No more senior year?

[themusicteacher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28FOB-wwln-t.html

So, this Utah state senator thinks we should do away with senior year. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, yeah, our education system is outdated and senior year can be a throw-away. OTOH, many kids mature that year and discover a lot about themselves and what they want to do with the rest of their life. Also, I think this may lead to even more educational inequality where students now feel as though they don't have to work to learn and that they can just enter wage-slavery a year earlier. I have no illusions that more poor kids would choose to leave early than would more affluent kids. Of course, the author is correct: we would have lower drop-out rates because those kids who were going to drop out after their junior year would be done anyhow (although most kids that drop out do so after their freshman year).

Thoughts?

[drkitten]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28FOB-wwln-t.html

So, this Utah state senator thinks we should do away with senior year.

I think there's a similar proposal coming out of Idaho, IIRC, although this would only apply to certain select students who could apply for what amounts to "early graduation." The Utah proposal appears to be to eliminate 12th grade entirely and to make all students graduate at 17, or alternatively to allow all students to graduate at 17 without regard to their academic progress.


On one hand, yeah, our education system is outdated and senior year can be a throw-away. OTOH, many kids mature that year and discover a lot about themselves and what they want to do with the rest of their life.

Why would they need to be in school to mature and discover stuff about themselves?


Also, I think this may lead to even more educational inequality where students now feel as though they don't have to work to learn and that they can just enter wage-slavery a year earlier.

Not seeing this, I'm afraid. Could you unpack this?


Thoughts?

I prefer the Idaho variation of the proposal -- you can graduate once you've completed the graduation requirements. (This is how most colleges work as well; you can complete a degree in three years or six -- you just have to get the necessary number of credits and courses.) I see no reason why a student who could technically fail every class her senior year (I was one of those) and still "graduate" should be required to sit in class.

A lot of colleges feel the same way and have early admission programs for college-bound juniors so that they can skip their senior years if they like. The problem is that if something happens, they end up without a college degree or a high school diploma and need to hustle around and pick up a GED for credentials. It makes more sense to me that this type of student should be able to get their ticket punched a year early.

I don't think that this should be used to water down graduation requirements; if you haven't passed algebra at the end of your junior year, you still need to attend as a senior (and pass algebra) to get the diploma. But that doesn't seem to be the effect of this proposal.

[TellyKNeasuss]

I don't get it. In just about every place in the USofA you can legally drop out of school once you've turned 16. What would making 12th grade "voluntary" change?

I know that it's been a long time since I've been in school, but I don't recall 12th grade as being a non-stop party.

[drkitten]

I don't get it. In just about every place in the USofA you can legally drop out of school once you've turned 16. What would making 12th grade "voluntary" change?

Dropouts don't have high school diplomas, which are de-facto requirements for most jobs as well as acceptance to many (most?) colleges. As a simple example, "a person who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for enlistment in the armed forces unless the score of that person on the Armed Forces Qualification Test is at or above the thirty-first percentile." The sort of person who's likely simply to "drop out" isn't likely to score well on the AFQT -- and it's not like the Army is a highly-selective, highly-prestigious job.

Even a GED isn't very good in this regard; the Army will not typically accept people with GEDs in lieu of high school diplomas.

[TellyKNeasuss]

A lot of colleges feel the same way and have early admission programs for college-bound juniors so that they can skip their senior years if they like. The problem is that if something happens, they end up without a college degree or a high school diploma and need to hustle around and pick up a GED for credentials.

Interesting. I actually wasn't aware that there are American colleges that enroll students who have only completed 11th grade and don't have a GED.

[fullflavormenthol]

I think a lot of the arguments I come across for insisting that every student go through four years of high school are always based on the warm fuzzies. Personally I got really bored with high school by the start of my junior year, whichis why I applied for early graduation using the credits I had built up taking summer classes. It only meant that I had to go through half of my senior year, but still that was better than sitting around through all "college prep" classes I was taking.

I think if a student can fullfill the requirements faster than other students they should be allowed to graduate.

[drkitten]

Interesting. I actually wasn't aware that there are American colleges that enroll students who have only completed 11th grade and don't have a GED.

For many (most?) college-bound students, senior year is something of a formality, especially with the number of accelerated and AP-type classes available. This is particularly true of the upper echelon of colleges and of students -- i.e. if you're the sort of undergraduate that Johns Hopkins wants in the first place, they know you will graduate and they are similarly confident that you'll complete Hopkins as well.

So there's something of a competitive advantage in being able to offer bored high school juniors a chance to jump straight into college-level work; if you get that kind of offer from Hopkins but not from Harvard, maybe you'll be more likely to go to Hopkins....

[themusicteacher]

I think there's a similar proposal coming out of Idaho, IIRC, although this would only apply to certain select students who could apply for what amounts to "early graduation." The Utah proposal appears to be to eliminate 12th grade entirely and to make all students graduate at 17, or alternatively to allow all students to graduate at 17 without regard to their academic progress.




Why would they need to be in school to mature and discover stuff about themselves?



Not seeing this, I'm afraid. Could you unpack this?



I prefer the Idaho variation of the proposal -- you can graduate once you've completed the graduation requirements. (This is how most colleges work as well; you can complete a degree in three years or six -- you just have to get the necessary number of credits and courses.) I see no reason why a student who could technically fail every class her senior year (I was one of those) and still "graduate" should be required to sit in class.

A lot of colleges feel the same way and have early admission programs for college-bound juniors so that they can skip their senior years if they like. The problem is that if something happens, they end up without a college degree or a high school diploma and need to hustle around and pick up a GED for credentials. It makes more sense to me that this type of student should be able to get their ticket punched a year early.

I don't think that this should be used to water down graduation requirements; if you haven't passed algebra at the end of your junior year, you still need to attend as a senior (and pass algebra) to get the diploma. But that doesn't seem to be the effect of this proposal.

Well, I don't necessarily think that a kid needs to be in high school to mature but it is a safe(r) environment, in my opinion, than a college would be for someone that isn't socially ready to be with that age-group yet (not that 18 year-olds are ready, either).

I see inequality in that poorer students would be more likely to skip out (or even be encouraged to skip out) early rather than taking on an extra year of advanced courses or college prep. Maybe they could be college material or have higher aspirations but their family needs money and they see this as a way to do that. To be sure, this happens already but having the option may be too much of a temptation. I think it would artificially lower the dropout rate but we'd still have the same number of kids failing at school.

Certainly, if a student has met graduation requirements and wants to move on, they should be able to do that but there are consequences to that choice. I'm all for developmental progress rather than grade-level advancement based on age but, let's be honest, children mature socially at a much slower rate than they do academically (in most cases).

I can also agree that schools need to change but there are other ways to do this than to just let 17 year-old's do whatever the hell they want once they've finished with their "required" courses. Let's face it, they're still 17 and most of them are not ready to make that leap into the full-time workforce or college yet. Our school is definitely one of the culprits (even though we have very high standards and good academic programs) that lets kids coast through their senior year if they so choose. It seems to be that parents play a strong role in this: they either let them slack or ask them to expect more of themselves and find new challenges.

I guess the key here is "option," that they and their families have a choice in what to do: finish early and move on or stay behind and chill or take come more challenging courses. It's an interesting thought but I don't think just flat eliminating the senior year is the way to go.

[Mick Houlahan]

I'm guessing that LESS education isn't going to help most students.

[Dancing David]

Our local junior college and high schools make it so you can take college courses your senior year. Best part the school district pays for it.

The jr. college also has courses that transfer directly to a four year setting.

[themusicteacher]

Our local junior college and high schools make it so you can take college courses your senior year. Best part the school district pays for it.

The jr. college also has courses that transfer directly to a four year setting.

Yeah, I think this is a good thing. Our school requires that you take at least one dual-credit class or AP. I'm still not sure that (continuing) truncating childhood/adolescence is a good thing. Again, there are a lot of other more appropriate ways you could think of to change the senior year into something more meaningful than just a throw-away than simply eliminating it.