“Kid, I’m Sorry, but You’re Just Not College Material”



By 03/21/2014

3 Comments | Print | NO PDF |

It’s an article of faith in the school reform community that we should be striving to prepare all students for success in college—if not a four-year degree, then some other recognized and reputable post-secondary credential. The rationale is clear and generally compelling; as a recent Pew study reiterated, people who graduate from college earn significantly more than those who do not. Other research indicates that low-income students in particular benefit from college, becoming nearly three times more likely to make it into the middle class than their peers who earn some (or no) college credits. And it’s not just about money: College graduates are also healthier, more involved in their communities, and happier in their jobs.

Thus, in the reformers’ bible, the greatest sin is to look a student in the eye and say, “Kid, I’m sorry, but you’re just not college material.”

But what if such a cautionary sermon is exactly what some teenagers need? What if encouraging students to take a shot at the college track—despite very long odds of crossing its finish line—does them more harm than good? What if our own hyper-credentialed life experiences and ideologies are blinding us to alternative pathways to the middle class? Including some that might be a lot more viable for a great many young people? What if we should be following the lead of countries like Germany, where “tracking” isn’t a dirty word but a common-sense way to prepare teenagers for respected, well-paid work?

Here’s a stark fact: According to research by Georgetown’s Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, less than 10 percent of poor children now graduate with a four-year college degree. Imagine that all of our reform efforts prove successful, from initiatives to bolster the prenatal health of disadvantaged babies, to high-quality early-childhood experiences, to dramatic improvements in K-12 education, to serious interventions and supports at the college level. Push the pedal to the metal and assume that nothing crashes. Where do we get? Maybe in the course of a generation, we could double the proportion of poor children making it to a college diploma. Tripling it would be a staggering accomplishment. Anything approaching that would be an enormous achievement, unprecedented in the annals of social progress. Yet that would still leave two-thirds or more of low-income youngsters needing another path if they’re truly going to access the middle class.

Let’s see how this works from the perspective of a student. Imagine that you’re finishing ninth grade at a large comprehensive urban high school. The year hasn’t gone very well; because you are reading and doing math at a sixth-grade level, much of your coursework is a struggle. Nor have you had much of an opportunity to develop the “non-cognitive skills” that would help you to remediate the situation. You are foundering, failing courses, and thinking about dropping out.

Though we should be working hard to improve elementary and middle schools so that you don’t reach this point, the fact remains that you have. A rational system would acknowledge that, with just three years until graduation, the likelihood of you getting to a true “college readiness” level by the end of 12th grade is extremely low. Even if all the pieces come together in dramatic fashion—you get serious help with your basic skills, someone finds you a great mentor, your motivation for hitting the books increases significantly—you probably aren’t going to make it. You need another pathway, one with significantly greater chances of success and a real payoff at the end—a job that will allow you to be self-sufficient. You need high-quality career and technical education, ideally the kind that combines rigorous coursework with a real-world apprenticeship, and maybe even a paycheck.

To be sure, your long-term earnings will probably be lower than if you squeak out a college degree. But that’s a false choice, because you’re almost surely not going to get that college degree anyway. The decision is whether to follow the college route to almost certain failure, or to follow another route to significant success.

But our system isn’t rational, and it doesn’t like to acknowledge long odds. Perhaps it used to, but this sort of realism was judged to be deterministic, racist, and classist. And for sure, when judgments were made on the basis of ZIP code or skin color, the old system was exactly that. Those high school “tracks” were immutable, and those who wound up in “voc-ed” (or, at least as bad, the “general” track) were those for whom secondary schooling, in society’s eyes, was mostly a custodial function.

But making sure that there are real options for our young people—options that include high-quality career and technical education—is a totally different proposition. We shouldn’t force anyone into that route, but we also shouldn’t guilt kids with low odds of college success—regardless of their race or class—to keep trudging through academic coursework as teens. Yet it appears that we are doing just that; according to Kate Blosveren Kreamer of the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education, only 20 percent of high school students “concentrate” in career and technical education, even though that’s a better bet for many more of them. Then, even when students graduate high school with seventh-grade skills, we encourage them to enroll in college, starting with several semesters of “developmental” education.

This might be the greatest crime. How do low-income students who start community college in remedial courses fare? According to the college-access advocacy group Complete College America, less than 10 percent of them complete a two-year degree within three years. Most won’t ever get past their remedial courses.  Almost certain failure.

College access advocates look at those numbers and want to double down on reform, seeking to improve the quality of remedial education, or to skip it entirely, encouraging unprepared students to enroll directly in credit-bearing courses, or to offer heavy doses of student support. All are worth trying for students at the margins. But few people are willing to admit that perhaps college just isn’t a good bet for people with seventh-grade reading and math skills at the end of high school.

Unfortunately, our federal education policy encourages schools and students to ignore the long odds of college success. Federal Pell Grants, for instance, can be used for remedial education; institutions are more than happy to take the money, even if they are terrible at remediating students’ deficits, which is why I’ve proposed making remedial education ineligible for Pell financing. On the other hand, Pell can only be used for vocational education that takes place through an accredited college or university; job-based training, and most apprenticeships, do not qualify. That should change.

I have no desire to punish students or deprive them of opportunity. Quite the contrary. My aim is to stop pretending that high school or college students with very low basic skills have a real shot of earning a college degree—so that they might follow an alternative path that will lead to success. A college graduate will generally outearn a high school graduate, to be sure. But a worker with technical skills will outearn a high school or college dropout with no such skills. That’s the true choice facing many students.

Furthermore, for kids facing the toughest challenges of poverty, it makes sense to think about opportunity over multiple generations. College might catapult prepared low-income kids into the middle class in one fell swoop, but using high-quality career and technical education to give low-income youngsters who are not ready for college a foothold on the ladder to success is a victory as well. If they can escape poverty and all the social ills that come with it, their children have a significantly better shot at the college path. After all, that’s how upward mobility in America has generally worked: Not in one bounce but slowly and surely over decades.

Happily, this sort of common sense is starting to re-enter the conversation (thanks, in part, to the persistence of the folks at Harvard’s Pathways to Prosperity initiative, who called in 2011 for a broader approach to education reform, one that includes high-quality career technical education). In a very important recent Politico piece, Stephanie Simon shows how lawmakers, especially in red states, are starting to worry that the “college for all” ideology is doing material harm to students. Asking all students to pass algebra II makes a ton of sense if you expect all of them to go to college. But when you are willing to acknowledge that that’s a fool’s errand, you start to see such mandates as barriers to opportunity—the opportunity to pursue career and technical programs that are likely to produce better long-term outcomes for young people.

It’s particularly urgent that those of us who support the Common Core be willing to speak honestly about these issues. If the new Common Core assessments set the high school graduation bar at true college readiness—meaning students are on track to take credit bearing courses from day one—the country is likely to learn that scarcely one-third of all students, and many fewer low-income students, are at that level now. Even Massachusetts, our shining star, gets just half its young people to that level. By all means, we should do everything we can to boost those numbers, starting as early as possible, and including common-sense reforms like reintroducing serious academic content to the elementary and middle school curriculum and replicating “no excuses” charter schools like KIPP.

At the same time, however, rather than pretend that we’re going to get “all students” to “climb the mountain to college,” we should build a system that helps many students find another road to the middle class—a path that starts with a better prekindergarten-through-eighth-grade education and then develops strong technical and interpersonal skills in high school and at community colleges. This is an honorable path, and one that’s much sturdier than the rickety bridges to failure that we’ve got now.

-Michael Petrilli

This first appeared on Slate.com




Comment on this article
  • jayt says:

    A lifetime working with teenagers in both residential settings and as a HS Guidance Counselor I agree with your premises re college is not for everyone.
    Me, maxed out at about $100k after a career in the NYC school system, my older son a union electrician earning $78k in his first year, without overtime. At retirement I collect a pension and write responses to articles like yours, he will work one day a week, if he deigns to, and make more in one day than I ever did. Let’s not forget you can’t outsource an electrical/ plumbing/ AC problem or get tech support on the phone. As we emphasize the money involved people will come to see this direction to be more valuable then a BS in liberal arts. Germany has a system that works very well, plus the lowest unemployment % during this long downturn which we’re still stuck in.

  • Ed Jones says:

    Mike, it’s almost funny how many schools actually are (have long been!) building this system. You wouldn’t really know it from the national ed debates.

    Take Canton city schools. Years back now, they began to refocus their schools. With two HS buildings, they allowed one to focus more on ‘academic’ content, and another more on ‘career’ prep. Further, each building has ‘small schools’.

    Timken school, right downtown, has an Arts academy, a services academy, and a tech academy. Courses in the services academy are:
    Allied Health
    Banking/Finance
    Cosmetology
    Early Childhood
    JROTC
    Nurse Technology
    Public Safety/Criminal Science
    Courses in the Tech academy are Auto Collision
    Auto Tech
    Building Tech
    Project Lead the Way ——-Pre-Engineering
    Video Gaming
    Welding
    Are these the right classes for the looming future? Is one pre-engineering class the best we can offer a student?

    Meanwhile, do we know these are quality classes? Are there mechanisms to provide visibility and collaboration?

    At the policy level, we’re concerned about what they do in the other classes. They still, as you say, have that Algebra III issue. We track their proficiency as to 9th grade math, meaning Algebra I. I’m definitely not suggestion CCSSO for auto tech, but is there another path to transparency that we could hope for?

    Then there’s alignment of concepts. I mentioned on Flypaper about sine waves. “The power to every computer, factory, iPhone charger, kitchen arrives in the form of a sine wave. So do the wireless signals to all of these devices. ‘The sinusoidal function is used to describe natural phenomena such as earthquakes, sound waves, electrical currents and erosion found in gravel roads’, says the Ohio Resource center. And, it can describe political and even religious trends over longer periods of time. If you are measuring a tract of land for an oil lease, you’ll do so with an laser optical instrument, anchored to a GPS satellite signal, tethered by a radio wave. The people you work with will know how these things work. How do we track such concepts and competencies?

    And, there’s poetry. “Give me poets as foremen’ Dana Goya quoted in your “Narrowing” day.

    And citizenship, as you were reminded by Deb, above and beyond discussions of poverty.

    We need to look beyond the school building for help with these, and we also need to make sure that we don’t just say ‘well, that’s out there for those who go get it.’

    Knowledgeworks is doing a great job of describing this latter learning ecosystem.

    What’s needed today is solid engineering work to bring all these elements together.

  • Elie Venezky says:

    This is a fantastic article and long overdue. I think a discussion that needs to accompany this one is “if students aren’t (or shouldn’t be) going to college, what are they doing in a college prep high school?”

    Think about what high school is to a student who struggles academically. It’s 6-8 hours a day in a place he doesn’t want to be, learning things he’ll never use, all while being told he’s a failure because he doesn’t understand Shakespeare or algebra. And then at graduation he’s spit out with no skills.

    It’s time for more technical high schools and fewer students wasting four years of their lives because we treasure an educational system where, as Howard Gardener says, “if you succeed, you will be best suited to be a college professor.”

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    *

         3 Comments
    Sponsored Results
    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors