say, two or three years of most subjects, many seniors start senior year already having met nearly every graduation requirement. In most cases, states deal with that through sponsoring 'dual enrollment' with local community colleges, and/or through AP or IB courses. All of those arrangements allow the junior or senior who is already bumping the academic ceiling of high school to take college-level courses, sometimes for dual credit, while remaining enrolled in high school. (In my limited observation, the advantage of dual-enrollment over AP or IB courses is the difference between transcripted credits and test scores. Some colleges that will only use AP scores for placement purposes -- rather than actually granting course credit -- will accept transcripted credits in transfer.)

Nationally, the trend in average age of cc students is conspicuously downward, which is at least partially a reflection of the popularity of dual enrollment. Add a whole cohort of 16 and 17 year olds, and the effect on a college's average age is predictable.

The New Hampshire plan apparently takes dual enrollment all the way out. Instead of taking some college courses in high school, why not truncate high school altogether and get a jump on college?

It strikes me as a little too convenient.

First, there's that part about 'those who want to go to a prestigious university...' Why would prestigious universities want an extra two years of academic preparation? Could it be that...I'm going out on a limb here...there's some academic value to those last two years? Perhaps that the typical 18 year old is more mature than the typical 16 year old? I'm guessing that the student who has had pre-calc in high school will do better in calculus than the student who hasn't. Call it a hunch.

There's also the democratic rite of passage part of high school. I get as tired of the high school 'coming of age' dramas as everybody else, but I think part of the reason they survive is that high school is the last time that every social class is forced to cohabit. Granted, residential segregation does a number on that, but even so, high school is a common experience. Yes, some of it amounts to what Newt Gingrich memorably called 'subsidized dating,' but I'd even suggest there can be developmental value in that.

My preferred solution would be to greatly improve the academic quality of the average high school experience. The tippity-top is already sufficiently challenged, what with dual enrollment and AP/IB courses and the whole selective-college-application-dance. But the vast majority doesn't fit that description. That's where the work needs to be done. Rather than throwing up our hands and simply making community colleges the new 11th grade -- which, if implemented, would have the disastrous effect of making community colleges the new 11th grade -- let's fix the 11th grade. Prepare the students so they're capable of succeeding at whatever comes next, whether it be college, trade school, the military, or work. Any of those requires a certain work ethic and sense of responsibility, along with a decent sense of math, writing, and the basic facts of the world.

Anyway, that's my first take. Wise and worldly readers -- especially those in New Hampshire -- what say you?

I agree that something needs to be done to make the final years of high school more meaningful. What I wonder--and those who have experience in higher ed can hopefully answer this question--is whether incoming college students are in greater need of skills beyond what is taught in high school, or whether what they need is primarily competence with high-school level skills.

The reason I ask is that is seems like there are at least two ways to think about what to put into those final two years of high school. On the one hand, we could require students to do more (e.g., graduation now requires 4 years of math, and as a result expect that more students will have been exposed to pre-calc in high school). On the other hand, we could spread the curriculum out so that, e.g., math teachers have extra weeks in their classrooms to make sure students understand algebra 1 concepts; the goal of this approach would be to make sure that more students can actually demonstrate the skills they should have acquired in high school when they show up to college.

My perspective is as a teaching assistant in a humanities discipline; when I grade papers from students in the university's core classes, I am constantly surprised by how few students can do what I consider basic critical writing skills, such as stating a thesis. I wonder if it might be better to use the time in high school to give students more intensive practice on these basics so that, when I (or others) get them in a college classroom, I can avoid having to spend a full class explaining what a five-paragraph essay is.
I agree with the comment above. I teach philosophy in a CC. The area is a rather wealthy suburb with a reputation for having good schools. I'm assuming we do not generally see the top students, rather we see the middle to lower third. These folks can't write a sentence, don't know what the Cold War was and have a heck of a time getting placed into Alegbra.

We have zillions of "developmental" courses in reading, writing and math, because our sudents are not prepared for college when they get out of high school. Really, they aren't prepared for general jobs that require a basic set of academic skills. Sure, they are prepared to work as shirt folders at the GAP -- but, with their high school education, they won't be competitive for any kind of promotion. That is an outrage. The taxes are high here, their parents are wealthy and they can't read -- but, they have a diploma.

New Hampshire's propsal would entail putting a whole stream of 16 year olds with even fewer skills into the classroom and would just ruin the community college experience for those who need it.
The system that New Hampshire is proposing is actually the opposite of what I would hope would happen: the smart students interested in University work should be the ones attending community colleges their last two years of high school.

I left my high school after two years to go to the community college. I did it mostly because I was bored (I actually went to a good high school, but even they couldn't keep up with me), I was already ready to take Calculus by the end of my sophomore year, and I hated most of the teachers at my high school. This was because the teachers fell into two camps: the ones who ignored me because I was doing so much better than the students who needed help, and the ones who fawned over me because I was so damn smart. If I had a teacher at the high school who had been able to see through my bullshit in high school I probably would have been okay, but there wasn't a single instructor who ever gave me less than an A for doing what was, for me, mediocre work.

Going to the CC was the best thing I ever did. After the first quarter, you couldn't tell the difference between me and all of the rest of community college students (except that I looked a little bit younger) because I had grown up. Maturity wasn't an issue once I had a person--a fellow student, actually--call me on it once. I had to step up my game academically because my college professors saw that I could do a heck of a lot more than I was doing, and they didn't let me get away with anything either.

I don't think anyone should ever require students to go straight to college--most students simply aren't equipped. But for those who are, or could easily adjust, it can be a life saver.

And I think keeping kids with remedial skills out is easy enough: entrance exams. Where I was, high school kids aren't allowed to take non-college credit classes unless they pay for them like everyone else. (My CC experience was paid for by the state, and I'm assuming the same is happening in New Hampshire? If not, the state is discriminating based on test scores who gets a full 18 years of education.)
I don't think educational quality is at issue when it comes to the prestigious U. The prestigious U is going to look at a normal high school experience as standard. CC is for stoopid people who didn't get in anywhere good and had to stay home. And because CC is inferior, you wouldn't want to transfer those credits to Prestigious U, when you could just take Prestigious U classes.

Besides that, dual enrollment disqualifies a person for the national merit scholars competition.

I would rather see improvement in educational quality at the high school level, of course. My experience, though, wasn't that dual enrollment was for students who were bumping the ceiling of high school. AP was for them. Dual enrollment was for kids who probably wouldn't go to college anyway, so they'd at least get an AA or a certificate of some kind OR it was for kids for whom high school was too structured--rather like an open campus high school so if a person needed to work or had a child or some such, they could come and go and still get fit classes into their schedule. Again, because otherwise they might drop out.

Open campus high school seems like an option for the latter, actually.

Anyway, I see a bit of the same thinking in the idea here, because the college bound kids (esp. bound for somewhere prestigious) and not included. Not because high school is valuable per se but a) because prestigious U will value a standard high school experience over dual enrollment and b) they have enough money to go to college and don't need the free transfer credits.

It's a two track system. The last two years of high school are not necessary for kids bound for vocational schools. Two years, an AA, a skill, and then a job.

At least, that's how I read this.
to clarify, I don't think CC is inferior (i went!) but I have been told it is not looked upon well, especially by higher ranked colleges.
I like the idea of doing "something else" with kids. While there is obviously something about the traditional high school experience that Snooty U. values, for the vast majority of kids it is a lot of wasted time. Even those who go to college are often utterly lost once they get there. What do I major in? What do I want to be? How do I get there? It's impossible to answer these questions if you're fighting just to keep your head above water, as many "average" college students are.

But, I do certainly agree that the solution is not to downgrade the community college experience.

I like the CEGEP system in Quebec. It gives students a warm up for college, or a useful termination point if they don't want to go to college, without any sort of stigma. Since even the most brilliant student must go to CEGEP to get into university. But without standardization, that kind of system isn't really possible. And for this New Hampshire proposal, as well. Colleges don't know what to do with alternative arrangements.
"the last time that every social class is forced to cohabit. "

HA! My Prestigious U was a heck of a lot more class integrated than my high school. And even that wasn't very.
College at 16?! That's ridiculous!

Everyone should start at 14 and cut out the wasteful monstrosity known as high school altogether. I've been saying that for years. Well, ever since I did it.

Look, I'm now in my 9th year of higher education. Getting started at 14 is a godsend to folks in the sciences who have a long slog ahead of them with undergrad+grad school+ post docs.

At the time, though, that wasn't the main motivation for doing it the way I did. We looked into high school, really we did. It was just so bad.
I think when you make high school voluntary, so that students want to be there, and when you set it up to facilitate "a la cart" education (so that you don't have to take every boring class), then maybe you'll fix high school. But most people aren't ready for high schools to function that way.

Also, I find your "social class" argument utterly and completely absurd. My community college was far and away the most diverse environment (in terms of a lot of things, "social class" among them) that I've encountered.
Oh dear God, say it ain't so! After teaching at the local CC and being nothing short of shocked at the difference in maturity level, committment, and responsibility between my CC students and my university students, I don't even want to imagine how much worse it could be if the CC turned into the new 11th grade. I already felt like I was teaching high school seniors (at best), as most of my students chose to be in the same class as their friend, boyfriend, or girlfriend. I had to dramatically water down my assignments if the students were to have any hope of passing, and I'm talking here about the students who actually showed up to class, cared about their work, and put in substantial effort. It became clear that one of the biggest problems most of these students had no solid foundation, at least in English, to prepare them for *any* college-level class.
I saw that article, and I was fine with the idea until the two-tier system was mentioned. It just smacks of getting a certain 'class' of students out of their hair. 'Those students' won't ruin the school's average GPA, test scores, or graduation rates any longer, because they'll be gone. And the students who need those last two years of high school the most will be the ones encouraged to leave early.
I like Academama's answer. I teach at a CC and this past summer I taught a 13-yr old, online (she turned 14 that summer). That's right, a rising 9th grader. She did OK in the class and ultimately wrote a really good final paper to get here a "B". She was basically a "C" student. We are getting more and more of these younger kids at my CC especially online, because they are so busy doing cheerleading and church mission trips and band camp or whatever else. I do not think many of them are mature enough to do this. Also I think the parents push them to go to the CC because it's a pretty sweet deal, with free tuition and free books. *Homeschoolers do not get free books. -- CC PROF.
I already feel like I am teaching high school... this would just make it official.

I get whining from students about exams having too much material, the final being comprehensive, and the expectation that they actually DO something outside of class.

This policy would only make the whining noise louder.

I'm sorry but the 18 year olds aren't prepared intellectually OR emotionally. How are 16 year olds expected to be ready and cope? The idea is seriously flawed.
Last time I checked, a Master's degree of Ph.D. wasn't generally acceptable for teaching underage children. For instance, my. subject-matter MA will not get me a high school job.

Why then is this ok at a CC for everyone to teach kids?

Oh, I know! Let's make CC the last bastion of all those Ed.D. and Education Management diploma-holders who can water down the curriculum even more so everyone gets an A!

This time it's just in college!

Oh, silly me...that's already happening already too.

P.S. I went to a CC, a prestigious SLAC, and an Ivy; my "Prestigious" U students couldn't do comparable assignments to those from I did in CC when I assigned them. College is the 13th grade in many corners of the country already.
Not everybody goes to college, dammit. A policy designed around everybody going to college will fail.
"Not everybody goes to college, dammit."


Also, not everybody *should* go to college . . .

Perhaps we should be more like our enlightend european brethren (and sistren): Test 'em all at age oh say 14 or so.

Those who should go to college get to go to four years of "college prep high school" then on to University. Those who shouldn't go to college get 2 years of trade school and enter the workforce at age 16.
A quick observation, based on actual observation: the advantage of dual enrollment over AP is not just that you actually earn the credit, it is also that you take an actual college course. On the math side, you get a semester's worth of credit for one semester's worth of classes, rather than one semester of credit for one year of classes. This means you also have a chance to discover the difference between high school and college, which is not a minor thing to learn.

My other observation is that there appear to be quite a few "pre-calc" classes in our high schools that deserve those scare quotes. You can, after all, call algebra 1 or algebra 2 "pre-calc" since you do need to take algebra 1 or 2 before calculus and you might really need a way to keep those kids "progressing" toward graduation.

I question, seriously question, the concept that "average" students are ready to go directly to college after 2 years in HS, but the "top" students are not. What, you want us to teach them 9th grade algebra in 11th grade because you know you will fail to teach it to them in their last two years of high school? We only accept kids into dual enrolled classes if they can pass our "prep" placement test into college level classes. I doubt if those "typical" 16 year olds can do that in NH. If they can, they can probably earn a GED today and go to college.

PS -
My word verification today is "taning", but the summer is over and my spelling is still better than that of a college freshman.
Finally read through the comments, so I have a few things to add. Any Prestigious U that thinks AP is tougher than IB or CC isn't prestigious, it is just selective and expensive.

Our CC teaches dual-enroll classes at one local HS pretty much as a surrogate for a full IB program, and it is more popular than some of the AP classes. The kids like that they get 3 semester hours of credit in one semester *and* get two days off without a class to use to do their homework or something else.

I will repeat what others said about NH getting it backwards. There are fully integrated dual-enroll programs around (my cousin used to work with one of them) where you complete an AA and your HS degree at the same time. These are for the top students, who come out prepared much like kids in an IB program.

What would make the NH idea attractive to a CC is if the CC were to get all of the dollars that used to go to the HS. What they probably want to do is save money by paying CC tuition instead of the much bigger cost of HS.

But what a nightmare. FERPA changes, but that is small compared to other issues. Do we have to bus them to school? Fingerprint every instructor? Exclude persons from classes who are on parole for sex offenses? Take attendance? Chase down truants? Tolerate any behavior?
This is basically moving to the type of system you find everywhere but the US. Think A levels or Abitur, or bac. It should lead to dual tracking.
Do we have to bus them to school? Fingerprint every instructor? Exclude persons from classes who are on parole for sex offenses? Take attendance? Chase down truants? Tolerate any behavior?

Not to mention deal with parents—no hiding behind non-disclosure rules now!

Being a non-American high school teacher*, I'm wondering if the proposal is a roundabout way of excluding a large number of problem students? The 'good kids' stay and learn what they are supposed to. The 'bad kids' get removed from the system and sent to college, where they can be excluded for misbehaviour without endless parental appeals, accusations of prejudice, lawyers, elected trustees grandstanding, etc.

if this happens, I predict that eventually CC will end up like high school, where the teachers are powerless to exclude kids that cause problems for all the others—behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else. (And, for most of them, behaviour they don't engage in when there are actual consequences.)

*And thus knowing American high schools only second-hand.
High Schools should just beef up their graduation requirements. They are afraid to because their already-iffy graduation rates would suffer, and it would be more costly. I think that the solution would be a two-tier system in High School: There could be a 'standard' diploma and then a 'College Track' diploma with substantially enhanced requirements. This would solve the problems of higher grad requirements depressing grad rates, as well as the ever-increasing percentage of HS students going to CCs.
The idea that the skillset required to do well by going to college is a strict superset of the skillset required to do well by entering the workforce directly is a prime example of the sort of thinking that is causing such difficulties.
This article definitely touched a nerve with me. I think that most educated, concerned citizens can recognize that our public education system needs repair. In my head, I've been playing around with trying to create a 10 point list of the things that need to be done to fix the system. One of those major points has to do with some of what this article proposes.

I agree that, academically, for many the last two years of high school are a complete waste. I believe this wastefulness is a result of the trend towards forcing all students to fit a particular mold: the high school, then college, then professional career mold. The students in my classroom who do not fit this mold are evident from the first days of school. I teach ninth grade. A large portion of our high school populations are not equipped and/or not interested to pursue careers that would require higher education. Why are we forcing all of them to try to follow in that path?

What happened to vocational schools and technical schools? They weren't even an option when I was in high school. I know too many people who dropped out or are going to drop out because the standard high school curriculum has nothing to offer them.

Why can't there be many choices? There are, after all, many different choices once we leave the public education system, but we are failing to meet the needs of the public as a whole.

1. Students who are not academically inclined are not lost causes. Almost everyone has some kind of aptitude. We should be finding these aptitudes early and steering our youth in directions that will bolster their strengths. Send students to vocational and technical schools so that they can graduate from high school with a diploma, some skills, and the ability to support themselves and make educated life decisions.

2. Students are are academically inclined, but who would meet the criteria of "average" should be given some boosts in the first two grades. 9th and 10th. At the end of 10th there should be some indication if they are going to mature academically. If so, carry-on in our standard college-prep education. At the end of the four years, they can decide for themselves. If, at the end of 10th grade they are not showing any stronger aptitude, they can switch over to a more specific, vocational preparation and graduate with some job skills or go ahead to the community college to finish an education with a specific career in mind.

3. Students who are academically gifted can do what they are still doing today. Take their classes at their local public high school. Do their best. Take more and more advanced classes. Possibly take some classes as dually-enrolled students or take the AP/IB classes available at their high school.

I just don't understand why the system insists on trying to make every student go to a four-year university and leaving all the others who don't fit this mold languishing in the hallways with the bathroom pass. Those students know that this system isn't going to do anything for them. They aren't stupid!
Florida Teacher:

You are treading on very dangerous ground.

Are you suggesting that individuals have different skillsets and preferences?

Remember the reason why we were driven to the "every student has the right to a 4 year degree" philosophy in the first place.

Read some Thernstrom and Murray (and Sowell for that matter) on this issue.

We will *never* go back to the bad old days of "multi tracking based on ability" in this country.

We would rather throw children away than admit they may have different abilities.
Florida Teacher, there is always the possibility that the one-size-fits-all approach you describe is a result of the history of your state's educational system confronting forced integration, or any of many other characteristics (manufacturing base?) that make one state different from another.

I do know that when I attended school in Michigan, we had three distinct programs in HS: a general degree, a college-prep degree, and a vo-tech degree -- differing only in the classes taken, not in the diploma you got at the end. All course options were available in the same building, although students interested in a particular technical area might have to attend a different HS at some point. Michigan now has eliminated the "general" option, but still has a vo-tech option and appears to offer some pretty "general" options within the putative college prep curriculum.

Based solely on the exit exams I have looked at for the different states that make them easily available, it's not clear to me that Florida has what I would call a "college prep" curriculum. For example, Michigan has a trig problem on its exam, but Florida doesn't even have a quadratic equation problem on its released tests. California seems somewhere in between those two. That's not to say that all Michigan grads can do trig, far from it, but that topic is represented on the exam.

I say "far from it" because there is still plenty of demand for "college prep" (i.e. low-level HS math) classes at Michigan colleges and universities. That problem runs deep in our school systems.
To CCPhysicist: Regarding Florida not really having a college preparatory curriculum:

You are correct on two points.

1. My state administers its "exit exam" called the FCAT at the end of 3rd quarter sophomore year. The state is basically saying "we have taught you everything that we think you need to know by the end of 3rd quarter sophomore year. Of course, I'm convinced they administer the test at that time so that the schools have two more years to get all the students who don't demonstrate competency up to passing level. Of course, the retake is a simpler format than the original exam, anyway.

2. As a result of trying to force all students to fit into the mold (to which I referred in my original post), we high school teachers are stuck teaching to the middle group. The higher-performing students get easy A's. The lower-performing students are left behind.

Regarding the concern over maturity of 16-year-olds:

Our system no longer requires responsibility, accountability, or maturity from our students; therefore, they aren't learning those skills. Because teachers and curriculum is now being watered down to aim for the middle ground, many students are able to get by with very little effort.

If we appropriately challenge and educate our students at the high school level and before, they will be up to the challenge. They will mature. Veteran high school teachers (the good ones, at least) will tell you that the maturity level of the students is decreasing every year. The kids aren't changing. Our highest expectations of them are changing. If the most we expect is what we are looking for today, then we shouldn't be surprised that our 18-year-olds are immature and ill-prepared.
I don't see anything wrong with being in College at 16. You see, a lot of Universities offer some type of online trade schooling and that makes it possible.
The New Hampshire plan apparently takes dual enrollment all the way out. Instead of taking some college courses in high school, why not truncate high school altogether and get a jump on college? english tuition
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?