Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 27 > Entry
Scott Elliott: Parents might not favor early-college route
Almost a decade ago, I was at a high school reform seminar at which a panel of experts threw out a radical idea — end high school at 10th grade.
That notion actually drew a few chuckles. The idea didn’t sound very practical.
Yet, last week President Barack Obama made a pretty similar proposal, and he was not kidding. Obama wants to allow kids who test out of their junior and senior years to go straight to a community college.
Here’s the big question: Will parents embrace this option?
I have my doubts.
The experts on that panel long ago (including one who had been part of a national commission examining the value of the high school senior year) had lots of ideas for what kids could do while skipping their junior and senior years.
Some of the more interesting ones that I can remember:
• Work. They could pursue paying internships in professions that interest them. This would help them choose careers and see the practical value of the skills they’d learn in college. Companies who’d hire them could scout for future talent.
• Volunteer. Understaffed, but important, nonprofit service providers would benefit from their labor, and the kids would see community needs up close, perhaps spurring them to remain active in civic life.
• Travel. They could travel or study abroad. The popularity of study-abroad programs speaks to the value of experiences that introduce young people to different ways of life and broaden their horizons.
• Move on with school. They could go straight to college. For those who are very academically oriented, this option would allow them to move ahead to a community college as an interim step or straight to universities for the especially gifted.
The presentation was followed by a thoughtful discussion that challenged the value of high school beyond 10th grade. The experts argued students can, and often do, easily complete all their graduation requirements by their junior year. Some then mark time by taking courses they don’t really need. Others start college-level courses early. Why not just let them move on, the experts asked?
Jokingly, I asked the panel how they expected these theoretical future high schools that end at 10th grade to win football games and hold proms without juniors and seniors?
As the audience laughed, I noticed none of the panelists cracked a smile. Finally, one leaned into the microphone and said, “Honestly, that is our biggest problem. We can’t get parents to accept the idea that high school should be radically different. So many of the parents can’t let go of their dreams of Suzy in her prom dress and Bobby as captain of the football team.”
The fact that most adults have a common, if outdated, school experience is often a problem. Ask a teacher about the parents who complain the kids aren’t learning the way they were taught. Or ask a superintendent who has had to campaign for new school buildings against the argument that “that school was good enough for me.” If there were options for kids to think differently about their educations, some would probably jump at the chance. But if it meant changing the basic nature of high school, would most parents balk?
Even if kids in the future could somehow be guaranteed a better education and better life chances by taking one of these alternative routes, how many parents would pick that option if it meant giving up stuff like sports and the prom? You might be surprised.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Education, Higher Ed, Scott Elliott
Comments
By Susan R
February 27, 2010 8:42 AM | Link to this
Some parents have already chosen that option- it’s called “Home Education”. For example- a couple of my kids are slated to graduate by age 16- maybe earlier. They’re already doing 9th grade work, and they are 13 and 11. If school is really about proms and football, then no wonder graduating students are so shallow in their knowledge and skills.
By Rich
February 27, 2010 9:19 AM | Link to this
Any teacher, and almost any parent with more than one child, will tell you that “one size does NOT fit all”. The grouping of kids by age, and the implicit expectation they’re all “ready” for the same level and intensity of instruction at the same time, is obviously wrong. If skipping 11th and 12th grade works, then DO IT. But don’t expect it to work for all, or even most, kids. Do we REALLY want or need to push teens this hard? WHY are we trying to burn everyone out, so no one has any life except accelerated education, decades of working, and death? What’s the point?
By Dave
February 27, 2010 10:25 AM | Link to this
There are significant barriers to both work and travel before the 18th birthday. And it is very difficult for most 18 year olds to pick the career they want for the rest of their lives. It’s even tougher for a 16 year old.
By PDK
February 27, 2010 12:17 PM | Link to this
If the academic achievers graduate early and go off to college, then who will the jocks and other “cool kids” make fun of while they’re preparing for a career at McDonald’s and WalMart?
By PDK
February 27, 2010 12:21 PM | Link to this
If the academic achievers graduate early and go off to college, then who will the jocks and other “cool kids” make fun of while they’re preparing for a career at McDonald’s and WalMart? Let’s face it, most schools exist to warehouse kids, not teach them. Academic achievers should be allowed to move on when ready instead of being babysat. They’ve already demonstrated maturity by making the grades. The only real issue I see is whether graduating early will affect competition for scholarships and placement at universities.
By derwood
February 27, 2010 4:00 PM | Link to this
Agree 100% with Susan. My homeschooled daughter is waiting to turn 16 so she can take her graduation exam and start college. She already knows what she wants to do with her life and wants to get on with it as soon as possible.
By max
February 27, 2010 8:08 PM | Link to this
Reading about these children who were home-schooled being ready academically for college just makes me realize how much time is wasted in our public schools. And to think that our current Gov wants to extend the school year by 20 days….
By null
February 27, 2010 9:04 PM | Link to this
Max, don’t get overly impressed here. There are just as many home-schooled kids who don’t do well and who aren’t ready for college or anything else. These children, who are academically ready for college, are bright, internally motivated kids who would be doing well wherever they got their education. They just happen to be bright kids who have parents who care and who have worked hard to see that their kids are prepared. Make no mistake, there are lots of really bright inner city kids out there left to fend for themselves who could be in the same situation if they had parents who gave a darn.
By chief
February 28, 2010 11:18 AM | Link to this
I was a high school teacher for 30 years. I have extensive experience dealing with teenagers. My class included students in the top ten of their class and the bottom ten. The senior year is basically a waste. Blame that on administration. They are the people responsible for this setting. I have a different opinion. Don’t start children in school until they turn 9. They will develop better learning skills that will be with them the rest of their lives.
By fortressdayton
February 28, 2010 12:08 PM | Link to this
I am for the option of leaving early if that is appropriate and the child has met the requirements. In Europe children with no intention to attend college generally graduated in 10th grade and they then move to vocational schools, the likes of which we don’t have. (The ‘dumb’ kids are even released at 8th grade to pursue manual trades, if that is the family’s wish.) The fact that we even allow kids to drop out (!) at 16 is more indicative of our problems. If we can allow them to leave at 16 to smoke dope and sit around the house, then why should we hinder the gifted? Holding these kids back doesn’t help the lazy or the less-gifted get smarter. This is why third-world countries are whooping the pants off of us in education.
By joe_mamma
March 1, 2010 7:49 AM | Link to this
Scott, I would imagine that the teachers union would have a problem with it too. A lot jobs would go away if this came to pass.
By college for free
March 1, 2010 2:26 PM | Link to this
A program such as this already exists. It is called the PSEO program. It is little advertised and effectively hidden from high school students. The state pays all costs for a high school student to go to Sinclair. My son went to Sinclair his entire senior year of high school. He graduated high school in 2007 with 45 college credits for free and all transferable to most state 4 year programs. That saved me about $15,000 because his freshman year was paid for by the state. My son made the deans list his first quarter and finished with a 3.1 GPA without even going to high school for his senior year. Does that mean that the high school senior year is totally useless or that freshman year of college is really easy? Ask your high school counselor about PSEO when your kids are incoming freshman. Plan for it with the proper high school curriculum and get their freshman year of college for free.