Friday, November 16, 2007
DROPOUT FACTORIES
Twenty-one of our high schools were classified as “dropout factories” by another of those reports critical of public education coming sporadically from the “big east” mills. Most Oklahoma urban schools made the list, and there were some surprises.
That was last week. This week we cannot seem to agree upon the statistical definition of a dropout, nor can we agree on the validity of dropout data from our high schools.
However, it does appear that we have a “failure to complete” rate of somewhere around 25 to 40 percent. That is certainly sufficient for concern.
We know most of the usual explanations. These include broken homes, and parents who place little value on an academic education. There are economic pressures away from school and toward work in many homes. Some kids have never been successful in school, so they leave at earliest opportunity. Some are not “achievement oriented.”
What about the demands that we are making on our schools in the name of excellence? What about the revision of our high school curricular requirements to mirror entrance to major universities? What about squeezing vocational education out of high schools with requirements for three years math, three years science, four years of English, and so on?
Not only have we created a single curricular path through high school, but we have aligned all the incentives (OHLAP scholarships) and punishments (testing programs) to support that singular path. In so doing, we have severely restricted student opportunities, and limited the role of vocational-technical schools in teaching trades to high school students.
Our schools and our society are in trauma because once again in our history we are trying to fit every youngster into the same mold, regardless of interest or aptitudes. Now we look at the results of what we have done, and refuse to see our own handiwork.
Public education must recognize and accommodate individual differences. While education has an obligation to society to produce functional citizens, normally that obligation is best served by assisting each individual to develop his/her own potential.
We need multiple sets of standards for multiple curricular paths, and not a single set of standard academic curricular and testing hurdles by which half are doomed to discouragement and failure. Should we wonder that our dropout rate is not higher?
History has a strange way of repeating itself. A hundred years ago we thought about curriculum much like we do now, but then only a few attended high school. Fifty years ago we knew better, and most completed high school under a more flexible set of curricular requirements. But along comes another generation, and that wisdom has somehow been lost.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
That was last week. This week we cannot seem to agree upon the statistical definition of a dropout, nor can we agree on the validity of dropout data from our high schools.
However, it does appear that we have a “failure to complete” rate of somewhere around 25 to 40 percent. That is certainly sufficient for concern.
We know most of the usual explanations. These include broken homes, and parents who place little value on an academic education. There are economic pressures away from school and toward work in many homes. Some kids have never been successful in school, so they leave at earliest opportunity. Some are not “achievement oriented.”
What about the demands that we are making on our schools in the name of excellence? What about the revision of our high school curricular requirements to mirror entrance to major universities? What about squeezing vocational education out of high schools with requirements for three years math, three years science, four years of English, and so on?
Not only have we created a single curricular path through high school, but we have aligned all the incentives (OHLAP scholarships) and punishments (testing programs) to support that singular path. In so doing, we have severely restricted student opportunities, and limited the role of vocational-technical schools in teaching trades to high school students.
Our schools and our society are in trauma because once again in our history we are trying to fit every youngster into the same mold, regardless of interest or aptitudes. Now we look at the results of what we have done, and refuse to see our own handiwork.
Public education must recognize and accommodate individual differences. While education has an obligation to society to produce functional citizens, normally that obligation is best served by assisting each individual to develop his/her own potential.
We need multiple sets of standards for multiple curricular paths, and not a single set of standard academic curricular and testing hurdles by which half are doomed to discouragement and failure. Should we wonder that our dropout rate is not higher?
History has a strange way of repeating itself. A hundred years ago we thought about curriculum much like we do now, but then only a few attended high school. Fifty years ago we knew better, and most completed high school under a more flexible set of curricular requirements. But along comes another generation, and that wisdom has somehow been lost.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard
