<p>Hmm, It’s not been my experience that low income people don’t value education. It’s more accurate to say that low income people have less access to quality education on top of working more hours, not having access to quality child-care, unable to move away from failing school districts and more. Not having a good education themselves, they can recognize that there is a problem but don’t know how to effectively advocate for better… easily intimidated by educated people with the same mentality that was displayed above.</p>
<p>I used to teach preschool for a free state program for very low-income children. Most, especially recent immigrants were incredibly focused on their child getting a good education. They just needed guidance as to what that meant and where to look for it.</p>
<p>This is the old “Culture of Poverty”; does it exist or is it a myth discussion. You can find plenty of studies, research, etc…supporting both sides. It’s being driven by battles over education funding. If it’s a myth, then more funding for schools (especially pre-K) and other social services is the solution. If it’s a fact, then more funding in education has limited impact.</p>
<p>Either way, the results in Chicago are …lacking. </p>
<p>Okay, I’ll be the one to say it: what is wrong with only 40ish percent of students being college-ready? Isn’t college supposed to be tougher and more challenging than high school, a place wherein more studious and driven people distinguish themselves? Unless you really want a bachelor’s to be the new high school diploma, you’re going to have a situation in which many people are not capable of handling college.</p>
<p>The real issue, IMHO, is whether high school graduates have the skill sets and knowledge base that we want high school graduates to have. A student can have a reasonable understanding of the Civil War, enough to be culturally literate and a knowledgeable citizen, without being ready to do original research on the subject and crank out a 40-page thesis. </p>
<p>As Thomas Sowell points out, everyone “drops out” of education at some point, unless they are professional students. (I opted to not get a master’s or an LLM, but I doubt that many people would see my educational attainment as a sign of a failure.) The issue is never whether everyone is capable of higher education - which is not happening unless you dumb down higher Ed - but whether they really earned that high school diploma.</p>
<p>They said that only 46 percent of HS grads are college ready. That would imply that we - High Schools, parents, society - are not producing adequately educated HS grads. If the local plants and mills and mines hired unskilled dropouts and HS grads like mad at living wages it wouldn’t matter as much, economically speaking.</p>
<p>If 40% of grads are college ready, why does the article blame the schools?</p>
<p>It would seem that the schools are providing an education that is capable of preparing students for college since almost half qualify. It looks like even the worst schools in the article have some students college ready. However, it seems to me that students (and families) should be held accountable for not taking advantage of the resources offered.</p>
<p>But note that some form of post-secondary education is becoming more necessary for career-worthy jobs. This does not necessarily mean college leading to a bachelor’s degree as normally discussed on these forums, but can include education for the skilled trades, apprenticeships, police and fire academy, on-the-job training, self-education, etc… High school students should graduate prepared for further learning as needed.</p>
<p>The selective enrollment high schools in Chicago produce ~ 90+% college ready kids. Then there are schools in the poorest neighborhoods where the rate is single digit. There is a vast inequality in resources available to the schools on each end of the spectrum.</p>
<p>Did you know that Chicago Public Schools have the top 3 high schools in the state of Illinois. So you have suburban schools like New Trier and Stevenson with all the best resources - that’s why families with children flee to these suburbs. And yet right in Chicago are the best of the best schools. </p>
<p>This makes it clear that Chicago is systematically creating and sustaining this disparity. It’s not that Chicago doesn’t have the ability to produce good schools - they know how. They just funnel all the resources they have to these top few schools leaving the rest behind.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you can have the best schools in America but if students are coming to school hungry, don’t have stable housing or families, etc they are not going to succeed. </p>
<p>IMO, if we really want children from low-SES and unstable family/living situations to succeed, we need to invest money in public boarding schools rather than shoveling funding into failing schools to continue failing.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with your post but I think it’s maybe an outdated view of the world. I include myself as outdated. The reality is, it’s very difficult for today’s young adults to get work with only a high school diploma. Entry level jobs that were once welcoming to a bright high school graduate and gave room for them to work up the ladder are gone along with manufacturing, well paying grocery store positions, ect. Does it really take a degree is sociology to be an entry level receptionist? Well, I might get dinged for saying it but no, I don’t think so. I think a responsible young adult could be taught that position and eventually grow from there even without 200 grand spent on their education.</p>
<p>So, I actually do agree that a college degree shouldn’t be the new high school diploma but that does see to be the reality that our kids are facing now. If that IS the reality than less than half graduating being less than capable of college material is a real problem… especially when most high schools offer little in regards to trade education.</p>
<p>“High school students should graduate prepared for further learning as needed.”</p>
<p>Which is often not college, so why is the metric “college-ready”? </p>
<hr>
<p>To all others: well, most young people do not have college degrees. Many start nd drop out, never go, or do the trade school route. You are also forgetting that most people lack the mental capacity to do college level work. There is NO amount of teaching, preparation, or mentoring that can make a lot of people understand math beyond algebra II, how to write a 40-page paper, the nuances of Shakespeare, or how to be fluent in a foreign language. </p>
<p>None. </p>
<p>If your urge is to bicker with me about this, or cite the decline in manufacturing jobs, then I suggest that you stop conflating policy necessities with the confines of reality. That a college degree is “needed” to get a job* does not change the fact that many people are not mentally capable of getting that degree. The status of a job market does not change people’s IQs. </p>
<p>*It is not - the fact that half of college graduates are working in fields that do not require a college degree is proof of that. Those jobs aren’t requiring a four-year degree, and in fact, a four year degree can be harmful. (Hello, overqualified.)</p>
<p>Sorry, this discussion is insane to me. It seems so obvious that a decline in manufacturing jobs does not suddenly turn a kid who struggles to conjugate "</p>
<p>I can see you this is a touchy subject for you though I’m not sure why the hostility. Perhaps just a rough day and if that is the case, I’ll send you a hug and hope the weekend brightens things up. Ironically, I did say that I agree with your initial thoughts. I don’t agree with your later thoughts that MOST people are incapable of higher education. I don’t agree that we should not expect better from our schools if half our kids aren’t prepared for anything more. </p>
<p>Most colleges aren’t expecting their students to gain fluency in another language. Many don’t have those requirements. Many don’t require Shakespeare. There are degrees that have very little math. I never said I thought that everyone should be studying Latin to be a receptionist only how unfortunate it is that entry level work that offers a livable wage routinely wants colleges degrees.</p>
<p>I suppose it could be a regional thing. In my area, every job that pays more than 12 dollars an hour wants a degree… or coming in with many years of field related experience. We’re also an area where 12 dollars an hour is not a livable wage. I’m glad if that is not the case in your area.</p>
<p>“Californiaa - social economic status is not all in our minds.”</p>
<p>I disagree. The social economic status is exactly in the mind. Each person has his/her own glass ceiling, in his mind, and judges himself by this ceiling. </p>
<p>Kids, born by Ph.D. students, living in poverty ($18,000 per family of three), in cramped rental apartments, in unstable homes (often moving from one place to another), frequently changing schools (parents often relocate), often raised in non-English speaking families … surprisingly, very successful students.</p>
<p>I thought that the grade inflation and remedial coursework solved this problem a long time ago. Turtletime, yes, your are indeed right that most colleges have no such requirements. Even schools known to be “rigorous” and “grounded in the liberal arts” do not have such requirements. Furthermore, studies suggest that many students will not write a 40 page in a semester, much less a total of 20 pages (as in between all writing assignments associated with the courses they are taking). The point is, if HS students are “unprepared”, colleges are basically saying “it’s fine”. It seems many schools educate based on a business model that suggests that they understand an undergrad. degree as more or less a commodity. This certainly creates no incentive for the High schools to enhance and increase the rigor of their curricula.</p>
<p>"if students are coming to school hungry, "</p>
<p>Two centuries ago many students were hungry, yet studied in schools and were very successful. I do not advocate for hunger, I would like to point out that even very poor kids can achieve a lot.</p>
<p>Californiaa - well of course we all have the capability to rise beyond our families’ social economic status and most everyone strives for that. What’s the point in stating the obvious…</p>
<p>I don’t see that you measure readiness for college by ACT/SAT scores. Does that mean if you wait a few more years, you will be more ready to attend and your scores will go up??? Standardized tests are a way to compare how well students did from all types of different h.s. on a specific test. It doesn’t predict anything. </p>
<p>College success is more about how well you apply yourself, did you choose the right field of study and how do you adapt to being away from home, what type of study habits you have, etc. Did you choose a college that is compatible with your academic skills? Someone who got amazing ACT/SAT scores can go off to college and party all day, never study and eventually drop out. Doubt those tests would ever predict that.</p>