High Schools at the Tipping Point

Are U.S. high schools failing us?

In "High Schools at the Tipping Point," Bob Wise states that U.S. high schools are failing because they were "never designed to meet today's moral and economic demands of graduating all students." Despite these changing demands, Wise notes that the typical high school education has remained virtually unchanged since the current system was developed in the early 20th century.

The May issue of EL looks at Reshaping High Schools from several angles. Bob Wise points to three approaches to reform that have emerged from successful schools' experiences and calls for a "Sputnik-like" federal response to the dropout crisis and the challenges of job and college readiness.

Wise suggests that schools needs to align their expectations with those of college and the workplace, take a more individualized approach to education, and make better use of data and of technology. Do you believe these recommendations would make schools more effective? What other changes would you make to the current system?

Comments

[Mandy Schuyler]

As a very hard working high school teacher who used to be an industry executive, I find the concept of politicians who have never worked in a classroom designing the future of American High Schools appalling. No-one, least of all my fellow teachers and I, would deny the need for deep reforms. But they should not simply focus on the redesign of the high school (which I also agree is required). They should focus on education for parents, far more stringent methods of electing and keeping school board officials, reform of the preparation for high school which occurs in middle school and training for teachers in how to show teenagers the relevance of the subjects and lesson plans to young adults headed for different kinds of futures. Restructuring will give us a new, and hopefully useful bone structure. We need an experienced brain (administrators and school boards) and a well exercised heart (teachers with new ideas and support) to make it a living reality. Not the election concerns of a politician and consultant who has never run a classroom.

[James Linzel]

Hrmmm...
I'll agree with Mr Wise that reform is necessary, greater individualized structure is required and that the community must be more engaged. I disagree with the alignment with college and business expectations bit. We are educating students for a future that is changing so rapidly we don't know, in many cases, what the skill and knowledge requirements are. We have been following a model of 'industrialized' eduction since the dawn of the 20th century which was designed to prepare workers. It is this structure that no longer works. We (teachers) need help students structure learning environments from an early age [what the age is I do not know] that utilizes their wonderment and energy in areas they are profoundly influenced by. We, as teachers, then guide them to the sources of knowledge and skill they need to pursue those desires and passions. Yes, it sounds a naive utopia but it would individualize and motivate. We would no longer tell students what to learn, they would create their own path - with guidance [since they won't have the knowledge of interdisciplinary content]. This is the school I want to design and build.

[Jeff Ballin]

These kinds of views, while well intentioned simply mirror the anti teacher and anti public school mythology which has grown into a national cause during the last decade, fortified by the abysmal NCLB. The problems in schools reflect the problems in our society bith nationally and locally. We have become a nation dedicated to pretending that all people are entitled to succeed regardless of ability and effor. Pundits and parents clamor for more "rigor" and higher standards, providing they don't impact their kids.
Most of the contemporary educational ideaology is counter productive to the stated goals. The problem is bad parenting, bizarre expectations and the erosion of competition fostered by the "self-esteem" movement. JB