Graduation Requirements Across States

The National Center for Educational Outcomes released a pretty comprehensive analysis of the requirements for graduation. Although this report is ten years old, I found it pretty interesting.

Another comprehensive analysis from the NCEST was published in 2004.

Kentucky Reconsiders Diplomas

If a bill by State Senate Republicans passes in Kentucky, they will also be on board with New Hampshire and Louisiana. Why is no one talking about this in the national news?

FRANKFORT — High school students who complete required course work for graduation before their junior or senior years could enroll in college early and get state funding to help with tuition under a plan proposed by Senate Republicans. The bill also would reduce the 22 minimum credit hours for high school graduation to as low as 16, while candidates for early graduation would have to maintain a 2.8 grade-point average to go to a two-year college or 3.2 GPA to go to a four-year university in Kentucky. Students going on to a four-year university also would have to take at least two Advanced Placement classes, the bill says.

It sounds like some real reform is happening at the state level. Wonder what Arne Duncan thinks?

Career Diplomas in Louisiana

Louisiana is poised to join New Hampshire in plans to allow earlier graduation - specifically after sophomore year at the age of sixteen - for students who are not interested in attending four year colleges. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

High-schoolers in Louisiana will soon be able to opt for a "career diploma" – taking some alternative courses instead of a full college-prep curriculum. The new path to graduation – expected to be signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in the coming days – bucks a trend in which many states are cranking up academic requirements. The legislation puts the state in the center of a national debate about where to set the bar for high school graduation.

Advocates of the new diploma option say it will keep more struggling students in school and will prepare them for jobs, technical training, or community college. Critics doubt the curriculum will be strong enough to accomplish such goals and say it shortchanges students in the long run, given the projections that a large number of future jobs will require a college degree.

While there is much to discuss - and a wide margin for error - there is a lot of practical wisdom in this action. The most significant problems are students who might change their minds later - as well as the notion that sixteen-year-olds might not make the "best" or most mature decision. And, of course, there is a significant chance that this will be disproportionately pursued by - and even recommended to - mainly poor and minority students.

I'd like to see the option available while resources are directed toward making sure each student makes his/her own best decision, and all students are guaranteed equal access to opportunities in education.

Millennials Struggling

According to this report:

The Millennial Generation, those born between 1976 and 1996, the heirs to our economic legacy and ultimately the bearers of our economic destiny, are being disproportionately affected by the crisis, but continue to go unnoticed. This is even though they face unemployment at a rate more than 8% higher than the national average, suffer under a crushing average of $27,000 in student loan, $2000 in credit card debt, and a healthcare crisis that leaves 30% of them without any insurance. In addition, as young people enter the workforce, they are being pitted against individuals with much more experience than they have for the same entry level jobs due to recent layoffs, making finding a job exponentially more difficult.

This perfect economic storm will have untold negative impacts if nothing is done by Congress to address these issues now by truly investing in the Millennial Generation.

Eliminating Seat Time Requirements

In the past year or two, I have come to question the concept of "seat time" or "contact hours" in public education, and I am more intrigued by a focus on accomplishment of core competencies. Earlier, I posted about the Adams 50 district in Colorado that was eliminating "grade levels" in preference for students progressing through skill levels or competencies - this has been found effective for struggling students and is in use at various alternative schools around the US. That, of course, leads me to question why it isn't being addressed at all levels for all students.

Interestingly, this issue came up in the most recent issue of Esquire where former governor Jeb Bush, who is of a similar mind, said, "We should have 'seat time' eliminated . . . You show up for 180 days, you graduate. It should be based on what you learned. People learn differently. It's a simple fact that our education system ignores." While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I was intrigued to hear someone talking about it. Certainly, it's not just 180 hours and a diploma - there are core requirements in those 180 days and thirteen years. However, there have been enough horror stories of illiterate graduates to indict the system for extremely low expectations of how that "seat time" is used.

After a little research, I learned that the state of Indiana feels the same way and has done something about it:

In its first meeting under the direction of Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett, the State Board of Education approved a series of reforms aimed at facilitating student-centered learning and removing unnecessary regulations.

“Teachers and principals have repeatedly expressed to me their frustration with regulations that prevent them from delivering the best possible instruction to their students,” Bennett said. “The actions taken today by the State Board of Education are a first step toward eliminating unnecessary requirements that all too often get in the way of our primary focus which is the achievement of students.”

Among the actions taken by the state board today was the elimination of a requirement for 250 minutes of instruction per week to earn credit for high school courses. The removal of this requirement will give schools much needed flexibility in developing curriculum and creative scheduling options that best meet the needs of individual students.

“We need to measure success by what students are actually learning, not by how many minutes they’re sitting in a particular class each week,” Bennett said. “Principals, if they’re willing to be creative, now have a powerful new tool to help maximize educational opportunities for students.”

That sounds about right, and I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion of this type of change. It is an important part of the reform discussion, and one that I hope to see Colorado address this year as well. This scholarly paper notes:

The obsolete nature of current school structures is evident in the way large groups of students with the same birthdays move from subject expert to subject expert in incremental blocks of time, in the way success is measured by seat time and rote return of information, and in the way what is learned during the "school year" is lost during the summer, perpetuating the difference in learning levels for various socioeconomic groups. In this article, the author calls for a reinvention of how citizens are educated rather than continuously trying to improve the existing education "systems."

There is no doubt that students progress at different levels, and simply establishing thirteen years with a 1080 hours of teacher contact time a year as the standard model is nothing short of inefficient. As I've noted before, many of my AP students are certainly "ready" to start working on their bachelor degree - both in terms of knowledge/skill and maturity. Thus, there is little sense in restricting their ability to do that.

"Seat time" might need to become the next big discussion on the education reform stage.

Community Colleges and the Future

As I've noted before, the current emphasis on four-year colleges and bachelor's degrees is hugely inefficient, ignoring a myriad of realities in the US economy and education system. The focus is myopic at best, and it does an incredible disservice to many skilled students and workers who could be educated and trained in far less time for far less money with much greater success.

Clearly, many students do not need seventeen years of education - as most professions don't require it - and students should be empowered to get training and get on with their lives whenever they are ready. With many people never finishing bachelor degrees, the education system needs to re-evaluate associate degree programs. For, a student who quits a four-year college after two years has nothing, while a two-year program offers a degree and the option of applying the credit to a four-year degree.

Time Magazine is taking a look at this issue in this article, "Can Community Colleges Save the US economy?" My answer is yes.

Tech Free Vacation

For the past couple of weeks I have been out of the blog-o-sphere, as I was on vacation. Surprisingly, I was without regular access to a computer, and thus I gave up on blogging, though there was much to discuss. Perhaps I should just give in a get a Blackberry or iPhone - or not.

Several thoughts on my trip:

I love my Pontiac Montana. Six states, 4000+ miles, and running like a dream. Say what you want about American cars, but my GM is truly a fine automobile and I absolutely lament the loss of the Pontiac brand. Several years ago, they did away with the Montana - which is an exceptional mini-van (if it is even a minivan) - and my wife and I were truly saddened. And then it got worse. The new GM will not feature Pontiac - how sad.

Through no planning on my part, I was in Los Angeles during the Michael Jackson Memorial. In fact, I drove past Forest Lawn Cemetery, on my way to the Observatory in the Hollywood Hills, during the actual memorial. Luckily I missed all the hysteria, and traffic. The highlights of my time in LA included Santa Monica Pier's carousel, Sprinkles Cupcakes in Beverly Hills, and the La Brea Tar Pits.

There is a lot of space in Utah. A lot.

Can Charters Save Us?

Time Magazine asks the "profound" question, "Can Charter Execs Turn Around Failing Public Schools?" Of course, this is nowhere near a yes/no question, as the past twenty years have shown that some charters can dramatically improve student achievement, while others perform as poorly - and at times worse, with cases of abuse and corruption - as the neighborhood schools they were created to oppose.

As I've noted before, I think Colorado's model of open enrollment and generous support of charters is the best approach to the issue of school reform, especially in relation to the issue of "school choice." The issue with charters now, is not whether they can create a new "start-up" and provide an alternative for kids, but actually go into failing schools and improve them as is by applying their "charter model" to an existing student population.

Remains to be seen.

License to Graduate

Thomas Friedman, writing for the New York Times, offers this:

Craig Barrett, the former chairman of Intel, [when asked] about how America should get out of its current economic crisis. His first proposal was this: Any American kid who wants to get a driver’s license has to finish high school. No diploma — no license. Hey, why would we want to put a kid who can barely add, read or write behind the wheel of a car?

There is a lot of sense in this idea, though it must be in conjunction with proposals to allow graduation and entry into trade schools and associate degree programs after tenth grade, at age sixteen.

In Praise of Work II

As I noted in a previous post, Mike Rowe of the Discovery Channel's "Dirty Jobs" is challenging the culture of America that has "waged war on work." In the speech featured on Ted.com, Rowe offered the enlightened view that "we have collectively agreed, stupidly, that work is the enemy." This is a problem - especially in a country devoted to overspending on the over-education of many people as it shames many skilled workers into thinking they need a bachelor's degree to bring meaning to their lives, and jobs.

In a challenge to this conventional wisdom, Rowe works hard on "Dirty Jobs" to honestly and accurately portray the lives of working people. And there is much insight to his commentary - as he asks us, "Why does the guy picking up roadkill seem like a more enjoyable sort to sit down and share a beer with?"  To that end, Rowe has launched a website devoted to the acknowledgment - if not praise - of work. Check out his site and commentary at MikeRoweWorks.com

The United States is facing a serious problem with its demeaning attitude toward labor - good old fashioned "work" as a career.  I've been writing about the area where this is most serious which is the myopic focus in schools on college-for-all.  As the nation faces a serious shortage of skilled labor - four million jobs by some counts - millions of young people are steered toward college as the key to "a better job."  However, most people don't need a bachelor degree for work that is meaningful and lucrative.  As the nation lacks welders and electricians, we are putting out too many people with general education degrees.

By the way, a great read on the value of labor is Shopcraft as Soulcraft by Matthew Crawford.  This is an excellent reflection on work, and is well worth the read.

Sean Hannity is No Good

When I was in college, a friend of mine used to sarcastically warn my girlfriend, "He's no good for you. In fact, he's no good for anybody."

The more I listen and watch, and the more I think about it, the more I realize these comments accurately describe Sean Hannity. This revelation dawned on me the other day as I listened to Hannity continue his daily condemnation of every single move of the Obama Administration.

Certainly, I expect that Hannity is going to criticize the President - that is the nature of his job - and he has made tens of millions of dollars working in the "preaching-to-the-choir" field. In fact, the criticism is why I tune in. However, there is something unseemly about the disingenuous nature of Hannity's rants. The other day, he pointed out that the Obama Administration's actions have done absolutely nothing to mitigate the recession, evidenced clearly because the unemployment rate has continued to rise. That's his evidence - and he delivers it as obvious. Yet, there's a disconnect. Did unemployment not continue to rise during the Recession of 1982-83 - topping out at 10% - following the Reagan tax cuts that Hannity regularly praises as saving America? Would he argue that the tax cuts did nothing for two years? Isn't it more complex than that?

It's the disingenuous over-simplification to which I object.  Several years ago, I penned an op-ed for the Denver Post in which I exposed and criticized The Mis-Education of Sean Hannity. That criticism is still appropriate, for he has certainly not become any more "fair and balanced."  And, keep this in mind: he's not supposed to. Sean Hannity has made an incredible amount of money "preaching to the choir," and it is his job to sow dissent and profit off that. To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure Sean believes most of what he says because nothing in his youth indicates a strong political leaning. His reason for being on the radio and FoxNews is simply to make money - he found a very willing market for his brand of pessimism, and he has profited extravagantly from feeding people's unease.

Unlike many commentators, he is so reviled by his critics that numerous websites have sprung up to criticize and mock him.  In fact, there is speculation that he is not even liked in his own camp at FoxNews.  Most of the criticism is geared at the fact that Sean Hannity doesn't really think for himself - or even care about the issues - but simply serves as a lap dog for conservative media. I'm not really opposed to that perspective because I've truly always felt that this is just a lucrative deal for Hannity. And while I don't always agree with Bill O'Reilly, I don't feel that way about him. He is conservative, but he has his convictions, and like Chris Matthews he is likely to skewer both sides and complement either ideology or party when it's, in their opinion, correct or doing a fair job.  But that's not Hannity.

Hannity's no good for us.

Louisiana Joins the College-is-not-for-all Plan

Joanne Jacobs spotlights this article about Louisiana joining New Hampshire in plans to move toward a new educational model which is in line with every other industrialized country in the world. The state plans to offer an early graduation diploma for students who "choose" with "parents permission" to leave the four-year-college track and enter trade schools instead.

As I noted in this article in the Denver Post, the college-for-all track is biased and incredibly inefficient. While we certainly want every child to have an opportunity to take his education as far as he desires, we should not assume that college is for everyone - especially when only 29% of the country currently has a bachelor's degree.