Schooling in America

I was just reading an article on how almost half of students entering college need remedial classes, either in math or english. The article also discussed a desire by some states to enlist a K-16 educational model to help make sure that education is properly transitioned all the way through college graduation.

I had a wonderful idea that I just had to write down somewhere, although I'm sure it would never see the light of day.

How many of you remember the old days when there were different curriculums for those entering college versus those who were stopping at graduation. When I was in high school, the option was still there at Ravenna, but it was almost a joke for someone not to take the college prep line of classes. Granted, there were many who did not, but it was still their expectation that they could go on to college if they wanted, as is.

I think it's time for this thought to change.

We need to have two separate curriculums for our high school students, and, for that matter, they could diverge even sooner than that if needed. One, for students who want to attend college, would be difficult, and would only concentrate on the key areas expected by colleges: math, reading and writing, and science. Any other areas, such as topics like geography, history, government, etc., could still easily be covered, and may best be encompassed within an "english" setting.

The second curriculum, for students not intending to go to college, would cover a much broader span of subjects, presumably to prepare the students for real life, and could get by without forcing huge amounts of math, science, or english on them. After all, other than simple math (add,subtract,multiply,divide), and being able to read on a somewhat basic level, how much would a non-college graduate use anyway?

Of course, I'm sure that you're thinking that this is going to leave students who decide later to go to college in an uncomfortable position. This is where my idea gets really radical. It's my contention that, if you as a junior-high- or high-school student decide you don't want to go to college, and you only get the "life-oriented" diploma, colleges have the right to refuse you for entrance, no matter what potential you show. This puts the responsibility squarely on the parents of a child, or the child him/herself to make the right decision early on, and stick with it.

I would give the option to any student in the college-prep curriculum the option to drop down at any time, if they really felt they would not be able to make it. This curriculum would be necessarily difficult, and there should be no graduate who cannot transition easily into a college environment. High schools would have to be redesigned to meet this goal, because I could easily see a decent percentage of students not making it out on a normal schedule.

The easiest way to ease the burden on high schools to accomplish this goal would be a floating grade system. No more rigid "freshman, sophomore, junior, senior" crap. You have teachers that cover certain subjects, but don't teach en masse anymore. They are there to work individually with the students currently taking their module. And students within each module progress at their own pace. Those who have problems with a certain module may take longer and "fall behind" their peers, but may catch up in other areas. Once you've finished a module, you instantly move on to the next module, which builds upon the last. There would be no "pass or fail", because the student keeps trying until there is a clear understanding of the material, without regard for "school years".

A block schedule would be perfect for this type of teaching. Each student has four blocks, each of which covers one particular line of teaching, whether it be math, or reading comprehension, or sciences, or writing, or whatever is deemed a significant section of college preparation. One teacher "may" teach multiple modules, or the student may move from one room to another as each module is completed.

Now, I understand that many educational professionals would be worried about the self-esteem issues that this type of system may cause in some of the "slower" students. It is my contention that the self-esteem of the students should not be suffering solely because their peers are progressing faster than them, or because they are in a module with a group of younger students. The satisfaction of being able to complete a module correctly, and not just be "let through" or "squeak by", should reinforce the self-esteem of a child.

Socially within the high school, students can still be sectioned off as desired to help them socialize with their own peers if they so choose, and for other topics such as sports, music, and other extra-curriculars. Of course, those taking longer to complete the high school curriculum will lose many of their peers to college, and may be forced to make friendships with younger students instead.

I've no doubt that my idea has many holes which need fixing. Feel free to leave me comments to tell me where you think this idea could be improved. This schooling idea is actually so fascinating to me that I may very well work this into a book somehow, or at least write a paper on it to submit to an educational institution nearby.

Thanks in advance for your input.