I suspect a combination of choice and supporting grades / test results would make sense. If “Johnny” isn’t able to read and analyze materially critically by high school (even if he could master it one day with more time and focus), it’s obvious that the track to college is moving too quickly — although a test to check these assumptions would be the right thing to do.

The military has an interesting model. When one enlists, s/he undergoes a battery of tests. These are related to intelligence, interest, and skills suitabiity… and all these results are then mapped to organizational need.

But just because one isn’t on the “college track” right now doesn’t have to close doors to a bright future or interesting and fulfilling careers, and I think that’s partly where we’ve gone somewhat off-track.

Some of the resistance to comprehensive reform seems to be a pushback against routing kids various directions early in high school (i.e. academics for higher ed, trade schools / vocations, etc.). From the linked Mathews column:

Forcing 16-year-olds and their families to make this major life decision, and basing it on a test, would be a return to the bad old days when we shoved minority kids into shop and home ec classes.

I suspect this is held over from the “career for life” social and economic structures of prior years. Today, however, employer / employee relationships tend to be fairly fluid, and people are re-inventing themselves in new careers with greater frequency.

Combine this more flexible modern work ethic with the related theories of detaching health care and pensions from employment, and a possible scenario for the future starts to take shape.

And DaveA, can we really compare our schools to Japan? I had always been under the impression they went year round, and their class time is longer as well. Could be wrong on that, but that has always been my assumption. If that IS true, imagine how much additional information you would have received by the 5th/6th grade. That simply would put you much further ahead of American students.

I’ll try to get back here tomorrow, Wife is on the way home, gotta go fix dinner!

Moreover, a lot of kids simply are not ready for college at 18. They will not take advantage of it and hence it will be a waste of their time and their parents’ / taxpayers’ money. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to go to college – and critically they should have the opportunity when they are ready at 35, not just when they are 18 – but being prepped for college is not the beginning and end of education. (I should restate that more carefully. I think that society would benefit if all who wish to take advantage of advanced education in a productive manner can take such advantage.)

I should also explain my “standard education to 10th grade” comment. The key word there was “standard”. Probably further education should be available universally past that point (at the 11th and 12th grade level), but it might be best if it was highly individualized. I benefited from taking trig and reading literature and studying physics in 11th grade. But I think there are a lot of 16-17 year olds who might benefit even more from getting a job and taking a couple classes on finance and entrepeneurship. Or classes in the morning where they study Spanish and CAD drafting tools with an internship in the afternoon. I assume people get the point with these examples. 10th to 11th graders should be becoming adults by this time, and one size simply does not fit all anymore.

First, I LOVE the standardized tests. Our problem is that each state sets its own level so what is tough in one state is easy in another, as funding is based on results, so some states *cough* ‘low ball’ it *cough* . . . Make the national test the standard for all states period.

The other benefit is acountability. Not sure on inner city schools, but the suburbs are fiercely competitive. Before testing I know my friends and I whom grow up in the area thought of primary shool as mostly jail time. Can you imagine coloring maps in 10th grade? Oh yeah. Now its all much, much improved in every school district I checked (5 including my old one). Coincidence? I think not.

Can a school teach to a test? To a degree, yes. But have you atually looked at the tests? I have for several states (OH, CA, TX). And I concluded that there is only so much you can teach too. The rest is simply do they read? Can they apply logic? and can they calculate?

The other point supporting standardized tests is China and Japan. ? Japan? Gee standardiuzed tests eh? And their poor kids do so bad educationally right?

I am calling BS on you. Have you ever looked at the test that the teachers complain about. They are extremely easier and generally well below grade level. What the teachers are really complaining about is that the tests are showing what happens when social engineering and social promotion are considered more important than academic education.

If the schools would refuse to promote anyone until they are performing at grade level then the United States would know that a high school diploma means somethings. These days it just means that the student showed up to class.