kitchen table math, the sequel: Vlorbik's find: abolish high school?

Friday, April 13, 2007

Vlorbik's find: abolish high school?

This is a terrific article, I think:

"Let's Abolish High School"
The first compulsory education law in the United States wasn’t enacted until 1852. This Massachusetts law required that all young people between the ages of 8 and 14 attend school three months a year—unless, that is, they could demonstrate that they already knew the material; in other words, this law was competency-based. It took 15 years before any other states followed Massachusetts’ lead and 66 years before all states did. Along the way, some powerful segments of society staunchly opposed the mandatory education trend. In 1892, for example, the Democratic Party stated as part of its national platform, “We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children.”

Restrictions on work by young people also took hold very gradually. In fact, the earliest “child labor” laws in the United States actually required young people to work. It wasn’t until the late 1800s that laws restricting the work opportunities of young people began to take hold. Those laws, too, were fiercely opposed, and in fact the first federal laws restricting youth labor—enacted in 1916, 1918, and 1933—were all swiftly struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, young people had worked side by side with adults throughout history, and they still helped support their families and their communities in countries around the world; the idea that there should be limits on youth labor, or that young people shouldn’t be allowed to do any work, seemed outrageous to many people.

Eventually, multiple forces—the desire to “Americanize” the tens of millions of immigrants streaming into the United States to get jobs in the land of opportunity, the effort to rescue millions of young laborers from horrendous working conditions in the factories and mines, the extreme determination of America’s growing labor unions to protect adult jobs, and, most especially, the extremely high unemployment rate (27 percent or so) during the Great Depression—created the systems we have today: laws severely restricting or prohibiting youth labor, and school systems modeled after the new factories, established to teach “industrial discipline” to young people and to homogenize their knowledge and thinking.

Unfortunately, the dramatic changes set in motion by the turmoil of America’s industrial revolution also obliterated from modern consciousness the true abilities of young people, leaving adults with the faulty belief that teenagers were inherently irresponsible and incompetent. What’s more, the rate at which restrictions were placed on young people began to accelerate after the 1930s, and increased dramatically after the social turmoil of the 1960s. Surveys I’ve conducted suggest that teenagers today are subject to 10 times as many restrictions as are mainstream adults, to twice as many restrictions as are active-duty U.S. Marines, and even to twice as many restrictions as are incarcerated felons.

[snip]

Anthropologists have identified more than 100 contemporary societies in which teenage turmoil is completely absent; most of these societies don’t even have terms for adolescence. Even more compelling, long-term anthropological studies initiated at Harvard in the 1980s show that teenage turmoil begins to appear in societies within a few years after those societies adopt Western schooling practices and are exposed to Western media. Finally, a wealth of data shows that when young people are given meaningful responsibility and meaningful contact with adults, they quickly rise to the challenge, and their “inner adult” emerges.

A careful look at these issues yields startling conclusions: The social-emotional turmoil experienced by many young people in the United States is entirely a creation of modern culture. We produce such turmoil by infantilizing our young and isolating them from adults. Modern schooling and restrictions on youth labor are remnants of the Industrial Revolution that are no longer appropriate for today’s world; the exploitative factories are long gone, and we have the ability now to provide mass education on an individual basis.
If this is what differentiated instruction meant, I'd be for it.

abolish college, too?

And here's Walter Russell Mead:
Paying for college education is one of the biggest financial worries facing middle class and working families. Fancy liberal arts schools that let your kids live in essentially unsupervised coed dorms while majoring in such helpful subjects as deconstructionist literary theory and Why America Sucks now cost north of $40,000 per year, and even less-prestigious schools that teach more useful subjects can cost as much per year as a round-the-world cruise. Some kids come out burdened with insane levels of debt; others are frozen out of the market.

The liberal answer is that the government should pick up the ever-escalating cost of supporting Ward Churchill and his fellow astronauts of theory in the lifestyle to which they aspire. But maybe there's an alternative.

There is no reason the government should try to prevent American families who value the traditional college experience from paying hundreds of thousands of dollars, but perhaps it could offer an alternative: a federally recognized national baccalaureate (or 'national bac') degree that students could earn by demonstrating competence and knowledge.

With input from employers [ed.: and, one hopes, from actual disciplinary specialists], the Department of Education could develop standards in fields like English, the sciences, information technology, mathematics, and so on. Students would get certificates when they passed an exam in a given subject. These certificates could be used, like the Advanced Placement tests of the College Board, to reduce the number of courses students would need to graduate from a traditional college. And colleges that accepted federal funds could be required to award credits for them.

But the certificates would be good for something else as well. With enough certificates in the right subjects, students could get a national bac without going to college. Government agencies would accept the bac as the equivalent of a conventional bachelor's degree; graduate schools and any organization receiving federal funds would also be required to accept it.

Subject exams calibrated to a national standard would give employers something they do not now have: assurance that a student has achieved a certain level of knowledge and skill. It is the easiest thing in the world today to find English majors with BA degrees from accredited colleges who cannot write a standard business letter. If national bac holders could in fact perform this and other specific tasks that employers want their new hires to perform, it is likely that increasing numbers of employers would demand the bac in addition to a college degree. Students who attended traditional colleges would increasingly need to pass these exams to obtain the full benefits of their degree.

For students from modest or low-income homes, as well as for part-time students trying to earn degrees while they work full time jobs or raise families, the standards would offer a cheaper, more efficient way to focus their education. Students could take prep courses that focused on the skills they actually needed to do the jobs they sought. Parents could teach their kids at home. Schools and institutes could offer focused programs. Public records could show how well students performed on the exams, offering students and parents far more accountability and information than they now get.

Such programs would be both cheaper and more flexible than conventional college degree programs. The contemporary American college is solidly grounded in the tradition of the medieval guilds. These guilds deliberately limited competition to keep fees high. In the best of cases, guild regulation also protected consumers by imposing quality and fairness standards on guild members. Few observers of American education today would argue with straight faces that the quality of undergraduate education is a major concern of contemporary guilds like the American Association of University Professors. Colleges today provide no real accounting to students, parents, or anybody else about the quality of the education they provide. No other market forces consumers to make choices on so little information.

One consequence of this poorly functioning market is to grossly exaggerate the value of "prestige" degrees. Especially these days, a lot of kids work very hard in Ivy League colleges, but others still major in booze and other diversions. Meanwhile, there are plenty of kids studying at, say, Regular State University, where they work very hard at demanding courses under tough professors. A national bac exam would allow these kids to compete on a level playing field against the Harvard and Yale grads; employers could look at the scores and see for themselves which kids knew more.

Less unearned privilege for Harvard, more opportunity for Regular State....
As a Yalie myself and a part-time college professor to boot, I find these ideas a bit unsettling. But to voters worried about paying for education, resenting the advantages that prestige diplomas confer on a handful of mostly privileged young people from well-to-do families, and conflicted about the lack of practical focus, educational coherence, and moral guidance found at so many colleges today, an alternative route to a college degree might seem like a helpful idea.

And, by the way, to hardworking immigrants slogging through night school, to working single mothers trying to improve their lives and their kids' prospects, and to many other Americans who don't have the time or money for frills but urgently need a serious college degree, these reforms would open the door to a better life.

By setting open standards for the national bac, and by allowing anybody to offer the service of preparing students to take the exams, Congress could break the guilds' monopoly on education. A century ago higher education was still a luxury, and it scarcely mattered that it was offered only by arcane guilds in a system that took shape in the Middle Ages. But today many people of very modest means need a BA-equivalent degree to succeed in the workplace.

The power of the guilds in the goods-producing industries had to be broken before the factory system could provide the cheaper goods of the industrial revolution. The service and information revolutions require the breakup of the knowledge guilds: The professoriat is a good place to start.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Walter Russell Mead seems pretty confident that the national tests will have something to do with the desired skills. In the math/science/engineering realm, I suspect that they might (but what if the NTCM crowd gets to write the tests?).

For other areas (literature, women's studies, ...), I expect that the tests would turn into political correctness regurgitation.

But ... much more interesting is the question of, "Where to draw the cut line?" If we draw it low, then a Harvard/MIT/Stanford degree still is quite valuable. If we draw it high, then most college graduates won't be able to pass (my brother taught engineering at a western state school for 1/2 a semester until he was fired. He was giving out too many Fs. This is because he expected that engineering juniors could do math. The students disagreed because "they weren't graduate students." The administration backed the students). You *could* give out a numeric score instead of a pass/fail and then let employers decide what cut-line they thought was reasonable.

In theory, I think the idea is good. I expect that the practice would be screwed up or hijacked or both :-(

-Mark R.

Anonymous said...

By "math", I mean multiplying and dividing (with a calculator) and successfully finding the 'Y' value on a chart given the 'X' value.

-Mark R.

Independent George said...

Actually, we've already got something like this for the technical fields. You don't actually need a college degree to become an actuary, accountant, or stockbroker (though they certainly help); you just need to pass the appropriate levels of examinations.

There are tons of education/certification agencies in the for-profit sector, which do a pretty good job of self-regulation. Microsoft & Sun have their own certified systems engineer exams, and groups like the PMI are pretty well-known and respected within the industry.

The other side to this is that instead of democratizing achievement, this could very well make the prestige brands even more important, and not less, as individuals seek the extra edge to separate themselves from the pack.

Catherine Johnson said...

Interesting.....

I've mentioned before that I find public policy fascinating, but arcane.

I have ZERO idea what the unintended consequences of these ideas would be (though I think you can probably bet on DOEs scre**** them up!)

Doug Sundseth said...

"For other areas (literature, women's studies, ...), I expect that the tests would turn into political correctness regurgitation."

Well, I'm not sure there's much of a market for a certificate in either literature or women's studies (from employers, anyway). And if they're just PC emesis, that seems likely to continue.

They should still be good for a job at Red Lobster, of course. Well, washing dishes at Red Lobster, anyway.

One of the advantages of such a certification procedure is that different certificates would not be equivalently valuable. And an employer might have a better chance of assigning values than with the current system.

Ben Calvin said...

A federally recognized national baccalaureate is potentially a fantastic idea, assuming the standards are good and explicit (like California's primary/secondary school standards).

It would go a good way to 'demassify' higher-ed, which is already starting with the online offerings from public and private schools.

It would give all the institutions a standard to shoot for in the most cost-effective way (for example on-line, or with tutors outsourced in India or China).

These things are already starting, but this would be give a big push in that direction.

Catherine Johnson said...

Well, I'm not sure there's much of a market for a certificate in either literature or women's studies (from employers, anyway).

lol!

Catherine Johnson said...

A federally recognized national baccalaureate is potentially a fantastic idea, assuming the standards are good and explicit (like California's primary/secondary school standards).

Well, that's the way I felt when I read Mead's proposal, but as I say I just can't feel much trust in my own reactions where large-scale issues of policy are concerned.

I have three thoughts re: national standards.

One is that the national history standards Gary Nash & Diane Ravitch wrote in the 1980s are fantastic. (NY state uses them, fyi.)

The second is that competition from other countries would apply at least some useful pressure on our own creators of national standards.

The third is that I don't see, offhand, how schools of education could commandeer the process of writing national standards for colleges. Presumably disciplinary specialists would write these standards.