ready for college?
I just watched a heavily promoted segment on Channel 4 which claimed to reveal that "failing schools cost taxpayers $26 million." In fact, the "investigative report" seemed to rely almost exclusively on a study commissioned by the PA Dept. of Education as a part of their push for statewide GCAs (Graduation Competency Assessments) and reported on the percentage of students who "required" one or more remedial classes. A chart on the WTAE website provided the percentages of "deficient" graduates from each local district and the supposed cost to the taxpayers for "fixing" the problem.
I had several thoughts after watching. First, when did we decide that the sole purpose of completing high school was to succeed in college? More and more families see college as the only "right" choice after high school. (A trend that began after WWII with the GI Bill and has accelerated ever since.) In fact, many jobs - including well-paying jobs - don't require more academics. Individual school districts should be accountable to their communities for providing an education that allows for the future success of graduates in many different settings, not just college; but no school district can ever guarantee the future success of a student in any setting.
Second, college admission is selective; public high school entrance is not. Districts are required to educate every student up to age 18 (or 21 in special circumstances). We cannot pick and choose those we expect to succeed and exclude the others. Students can leave school at 16, and if the standard for graduation becomes passing a state-wide final exam; and that exam aims to prove that you are "ready and able to succeed in college without any remediation", then more young people will simply drop out.
Third, since no test, essay, or admission interview is fool-proof, some colleges place ALL first year students in one or more pre-admission review courses or remedial classes. This allows the college to assess the freshman according to their own specific standards, which certainly vary from a community college to CMU. This does not mean that every one of those students was unable to pass the first year class. In fact the decision is often made before the student even attempts a first year course. Were those students removed from the "deficient" student counts?
Finally, I wondered if Channel 4 asked CCAC (Community College of Allegheny County) if every single student who graduates with a two-year degree is admitted to the four-year college of their choice with third year standing. If not, why did CCAC give them an Associate Degree? In fact, does Pitt accept every one of its own graduates into its Graduate School? If not, does that mean that Pitt is a failure at undergraduate education?
Public schools are an easy target, especially if you only look at one aspect of education. It seems that Channel 4 bought the Department of Education's "one more test" solution with little or no scepticism. Public schools do have problems, and criticism can lead to improvement. But this story shed little light on the challenge of driving all students to achieve.
I had several thoughts after watching. First, when did we decide that the sole purpose of completing high school was to succeed in college? More and more families see college as the only "right" choice after high school. (A trend that began after WWII with the GI Bill and has accelerated ever since.) In fact, many jobs - including well-paying jobs - don't require more academics. Individual school districts should be accountable to their communities for providing an education that allows for the future success of graduates in many different settings, not just college; but no school district can ever guarantee the future success of a student in any setting.
Second, college admission is selective; public high school entrance is not. Districts are required to educate every student up to age 18 (or 21 in special circumstances). We cannot pick and choose those we expect to succeed and exclude the others. Students can leave school at 16, and if the standard for graduation becomes passing a state-wide final exam; and that exam aims to prove that you are "ready and able to succeed in college without any remediation", then more young people will simply drop out.
Third, since no test, essay, or admission interview is fool-proof, some colleges place ALL first year students in one or more pre-admission review courses or remedial classes. This allows the college to assess the freshman according to their own specific standards, which certainly vary from a community college to CMU. This does not mean that every one of those students was unable to pass the first year class. In fact the decision is often made before the student even attempts a first year course. Were those students removed from the "deficient" student counts?
Finally, I wondered if Channel 4 asked CCAC (Community College of Allegheny County) if every single student who graduates with a two-year degree is admitted to the four-year college of their choice with third year standing. If not, why did CCAC give them an Associate Degree? In fact, does Pitt accept every one of its own graduates into its Graduate School? If not, does that mean that Pitt is a failure at undergraduate education?
Public schools are an easy target, especially if you only look at one aspect of education. It seems that Channel 4 bought the Department of Education's "one more test" solution with little or no scepticism. Public schools do have problems, and criticism can lead to improvement. But this story shed little light on the challenge of driving all students to achieve.
Labels: Second
posted by Kathy Smith at
8:38 PM
5 Comments
