It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
High school sophomores should be ready for college by age 16. That's the message from New Hampshire education officials, who announced plans Oct. 30 for a new rigorous state board of exams to be given to 10th graders. Students who pass will be prepared to move on to the state's community or technical colleges, skipping the last two years of high school.
But can less schooling really lead to better-prepared students at an earlier age? Outside of the U.S., it's actually a far less radical notion than it sounds. Dozens of industrialized countries expect students to be college-ready by age 16, and those teenagers consistently outperform their American peers on international standardized tests.
With its new assessment system, New Hampshire is adopting a key recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel called the New Commission on Skills of the American Workforce. In 2006, the group issued a report called Tough Choices or Tough Times , a blueprint for how it believes the U.S. must dramatically overhaul education policies in order to maintain a globally competitive economy. "Forty years ago, the United States had the best educated workforce in the world," says William Brock, one of the commission's chairs and a former U.S. Secretary of Labor. "Now we're No. 10 and falling."
Critics of cutting high school short, however, worry that proposals such as New Hampshire's could exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps. One key concern is whether test results, at age 16, are really valid enough to indicate if a child should go to university or instead head to a technical school — with the latter almost certainly guaranteeing lower future earning potential. "You know that the kids sent in that direction are going to be from low-income, less-educated families while wealthy parents won't permit it," says Iris Rotberg, a George Washington University education policy professor, who notes similar results in Europe and Asia. She predicts, in turn, that disparity will mean "an even more polarized higher education structure — and ultimately society — than we already have."
When the report of the first Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, was released in 1990, the globalization of the world’s economy was just getting underway. That Commission understood the threat in the straightforward terms captured in the report’s subtitle. A worldwide market was developing in low-skill labor, it said, and the work requiring low-skills would go to those countries where the price of low-skill labor was the lowest. If the United States wanted to continue to compete in that market, it could look forward to a continued decline in wages and very long working hours. Alternatively, it could abandon low-skill work and concentrate on competing in the worldwide market for high-value-added products and services. To do that, it would have to adopt internationally benchmarked standards for educating its students and its workers, because only countries with highly skilled workforces could successfully compete in that market.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
I know it isn't your fault, adrenochrome, but the article title is a ill framed.
"Should Kids Be Able to Graduate After 10th Grade?"
I know I and my entire senior class graduated 'after' the 10th grade?
And the title was probably decided by someone who spent that extra two years at high school, in addition to whatever continued education was completed.
A bit of irony there for you...
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Some pendantic smarty pants always has to jump into the fold, eh? Well, I read it as "to allow graduation at any point following the 10th grade."
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Whoa...hold up there for a second. Of course the statement is equal for more than one scenario. However, your phrasing above would have been the more fitting choice as it is clear and concise. The chosen title is technically inaccurate.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
The moral of my post was such that, in some cases, the extra two years of schooling may not make a difference as far as academics go. I actually agree with the concerns above that this move would widen the socioeconomic divide even more. And currently, the upper class does not need the help in continuing that trend.
I would have to agree with this position. Let the kids be kids as long as they can. Besides, it should be up to the parents and the kids what and when they should do, not the state.
Originally posted by jibeho
The majority of 16 year olds are in no mature enough to handle college and the university atmosphere that surrounds it. 18 year olds can barely cope with it. Perhaps this would have been different 20 years ago in regards to maturity level.
I personally feel that the 16 year olds today expect everything and do not want to work for anything. Many of them do not even hold jobs or want to hold jobs. They have not developed a key sense of self worth or have yet understand the value of a dollar.
Why the rush to force kids to grow up so soon?? I find it refreshing when I actually observe kids that have and use their imagination. At 16 I focused on school, getting a license, getting a job to pay for car insurance and finding a date for homecoming. 16 year olds don't need to worry about anything else.