Moving more of our state's educational resources from the top of the K-12 system to the bottom and even earlier in children's' lives demands strong consideration and debate during this election year.
Although I don't agree with the idea (or rather I haven't given it sufficient consideration) it does relate to an idea I heard from an CA educator several years ago: Complete general education at age 16, and then provide 2 additional years of specialized programming related to the students interests: vocational/technical training, college prep in specific subject areas, etc. The idea was based on the observation that our current K-12 system was devised about two centuries ago and is not a good fit to students who mature an average of 2 years faster than they did then. Reworking the system in this way would be a better match to the needs and interests of students.
I do think that if we were going to design an education system from the ground up without any precedents, then that system would have some big differences from what actually have.
I do unequivocally agree with the last statement in the editorial:
Tinkering around the edges of education reform won't be enough to move our state forward.
12 comments:
The idea of the last 2 years being specialized reminds me of the German system. They pick 2 subjects to "specialize" in for their last so many years. They still take other subjects I believe but spend more of their time on 2 areas.
OK, so this is pretty much unrelated to this post, but I saw the "top 10" of this year's senior class in the Herald this week and their intended colleges. Please, please understand this is not about any of them personally - they are wonderful kids and should be very proud of what they have achieved, but year after year I see this and wonder why MG does not regularly have kids who go to Ivy league schools or other top institutions like Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, etc. Certainly our top academic performers are as smart and well-prepared as other kids across the country, no? So why don't we send our best and brightest off to the best schools? Why is it that the holy grail for our grads seems to be UW-Madison? A great school to be sure, but certainly we have kids with the ability to attend the top institutions in our country, of which UW-Madison is not for most undergraduate programs. Further, the advantages a degree from a place like Stanford, Harvard, Cornell, etc. confers upon a person are enormous. Why aren't our kids going to these places on a regular basis? Are the kids who have the "chops" for these institutions encouraged to apply by our guidance counselors?
The 2nd Anonymous asks a good question.
My thought is the cost of an Ivy League school is too much for most kids in Monona Grove to even consider. Families may qualify for $10,000-$15,000 in grants each year, and still have to pay 3 times as much as they would at the UW.
Plus it costs a couple hundred bucks just to apply to a college. I'm sure some of them would like to know if they could get in, but if you've paid $500 for your "most likely," do you really want to spend another $100 just to get a letter?
A few observations:
-- Admission to the very top-tier of colleges (the eight Ivy League schools, a few others like Stanford, MIT, Cal-Tech) has become incredibly competitive, i.e, Harvard now admits fewer than 7 percent of its applicants.
-- MG in recent years has sent graduates to some very good schools, albiet not as fiercely competitive -- Georgetown, Rice, Vanderbilt, Carnegie-Mellon, plus solid and competitive Midwest liberal arts schools like Lawrence, Macalester, Grinnell and Carleton. Washington U. in St. Louis (where one grad this year may go) is an outstanding school. And MG sends dozens of kids annually to Madison, which gets more competitive every year and remains -- with a few specialized exceptions -- the best place to earn an undergraduate degree in the state.
-- Cost is a huge factor. I know of one recent grad accepted at both Madison and the U. of Chicago, about as top-tier as it gets. The cost of four years at Chicago would've been $250,000; he went to Madison.
-- Course rigor is an issue at MG; the college prep curriculum could be strengthened, and isn't as rigorous as some public and private high schools in Wisconsin. It's not nearly as rigorous as that found on the East Coast, which has hundreds of schools geared SOLELY toward prepping kids for admission into top-tier schools.
-- The guidance dept. at the high school as long under-estimated the academic stature of MG kids, and their ability to get into competitive colleges. They tend to funnel kids into three categories: the real bright ones (Madison), the pretty smart ones (other UW campuses) and those who might need some schooling after MG (MATC). Kids who end up at competitive private schools do so largely out of their own and their parents' initiative.
I think the post of the Monona Parent speaks to some of the problem in our guidance department, which is that they do not adequately advise families on private college options and leave them assume the cost will be too high. Many very good private schools offer very attractive financial aid to academically talented students that bring their costs down to what a family would need to pay at a place like UW Madison. As mentioned in the above post, the kids who end up at these places do so because their parents knew what to do. My concern is with top-end kids who do not have that sort of family support, or "social capital" is it is often called.
While a UW-Madison degree is certainly respected, it is not necessarily a good option for many students. It's a huge campus and it does not give the student a chance to get out of their hometown. It certainly should not be the only option being considered by a family with a kid who has top grades, a big fat ACT score and good extra-curricular participation. These kids should be strongly encouraged to consider other options. The choice to not leave one's hometown should be just that - a fully informed choice, not some sort of default for the our top students.
Well, I think people tend to take UW-Madison for granted, without realizing just how good of a school it is. If MG traded locations with Oshkosh High, most folks in MG would be talking about how great it was that such a wonderful university was less than two hours away so students wouldn't have to "settle" for their hometown UW campus.
The big campus thing goes both ways -- yes, it's huge, and probably not the right fit for some students. But the range and depth (and quality) of programs at Madison is pretty amazing, better than all but a handful of public universities in the country.
Sure, the MG guidance department could be better informed. I wonder how many there now realize some of big changes occuring in financial aid at top-tier colleges, with many going toward grant-based (no or few loans) programs, and setting income ceilings whereby parents and students don't really have to go into hock to afford school.
But, that's asking a lot of a guidance department structured so that each counselor is in charge of roughly 300 kids a year. You could do "guidance counseling" a whole lot differently than MG does it now, but the department is not set up in any way to deal with the (relatively ) few students and parents who need help navigating the private college/financial aid world.
I am not a big fan of relying upon volunteer help as you often get what you pay for. But the college guidance situation is certainly one that could take advantage of local volunteers. We have a highly educated community with many folks who are familiar with the higher ed landscape, including older parents who have navigated the scene on behalf of their own children who are now adults. I understand the guidance department now meets one-on-one with kids and their parents during their sophomore year? That would be a great time to offer the help of a community mentor to families who express an interest. It would be some work for the guidance department to maintain a list of volunteers/mentors, but it would also lighten their load in the long run.
". I understand the guidance department now meets one-on-one with kids and their parents during their sophomore year?"
They are required to by state law. MG sends the most students of any area school to MATC-fact.
"They are required to by state law. MG sends the most students of any area school to MATC-fact."
Is this a good thing?
"Is this a good thing?"
Up to you, but for all the blow and bustle about how good are kids are and the academics. The fact still stands MG sends more kids to MATC then any other area school.
About the MATC thing, I think it's fabulous in many regards. We have classes at MG that count toward MATC degrees. A sort of community college AP situation, if you will. MATC can be a very good value. But I think that if we did the stats, we'd find that kids from lower income families end up at MATC whereas kids from higher income families end up at 4-year colleges somewhat independent of academic ability. We would probably also find that one of the determining factors in where are kids go has to do with the educational background of the parents. And that stinks. But that's a problem that is beyond the scope of MG to solve. Access to higher ed in this country is still controlled by family income far more than academic ability and a willingness to work hard.
I think any schooling beyond high school is great -- in fact, it's really a necessity. My concern with MG (and to some extent its guidance dept.) is that kids often times aren't pushed enough to realize their fullest potential. There's not a culture of true academic excellence that runs through the entire high school -- there is in some quarters, but it's more sporadic and haphazard than it ought to be. Maybe the kid who figures they ought to get a two-year certificate in auto mechanics at MATC might be encouraged to take up engineering at UW-Platteville. Maybe the kid thinking of nursing should consider great four-year nursing programs at UW-Eau Claire or Oshkosh instead of the two-year nursing program at MATC.
Post a Comment