What is "college-ready" anyway?

The following story, also picked up by the Centre Daily Times, struck a nerve.

“An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.”

This is what struck me: shouldn’t we expect students to have these skills by the time they graduate from high school?  Shouldn’t a high school graduate to be able to write a coherent paragraph? Should our education model really be that students are not exposed to “critical-thinking” until they get to college - assuming they get there at all?

While there are a handful of policy-makers who speak of education as a K-16 issue, most of the public conversation around education reform appears focused on the K-12 public school system, and specifically, whether or not students are prepared to go to college. 

But there hasn’t been much discussion about the intersection of high school and college, and what’s supposed to happen where. The two systems developed independently, seldom talk to one another, and the consequences are costly.

We already know that even a very good student from a low-performing school doesn’t have the foundation to succeed at an upper-tier university. It is not a question of whether a student is smart enough, or determined enough. While there will always be a few who defy the odds, students at poor schools are not exposed to an academic culture where critical-thinking and abstract reasoning is the norm. They’ve not been in a culture where the students push one another, not only to succeed academically, but to think.

For those fortunate enough to have gone to a good high school, however, the first year of college is often just more of the same.

This was born out in a recent study of State High graduates who went on to attend Penn State. Our ‘good’ students - those who typically had a lot of classroom exposure to these college-level skills - did very well. Our average students, however, sometimes struggle. Here was our conclusion: every student should graduate with the ability to “engage in complex thinking”; to “self-initiate, self-advocate, and organize time”; and to communicate effectively. The way to do this: the development of these skills must be integrated throughout the entire curriculum.

If this became the national standard, it might eliminate the need for the first year of college as it currently exists. It’s time to give this serious thought. Who can afford four years of college tuition anymore? And just suppose education reform ‘succeeds’: what are we going to do with all those “college-ready” students?

There’s a long-standing cultural myth that students go college to “broaden their minds” and “expand their horizons”; to learn to think, as it were. Under the mid-20th century model, college graduates would become the elite who would manage businesses and run the country. Perhaps this made sense when there were plenty of middle-class factory jobs available for high school graduates. Obviously, that’s no longer the case.

The public education system hasn’t failed as is commonly assumed; rather, it’s been slow to adapt to a changing world. Since we need to rethink high school, we ought to rethink college while we’re at it. Are we willing to do that?

Top Ten Reasons why PA Senate Bill 1 is a terrible idea

10. The voucher program proposed in Senate Bill 1 will cost taxpayers a pile of money. The proposed program is estimated to cost over $50 million in the first year, approximately $150 million in year two - when students who already attend nonpublic schools are eligible to obtain vouchers - and as much as $1.22 billion in years three and later, when all low-income students across the state become eligible. This money will come directly from the pockets of taxpayers, as they will now not only support the public education system, but also every nonpublic, private, and parochial school a voucher student attends.

It should not be necessary to point out that there’s a $4 billion hole in the state budget.

9. The proposed bill violates the State Constitution. You might think this would be important to lawmakers. Pennsylvania’s Constitution is quite clear: public funds cannot be used to fund schools that are religiously affiliated.

8. There’s no evidence that charter schools are better than regular public schools.  If the definition of “persistently lowest achieving school” is applied to charter and cyber charter schools, 27 charter schools would fall into this category! We don’t know about private schools, since they’re not required to collect that data, and if they do, it’s not public information. Shouldn’t there be some evidence before we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an idea?

7. Vouchers divert resources from public education but do not significantly reduce costs. When a student leaves a school district to enroll in a nonpublic school, the costs associated with that student do not just disappear. (For example: building maintenance, utilities, technology, food service, transportation, etc., etc.)

6. Parents often choose private (and charter) schools for reasons having little to do with academics.  While the proposal is framed as providing parents with a way to send their children to a better school, parents often make this choice for reasons unrelated to the quality of the school.  One reason is obvious: parents would now be able to send their children to state-subsidized religious schools. Another: the dirty secret is that private and charter school offer after-school programs that provide free day-care!  Wouldn’t it be easier – and cheaper - to fund after-school programs?

5. Private and parochial schools are NOT open to every child. It is disingenuous to claim that vouchers open the door to “parental choice” when in fact the choice is really being given to the nonpublic school. Under Senate Bill 1, private and parochial schools are able to decide if they want to participate in the voucher program, and then if so, how many and which students they want to admit. Public schools accept and educate students regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, academic performance and special needs. Nonpublic schools are able to “cherry pick” the students, if any, they would welcome into their school.

4. The choice is only for those parents who can afford it. Even if their child is accepted, if the private school tuition exceeds the amount of the voucher, the parents are responsible for making up the difference.

3. Private schools lack transparency and are unaccountable to taxpayers. Unlike charter schools, private schools are not held to the same standards of accountability. While public schools are required to comply with ‘Right-to-Know’ and ‘Sunshine’ laws, private and parochial schools are not required to make their financial records, academic achievement data or board meetings open to the public. Furthermore, students enrolled in nonpublic schools are not subjected to state-approved academic standards and assessments.

2. Pennsylvanians do not support tuition vouchers.  Once they realize who’s paying for it, about two out of three voters oppose school voucher proposals.

1. The proposed legislation diverts us from the real issue. It is our Constitutional obligation to provide a “free and appropriate” education to every child in Pennsylvania, regardless of economic status. Although the majority of schools in Pennsylvania continue to make progress, clearly there are areas where we have not been successful.  Rather than remove a select few, disadvantaged students from a school that is under-performing, why not start working together on these issues so that all students have access to a quality education?