High school diploma at 16? Not wise
Hannah Saylor
Issue date: 3/4/10 Section: Opinion
The National Center on Education and the Economy recently organized a fast-track opportunity for "at risk" high school students. This program, scheduled to begin next year in eight different states, allows high school sophomores to attain their diplomas two years early by passing standardized exams. After passing these aptitude tests, these students are declared ready for college-level work and head directly to community colleges. NCEE's primary motivation behind the project is the hope of a future reduction of the need for remedial classes at the collegiate level.
What will actually result from such a program will be less than ideal.
First of all, there will undoubtedly be a decrease in the standards of participating colleges. How could the combination of fewer remedial classes and more uneducated students result in anything else? The current need for remedial classes is a result of particular weaknesses among individual students. If labeling high school sophomores as "college ready" is expected to reduce this need, then it logically follows that it can be expected to reduce the weaknesses of the incoming students as well. It would do so by reeling in students with half the high school education of average incoming students.
This seems rather paradoxical. Virginia educator Vern Williams remarked on the matter, "Assuming that students who need remediation at the 12th grade level will somehow test out at the 10th grade level seems to involve an amazing leap of faith." But perhaps it is not so much a "leap of faith" as it is a drop in standards.
Furthermore, with the installment of this program, there will be a continued shift in focus from educating students about the world to merely "teaching to the test." This shift has already been taking place, thanks to the copious amounts of standardized testing already pervading the education system.
The focus of education should never include straying from the concept of learning for the sake of learning. Yes, there are different paths suitable for different students, but this only serves as a further argument against NCEE's new program. Students who excel in academics will opt for Advanced Placement courses throughout high school and will then go on to more selective colleges to further their education. Students with a tendency to struggle in the academic realm often benefit from pursuing vocational study while in high school, allowing them to acquire practical skills while continuing their education. Neither of these options calls for a move into the college level earlier than necessary.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, high school involves more than just scholastic growth. In order to be fully prepared for college, a student must not only be ready for the next level of academia, but must have acquired other life skills as well. Important social skills are developed throughout high school, as youth begin the journey into adulthood. Maturation is a human process that takes time, and a student should not be shuffled through it by an education system that exalts an ever-growing ideal of simply "getting to the next level as quickly as possible."
What will actually result from such a program will be less than ideal.
First of all, there will undoubtedly be a decrease in the standards of participating colleges. How could the combination of fewer remedial classes and more uneducated students result in anything else? The current need for remedial classes is a result of particular weaknesses among individual students. If labeling high school sophomores as "college ready" is expected to reduce this need, then it logically follows that it can be expected to reduce the weaknesses of the incoming students as well. It would do so by reeling in students with half the high school education of average incoming students.
This seems rather paradoxical. Virginia educator Vern Williams remarked on the matter, "Assuming that students who need remediation at the 12th grade level will somehow test out at the 10th grade level seems to involve an amazing leap of faith." But perhaps it is not so much a "leap of faith" as it is a drop in standards.
Furthermore, with the installment of this program, there will be a continued shift in focus from educating students about the world to merely "teaching to the test." This shift has already been taking place, thanks to the copious amounts of standardized testing already pervading the education system.
The focus of education should never include straying from the concept of learning for the sake of learning. Yes, there are different paths suitable for different students, but this only serves as a further argument against NCEE's new program. Students who excel in academics will opt for Advanced Placement courses throughout high school and will then go on to more selective colleges to further their education. Students with a tendency to struggle in the academic realm often benefit from pursuing vocational study while in high school, allowing them to acquire practical skills while continuing their education. Neither of these options calls for a move into the college level earlier than necessary.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, high school involves more than just scholastic growth. In order to be fully prepared for college, a student must not only be ready for the next level of academia, but must have acquired other life skills as well. Important social skills are developed throughout high school, as youth begin the journey into adulthood. Maturation is a human process that takes time, and a student should not be shuffled through it by an education system that exalts an ever-growing ideal of simply "getting to the next level as quickly as possible."
Be the first to comment on this story