Should students be able to graduate after completing 10th grade? That is now being discussed in the New Hampshire Dept of Ed, as reported by some of the NH papers. I sit here amazed that anyone would ask that question. What’s more bothersome is that we have adults, paid by NH residents, who think this is a good idea.
NH Education Commissioner Lionel Tracy is now floating the idea of graduating some students upon completion of 10th grade. He says that the test, which has not been produced yet, would be a difficult test modeled after the AP or IB tests and that 10th graders would have to pass this exam in order to graduate early. Isn’t the NH Education Department the same branch of government that thinks the NECAP is a good indicator of proficiency in math and science? Yet we have some of the top mathematicians and scientists who have given their expert analysis indicating our standards are some of the worst in the country. How can we trust the validity of this test when our own standards lack substance? Thomas B. Fordham Institute – Publication Detail
The article goes on to say that those who want to go on to prestigious universities can still graduate after 12th grade and take an even tougher exam. That translates to lower expectations and standards for the graduating 10th graders. On one hand Tracy says these 10th grade students who graduate would be held to high standards and have to pass a rigorous exam. Then he goes on to say that the bar is higher for those graduating 12th grade. If the bar is set higher for 12th graders with a more difficult test, logic dictates it’s lowered for 10th graders because less would be required of them.
Why would parents want to subject their child to missing out on two years of education? Especially since it is their taxes that have paid for it? I did not notice anything about Tracy saying taxpayers would get a refund on those tax dollars saved.
This sounds like a cost cutting measure that once again, does nothing to help the students of NH. It does sound wonderful for companies out there looking for full-time, unskilled workers making one wonder who Governor Lynch is working for: the New Hampshire students and parents or simply trying to meet the needs of a global workforce.
To whom is Lionel Tracy looking for guidance? Marc Tucker who wrote the well known letter to Hillary Clinton. (The Marc Tucker "Dear Hillary" Letter )– He promoted programs like school to work ( http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/apr97/psrapr97.html ) and outcome based education ( What’s Wrong With Outcome-Based Education? ) Both have been proven failures as far as improving academics among the student body. ( Revenge of the blob – outcome-based education | National Review | Find Articles at BNET ) The mission of the schools for Tucker was to take schools FROM teaching academic basics and knowledge to training students to serve the global economy selected by workforce boards.
The goal seems to be training students as opposed to educating students. I’m missing how this is supposed to close the achievement gap, and it sounds as if it will only increase it.
Obviously Tracy is trying to repackage a program that has already failed too many students before. It’s a way of restructuring the public schools by bypassing elected school board members and redirecting funding. There’s also a plan to have a database where schools could scan all information about every child and their family which seems to be building upon the costly "Follow the Child" program in many of our schools that does nothing to improve the academics for those children. (Follow The Child Index)
This connects a merging vocational and general education to create a polytechnical system — similar to what has existed in Germany, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere in Europe. (federally-funded 1990 "Polytechnical Education: A Step" by Robert H. Beck) ( Polytechnical Education: A Step. )
Implementation in the U.S. received a big push nationally with the passage of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act signed into law by Clinton in 1994. School to Work was later folded into Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act.
The U.S. initiatives for creating a polytechnical system were preceded by the UNESCO 1989 Convention on Vocational and Technical Education. (http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/pdf/TECVOC_E.PDF )
But all the above were predated by what was referred to as "lifelong education/learning" as written about earlier in UNESCO and International Bureau of Education (IBE) documents.
Tracy’s plan does not make students smarter; it simply molds them into a "subordinate" in the global economy. Are public schools in the business of educating students or supplying corporations their workforce without the academic knowledge that could carry them to higher levels in the future?
