Experts calls for 10th-grade college entry test

<p>
[quote]
High school isn't just an educational tool - it's part of the social fabric of most communities. Where are the Texas high school football teams going to come from? Ya think loosing hordes of 16-18 years olds onto the streets won't affect the crime rate?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, if high schools were a LOT more about education and a LOT less about being the social fabric of a community, maybe our country would not see the educational advantages built in elementary and middle schools dissipate that fast. Inasmuch as I see the value of the Friday nights under the lights, it pales when compared to the drama of the same schools producing barely literate future Wal Mart or Taco Bell employees. WE love football and sports in Texas, but placing such a value on an athletic activity is part of the problem, and not part of the solution. </p>

<p>And, don't you think that the danger of increased crimes would continue to come from rising dropouts rates, as opposed to offering people with technical abilities a whisper of a chance to join the .. hordes of well paid plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. Next time you'll have a plumber or painter at your house, ask him where he got his technical schooling, and what license he needed to practice his skills. </p>

<p>Pretending that all our high schools could prepare each one of their students for the Harvard of this world is the biggest fraud perpetrated on millions of children, and hundreds of millions of taxpayers and homeowners. </p>

<p>A good start would be to worry less about the happiness and well-roundedness of our students and more about what they know and especially what they are taught ... and by whom. Not to mention, for how many hours a day!</p>

<p>
[quote]
A good start would be to worry less about the happiness and well-roundedness of our students and more about what they know and especially what they are taught ... and by whom. Not to mention, for how many hours a day!

[/quote]
Yes indeed, Xiggi, because ultimately what goes around, comes around - when all is said and done, the happiness and well-roundedness of our students - as well as the health of our social fabric- depends upon the quality of education they receive. </p>

<p>Good article in Time: "A Call to Action for Our Schools":</p>

<p>
[quote]
If Americans want to maintain their customary high standard of living in today's global economy, we've got to rethink almost every aspect of our education system, including when kids finish high school and who runs our schools. That was the conclusion of a blistering report from a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce, released Thursday in an all-day event in Washington, D.C. The commission of heavyweights included four former cabinet secretaries, the president of the American Manufacturers Association, the chancellor of the California State University system, executives from Viacom Inc. and Lucent Technologies, and other government and education leaders. Its call-to-action report, entitled Tough Choices or Tough Times, cites studies showing that the U.S. share of the world's college-educated workers has shrunk from 30% to 15% in recent decades and that, even after all the outsourcing of the past decade, some 20% of U.S. jobs remain vulnerable to automation or offshoring to educated workers overseas...</p>

<p>The commission's suggested fix would involve these big changes:</p>

<p>*Most kids should finish high-school-level work by age 16 and be prepared to tackle college or trade-oriented higher education. The commission proposes that the states introduce State Board Examinations, more rigorous and more thorough than most of today's state tests. Once a child passes the state exam — at 16, 17 or whenever — they could move on to higher ed. This change, the commission estimates, would free up some $60 billion in schools funds to be invested more wisely.</p>

<p>*To attract high-caliber people into the teaching profession, a new career ladder should be introduced that raises pay for new teachers and includes rising rungs of merit pay. The report proposes to pay for these changes by phasing out today's lavish teacher retirement packages and moving toward benefits that more closely match those in private industry.</p>

<p>*To introduce more competition, diversity and dynamism to the nation's schools, the commission proposes that schools be run by independent contractors — in some cases groups of teachers — who agree to meet requirements set and measured by the district or else lose the contract. Parents would choose the school their child attends.</p>

<p>*To equalize resources between rich and poor communities, the report recommends that school districts be directly funded by the state, receiving funds according to the needs of their student populations rather than the property taxes of the local community. ...</p>

<p>Many of the recommendations are so sweeping that it's hard to imagine how they could get off the ground. Teachers' unions have long opposed merit pay systems, and, in fact, the American Federation of Teachers wasted no time in attacking the report. Past efforts to make school funding more equitable have run aground in wealthy communities.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, some of the commission's more radical ideas are already being implemented in districts around the country. Commission member Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City school system, points out that New York already has a number of independent contractors running 322 of its schools and holds them accountable for performance. Philadelphia and other districts are doing the same. Teacher merit pay, despite opposition from unions, has already been introduced in many districts and states, though no one has yet created the kind of career paths envisioned by the commission, where salaries would begin at $45,000 and peak at $110,000. In addition, universal pre-K is already a reality in Oklahoma and Georgia.</p>

<p>The commission itself does not imagine that its ideas will be embraced with speedy enthusiasm.... The point, says Klein, is not whether the commission got every detail right, but that the nation needs "a significant reconceptualization." After decades of flawed and piecemeal reform, it's hard to argue with that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>tp://<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570173-2,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570173-2,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The Commission on Skills in the American Workforce and the National Center for Education and the Economy sure sound official, prestigious and governmental. I don't know anything about Tucker and the other members. Many do seem to be professional education consultants. The NCEE also appears to be closely affiliated with several groups that seem to be involved in for-profit consulting: Americas Choice, New Standards, and the National Institute for School Leadership. I could be wrong, but it seems there is a lot of self interest involved.</p>

<p>I will leave it to the rest of you to debate the proposals, but I cannot help but wonder about the value of teaching to another standardized exam. The proposal to draw teachers from the top third of our college grads sounds appealling. I doubt that will ever happen. Teaching is becoming more controlled and regulated. Control and regulations always kill creativity and innovation. It will take a lot more than some salary increases to make teaching attractive for our brightest grads.</p>

<p>Yes, Tucker has indulged in a little undercover for-profit work the last ten years--our district had a flirtation with the New Standards Project, for example. I think it's interesting he feels confident enough now to return to his Plan A: the restructuring of our educational system on the taxpayer's dime.</p>

<p>I don't mind that kids receive vocational/technical training for the last two years of high school IF parents are fully cognizant that that is indeed what it is. It's calling this "college" because the <em>training</em> takes place at community colleges and other "education" centers that bothers me, because it is misleading to parents. Gates is involved in this same charade with many of his schools.</p>

<p>Regarding the Time article:</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=275162&highlight=Time%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=275162&highlight=Time&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And here is the correct link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570173-1,00.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1570173-1,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Interesting - BTW, I'm a liberal, and I don't support this, nor do many liberals. So really, guys, don't make it all political (party-wise, anyway) when it's not.</p>

<p>What I find particularly amusing is that European countries have for several years been talking about moving to a more American system - because too many kids, boys in particular, get sorted out early (pre-maturity) and lose their shot at college. Here in the US, it's easy to go back to college at any age. In Europe, if you weren't college-prep, it's far more difficult.</p>

<p>Kids shouldn't have to decide (or have determined for them) so early what they want to do for the rest of their lives. One of the reasons we're such an innovative country is the access to education for all - the European system limits that education. And can you imagine how this will affect our poor test takers and IEP students?</p>

<p>DespSeekPhd: That's good to hear!</p>

<p>I can see a LOT of potential problems with this system. </p>

<p>First, I can definitely say that my peers at 18-years-old are light-years more mature than they were at 15. I do not think most 15 or 16 year-olds are ready to be sent off to a college situation.</p>

<p>More importantly, I doubt that they would express their full potential on a college entrance examination at that age. One of the great virtues of the American educational system, in my opinion, is that one's adult life does not rely on a single test taken when one was a young teenager. Colleges currently consider the other attributes a student has-- the sports, the clubs, the interests, the leadership potential, the life situations. And a teen's record in those areas are just as, if not more, valuable indications of her ability to succeed as a standardized test score. Those characteristics are rightfully considered in the present time. Yet 9 times out of 10, I would say that it would be difficult to demonstrate them with only 2 years of high school instead of the current 4.</p>

<p>There is a reason why China and Britain, who use similar systems, have far less social mobility-- a system like this "tracks" children from a much earlier age into vocational careers versus the college path. In the American system, most teens have a roster of academic subjects until senior year, meaning that even if they go the vocational route after graduation, they still have the general education to go to a 4-year college later. I'd worry that in giving children the enticing opportunity to get out of high school in only 2 years, they would be more likely to forgo the now-customary academic subjects in favor of pursuing only those related to their vocation. Furthermore, the kids who have the money for the entrance exam prep classes will almost invariably score better on that single, high-stakes test.</p>

<p>There are a lot of things wrong with American education, that's for sure. But perhaps we'd be better off taking clues from Europe and Asia when it comes to things like accelerating the pace of elementary school education and increasing the difficulty of material for younger students, rather than engineering a system designed to pad the pockets of test-prep companies and keep low-income students in low-paying jobs.</p>