New Hampshire Dares To Push Students

Our education system is fucked up. There's no need for argument on that statement. Our high school students are typically out-scored by their peers in other industrialized countries. I've had students come into my classroom, who have graduated high school and been accepted into college, without the ability to write above an elementary school level. No Child Left Behind has been a dismal failure from start to finish. Education reform was mentioned (briefly, between non-issues) during the presidential election.

But now, somebody is actually trying to change things.

Lower drop out rates? Extra money for education? Different education paths for students who want to go to community or tech colleges and those who want 4 year degrees?

At first, this sounded like they were trying to weed out the "dumb kids." But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. This isn't weeding anybody out; it is stopping some of the waste that goes on in schools.

Of course, there are critics . . .

Except . . . it won't, as long as the tests are given without regard to economic background.

I'm going to take a "I like this idea, but I would like to see more proof of it working" stance for now, but I am hopeful about this idea.

I aced the SATs at 16, but wasn't remotely prepared for a college workload at that age or even a few years later. While I can't speak for everyone, I believe that a stronger emphasis on critical thinking, close reading, and essay writing beyond the standard 5 paragraphs in 45 minutes would have served me better than simply establishing a series of benchmarks to meet and rushing me out the door.

Furthermore, I dislike the idea of putting greater emphasis on standardized tests simply because the prevalence of test prep programs, among them Kaplan and Princeton Review, grant an immediate advantage to kids with the time and money to take them versus students from less wealthy backgrounds who might not even have the time to get a practice test from Barnes & Nobles, much less work to improve their score. Even if they did, is it right for a person's ability to gain entrance to higher education to be determined by how much time they spend learning to optimize their test-taking rather than, you know, how good they are at actual coursework?

Also, given your own displeasure for college students with poor writing skills, I think it's worth pointing out that there probably won't be a test on writing beyond, again, a examination of your ability to write 5 paragraphs in 45 minutes about "An Event That Significantly Altered Your Worldview", or some such subject. The time constraints presented by standardized testing mean that you'll never really be able to have a test that adequately gauges the writing skills of a high school student because the most important aspect of writing, namely the ability to thoroughly research a subject and present your findings in an original manner, is simply too time consuming to have its own SAT.

Actually, one of the schools I went to didn't give a test to see if the kid was ready for a tech school or community college, but they did allow student to graduate early if they could get the amount of credits necessary. It really did help the drop out rate of the school. A bunch of the kids that graduated with me were a juniors or sophmores. The ended up fairly successful in the schools they went on to afterwards.

And kids going to a community college can easily transfer their credits to a four year program if they wish to. So this test idea seems pretty good.

That's pretty much the best idea ever, and I wish my high school would have had and implemented it 9 years ago when I was 16.

However, we probably don't need to spend more, but better. We already spend more money per secondary education student than almost any other country.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

Sounds exactly like how most of the rest of the world has been doing it for years. Europe, Japan, etc.

That's what I was thinking as I was reading the OP.

That's part of it. This could potentially free up education money, which could lead to better spending.

What we have to remember is, the test for sophomores would be voluntary. Anyone who didn't want to graduate early would be allowed to continue for the final two years. I think this would be a major plus for those students who might possibly drop out of high school during their last two years because they would rather work than sit through classes they have no interst in.

Also, if they really want to get in on revamping the system. start trimming the fat in the school system so that those who do take the test at 16 have had the education they would have now by age 18 (or better). Those that wish to stay their last two years would be able to take advanced courses that would let them skip over so much of the crap that has to be taught during the first two years of college to get them ready for upper level classes.

This system could potentially eliminate general studies from college and change the current program of 1.5 years GS/3.5 years Major into 4 years of major focus.

Would the teachers instructing students who remain for two additional years focus on giving them advanced courses that better prepare them for college, though, or would they simply devote their time to preparation for the difficult set of senior exams? Which do you think the school itself would be more inclined to focus on?

Also, isn't an undue focus on students' performance on a set of tests one of the primary criticisms of No Child Left Behind, with schools doing whatever they can to game the system and improve their standing? Is it possible that something similar could happen here with schools working extra hard to ship kids out early and free up funds for other programs by encouraging them to take the tests and equipping them to pass them, at the expense of a more complete education?

Has this person compared incomes from liberal-arts degree holders ("would you like biscotti with that?" and, say, electricians/carpenters?

Seriously, as a graduate of a rigorous manufacturer-sponsored automotive degree program run out of a community college, I can tell you that such programs can provide huge bang for the buck and do a great job preparing students for the real-world job market when properly run. That degree made me more money and connections for under $13,000 out the door (including books tools and fees), than my ~$67,000 bachelor's degree.

Student involvement and motivation is important as well. I had no idea what I wanted to do right out of high school, and would made better choices after taking a year off instead of diving right into an expensive college. Community college allows students to take an extra year of exploring the options at a much lower cost relative to a four year school. For comparison: current tuition for the two schools I attended is $29,500 per year vs. $4,000 per year.

From my standpoint, it's a pretty good deal. My school district has a program that allows qualifying students to go to the local community college to take classes, and it works fairly well. However, qualification is based on grades; only the top GPAs are eligible.

This was useless to me, because the benefit to me going to community college would have been me not being utterly bored with the high school curriculum. However, being bored meant I did poorly in school, and was thus ineligible for the very program that would have helped me succeed.

Basing it on tests would have solved a lot of problems for me.

The critical quote in the OP makes the assumption that if a kid goes to community college, or technical college, that he's disqualified from going on to earn a four year degree. I strongly disagree. A two-year school is a good place to start when money is tight, or you fucked up your high school academic record, or whatever reason, really.

If it's about money, doing well in CC opens up opportunities for scholarships and grants that will allow you to go on to a four-year school. If it's about grades, doing well allows you to rebuild your credibility and show that you can, in fact, succeed at a four-year.

Anyway, no secret that I'm a proponent.

That would depend on how the regulations were worded. Hopefully, they would do it the right way and use those two years as sort of a combination of Advanced Placement/General Studies.

I don't know. They cannot force students who want to go on to a 4 year college to take the tests, and they can only offer it to students who know they want to leave school early to go to other higher education.

I think it's a given that they'll promote the program heavily, though, given the millions it stands to save. Just look at how aggressively schools already promote fundraising programs that earn markedly less and don't benefit students academically.

Sure they can't force you, but they can strongly recommend it or convince your parents to make you do it. In the end, I think a lot of kids will be taking advantage of this without giving it any real thought. Hopefully it works to their advantage, but my initial reaction is skepticism and distrust.

It's probably good for students who really really want to go to community college. But if you aren't doing well in school because you aren't engaged or interested, are you going to buckle down to take the "rigorous state board exams."

Well, maybe the idea of having a diploma at 16 would be a good incentive.

Exactly. In Germany children either go into a vocational route or a college route pretty early on. The idea that all kids are college material is a joke. Go to any freshman English class and you will see the sorry state of affairs.

I didn't see your name on my roll sheet.

I was just auditing the class.

But if they can do the work to get this early diploma through the demanding testing, should they not be encouraged to do the full four year program, to keep their options open?

Their options will remain open. Community Colleges (JC's to some of you) offer both Voc Ed paths and general education / transfer degree paths in most states. CCs in California have a high transfer rate for students into the CSU and UC system and an equally important high rate of placement in vocational training programs. And as Stiles pointed out, those vocational jobs can do a hell of a lot better providing income and careers to students inclined towards those trades.

I left high school at 16, testing out through CAs CHSPE test, and started college a few months later. And kicked ass. And transferred out and went on to earn my terminal degree. Many students in the states do this.

The social structure of high school is, in and of itself, a detriment to student success for many, many pupils. Providing an honest option out and into either a clear career pathway or a transfer track is a great idea and really could let high schools do college preparatory work in the Jun / Sen years to prepare those students who want feel it is necessary to leave grade 12 and enter directly into baccalaureate degree-granting schools.

But no matter how cheap community college is, it's still going to be a lot more expensive than high school. If a person later decides that indeed a non-community college is right for them, they've ended up in the same place, possibly took longer, and spent more money to get there. Although I suppose if you could transfer credits easily to a four-year school, you could come out ahead.

The Community College system in most US states develop comprehensive transfer agreements (Articulation Agreements as they are called) with typical transfer schools that ensure CC curriculum is appropriately rigorous and properly aligned with typical course offerings at bac-degree schools. CC students in California are in very good shape when they transfer. Thousands of students in California Community Colleges transfer as Juniors into the CSU and UC system each year and perform at similar or higher levels than "native" UC or CSU students.

It's a good system and New Hampshire is barking up the right tree with this plan.

So you could leave high school two years early by taking the test, take two years of community college (cheaper than four year college), transfer those years into a four year school and then graduate two years later from the four-year school? That would definitely be advantageous!

Yep. Though most CC students take about three years to do the first "two" years of work. Still, it's much less expensive. Many students in California do this, including many like myself who took a standardized test to get out of school early.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think No Child Left Behind requires standardized tests to graduate. I think I had to take some sort of standardized test in 11th grade (which was about 10 years ago) but I can't remember if my graduation depended on it or not.

It will be more expensive for the individual, but the state would save money on two more years of high school which it could in turn pass on in the form of tuition assistance to the early graduate. Even if that wasn't the case the state is saving money in the long run and if the individual is planning on going to college anyways it makes sense to let them go early if they prove that they are capable.