The German system is instructive (no pun intended). High school kids going on to college receive a 13th year of public education, and graduate with the equivalent of a community college Associate's degree. Those who wish to go on to vocational training can graduate after 11 or twelve years (depending on the type of post-high school training they are going into). For those headed on to college, this greatly reduces the cost of getting a degree (even without taking into account generous government tuition subsidies) and only marginally increases the cost of their high school education. High school graduates are also expected to do a year of some type of "service", whether serving in the military or interning in a profession they're considering for their career. It would do us well to consider such a system here in Washington, although the obstacles to such sweeping reform would be tremendous.

This seems so obvious to me, it's kind of hard to believe we'd design our educational system any other way.

In all this no mention of creativity, development of analytical skills or the excitement of intellectual discovery. The debate is over whether college should be a mandatory goal of our test-based vocational training process. Kammerer points out, quite reasonably, that some people lack the mental tools to benefit from a college curriculum and their capacities should be accommodated at the secondary school level.

In my old age I have reluctantly come around to believing some form of the voucher system needs to be implemented. Public education has lost its way, and the panaceas being frantically offered up all seem more likely to make things worse than better. A big part of the problem in urban areas is that schools are unrealistically expected to provide surrogate parenting to a permanent and expanding underclass where effective adult supervision and training in the home is often absent. The requirements of behavioral management have overwhelmed the class room, and the parents from the remaining functional families are abandoning the public education system.

In chaotic and dysfunctional environment with little prospect of improvement the best approach is probably to encourage experimentation on multiple levels. Some kind of voucher system may be the best way to do that.

The purpose of education is to learn how to learn. We are caught in system perpetuated by all the parties involved. Universities need as many recruits as possible to turn out the post graduates which in turn attract research money, high schools don't fully finish students, tending to let colleges do that and business and unions go the easy route of not fully investing in job training by hiring "degrees". Until we accept that it is going to take a balanced approach to the broad social purpose of education, no amount of reform is going to serve anyone except educated reformers.

'Some kind of voucher system may be the best way to do that."

When I first heard the term, I too thought that this was a good way to go. Then I looked into it and renamed "voucher" to "coupon'. And instantly I realized that this was a way to give rich and upper middle class families a tax break on private education. Why? You all know what a "coupon" is right? A discount on something you want to buy. But if you don't have the rest of the money it's worthless to you. So poor families are left with a coupon that is only good in the worst schools.

Then I looked at who is pushing the "coupon" theory of education and I found the religious right and funded by the rich. That way they can send their kids to private religious schools, or just private rich kid schools.

You can read more about this crock here:
http://www.gregpalast.com/no-childs-behind-left

"One such track might focus on academic training that leads to a largely government funded university education, and another track might focus on equipping students with the skills that lead to good jobs"

Of course it might be nice if some of those non college requiring jobs were in the USA instead of India, and Vietnam.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/7305

I'm not saying every kid is going to be Einstein, but from the level of discourse in blogs, it's clear that many people haven't mastered the skill of critical thinking, and faux grass roots fraud detection.

Great job on this article!!! The author really gets the problem that exists in our high schools. I teach high school English, and my curriculum is supposed to aim students toward college. Mr. Kammerer is so right in his analysis. Teaching literary analysis to students who would be better off in technical training puts everyone in a no-win situation. The college prep kids face a watered down curriculum and the tech oriented kids face a curriculum they don't engage in. When you put these groups together, the level of acheivement in the classroom suffers. This is one of the prime reasons why the American ed. system is unfavorably compared with countries like Singapore and Finland. It's so refreshing to read an article on education that doesn't resort to teacher bashing.

Gary P, I disagree with you about the "coupon" system for the reason stated by star80. Why not return some of the taxes paid by the rich, religious and uber-achievers so they can pursue other educational avenues? I don't think we should give them all of their taxes back, but why not let families reivest some of that money into a different type of education? Similarly, why not pull the significant underachievers into a special program to help them find their passion?

By removing the outliers, public schools can better focus their curriculum and teach to the middle - some collegebound, some not. We need to find a balance where we can inspire some children to become more by presenting them with challeges they may not have believed they were up to, while also realizing that others are not up to the challenge but can still be productive members of society.

"Teaching literacy analysis to students who would be better off in technical training"

Trouble is you are confusing the "either / or" capabilities of students. The logic being: not able to master math therefore science, thus unable to go to college, therefore should not be taught pre-college level English. Which means that students are uninterested in literacy analysis.

As a teacher I'm sure you realize that beyond each student's capability lies a home life which values or does not reading and critical thinking. As a pretty well educated parent, reading was central in time spent with my kids. Trips to the library were regular, books were given as gifts, and books beyond the child's reading capability were read to them until early teens. Contrast that with parents who place their kids in front of the TV or game console. And you can see that in all facets of life knowledge gained and time spent reading was valued in my house.

As a teacher you cannot hope to replicate that experience. But you can help students find subject matter in books which will catch their attention and thus encourage them to seek out books on their own.

I give as an example that I was given the book "Johnny Tremain" which I read enthusiastically on my own. It was then "taught" in my high school English class and I was bored out of my mind and in addition began to hate the book, the author, the teacher and the school for ruining a book I had loved. Fortunately for me math & science was not drudgery and so I was able to go on to college, where I took History and English taught by people who loved it and the teachers used first source material. If only my high school had been allowed to tell me the "truth" about my ancestors. It's actually quite fascinating to learn that they are as human, corrupt and irresponsible as anyone leading the country today.

There are many examples of teachers connecting with students, even those not bound for college using material that is relevant to the student's life. And face it, the sanitized history of old dead white men is boring. No wonder kids tune out.

"Why not return some of the taxes paid by the rich, religious and uber-achievers so they can pursue other educational avenues"

Because it defunds the current public schools. The current situation is that public schools must accept everyone who walks, rolls, crawls through their doors. They cannot spend extra time/money on students who are not making it by defunding them.

And in the Puget Sound Metro area, we do have an accelerated education program, "Running Start" which sends kids to community college to get both college and high school credit. This is a no loss to the school funding because both are public institutions funded by the state.

"star80" one does have to wonder about a person who chooses an online handle associated with a movie about a small time hustler who murders his girlfriend.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086355/

"faux grass roots" odors start to waft about the room.

Thanks for this article. I think that it's on point in a lot of ways, and there are many reasons why the now standard model of success, which is four years of college right after high school, is outdated and unsustainable.

I do want to disagree with one aspect of the article, though. As someone who has taught mathematics for six years at the university level and has done a lot of private tutoring and other work in the schools, I am convinced that very few kids are truly unable to read well, learn math and science, and otherwise perform at what we consider to be a standard level. There are serious flaws in how some subjects, such as mathematics, are taught. We teach students mysterious rules and procedures for solving problems, and we drag them along from one level to another regardless of whether they understand what is going on. People are led to believe they can't do math, when in reality what they can't do is the bizarre form of black magic that is called mathematics in the schools.

Although most jobs, especially those that are not highly specialized or technical, do not require knowledge of double integration or poetry, most jobs do require critical thinking skills. Critical thinking skills cannot be taught in isolation, but they underline all of the curriculum in school.

All that said, employers do use academic performance, including a college degree, as a proxy for thinking ability and maturity. And who can blame them? With unemployment so high and so many applicants for every job, an employers can make their lives easier by using a college degree as a screening tool. So that's why (among many other reasons) I agree that we need new pathways to success that better reflect the needs of both students and the economy. Some sort on internship or apprenticeship program, as dbreneman referred to in his comment, is something that should be seriously considered.

On Teaching Mathematics in High School:

The upper most level of mathematics taught in high school, calculus was known at the time of Leibniz and Newton, or roughly the middle of the 1700's. It's now 2010, one would think that after 300 years of teaching math, what works and what doesn't would be well known. And since judging by the poor test scores in the USA, it's not done well everywhere, and that's for the basics like Algebra and Geometry which is even older knowledge. One does have to wonder in whose interest is it to teach it so poorly.

Check out the excellent work of Mike Rose 'The Mind at Work' and 'Why School? about the importance of the 'manual' trades in America and the removal of shop classes from our High Schools as well as the deeper aims of a democratic education. Also check out 'Soulwork as Shopcraft' by Mathew Crawford about similar themes in education and work.

Of course one of the things we should teach our kids is how to read charts.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/chartbook_occupation_focus.htm#figure8

Given this wonderful data, how many would choose to go into the skilled labor pool? vs say Healthcare which requires at least an AA degree to be a nurses aide.

We do a disservice to sideline kids into "skilled" work and then export those jobs.

To Gary P.

Actually the handle "Star80" comes from a t-shirt design of a shirt I wore in high school... it was before the movie you were kind enough to include the link for. Thanks, I hadn't heard of the movie before. You should really take your mind out of the gutter before launching personal attacks.

Gary P.

"Teaching literary analysis to students who would be better off in technical training"

Trouble is you are confusing the "either / or" capabilities of students. The logic being: not able to master math therefore science, thus unable to go to college, therefore should not be taught pre-college level English. Which means that students are uninterested in literacy analysis."

Unfortunately given the skimpy resources we have to work with, teachers do have to make some hard choices. You are correct that there are students who will be "late bloomers" when it comes to academics. Fortunately, we do have the community college system to help. Classes of 33 with six special ed. students, several ELL (English Second Language) students, and a small number of those who are simply disengaged don't allow for the level of customization that is needed to make your scenario work. I wish things were the way you describe. It would make my job even better. I too can relate a similar experience in my high school career, but things have changed and not for the better.

"star80" sorry for personal slam, but as you now know, the movie was horrific and so is the association. It's like the dueling banjos of "Deliverance." Once you've heard the music you won't forget it.

As for teaching high school students English I do not envy your job. Although you may have already read it, "Tis" by Frank McCourt, his autobiography describes many of the challenges of teachers in poverty level schools with teaching English. You may find inspiration & insight in his struggles.

And yes I know, things in public schools have not improved. I suspect they will get worse before it gets better as the funding continues to be reduced. Note the "coupon" idea being shopped around.

Of course nothing is really new under the sun, but anyone thinking about letting their kids become "regular people" and slide through high school skipping college would do well to watch this Phd in Education explain life choices in a fairly straight forward way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1t9dg5dzQo

"star80"

You may be inspired by this video as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQNRdnkoO8E

hang tough.

There is some irony in seeing this discussion among people who don't really understand how, or why, our system of universal free schooling is supposed to work- and no less in the fact that this 'debate' has been going on since Hector was a pup, or at least, since I was a pup, which was a while ago.

The current debate conflates two different concerns- one, that we will graduate fewer scientists and engineers, compared with other countries, in the future, and, secondly, that improving educational level is the best (or perhaps only) way to improve the prosperity of the person.

The universal K-12 education, in other words, is America's 'solution' to the changes in technology and the vast changes in society and political structure that have taken place around the world over the past half century. And the schools are expected to do this with one and tied behind their back, picking up the load when moms go to work, and the family with both parents employed can barely afford the lifestyle one income bought 50 years ago.

The most American part of all of this is probably the glee with which we hail the latest 'gee whiz!' solution, or, equally popular, the idea we can get something for nothing. Why hire costly actual teachers, when we can use 'classroom aides' to ensure quiet while students cram for the exam? And always, in the background, the relentless bass of of 'I've got mine', from the well-to-do, who don't send their children to public schools, and from those who don't want to pay taxes, either because they are elderly and on a fixed income, or because they are huge businesses and institutions which own billions of dollars worth of taxable real estate.

By now the differences between America and the rest of the industrialized world are so great that it's easy to see part of the answer. Parenting is where you get 80% of your results from 20% of your effort, and we need to give them more help- health care, unemployment and retraining insurance programs, child care for working parents, school lunch and breakfast programs, and an economy that can gainfully employ those who want to work- all essential ingredients of a healthy family, the strongest predictor of success in school.

After we've done that, let's see which questions we're still asking.

Kent, wonderful, excellent piece. Thank you.

If you haven't already, read "Shopcraft as Soulcraft" (can't remember the author).

I think we need to expand the definition of "college" to include all post-secondary instruction. Yes, it means 4-year universities and colleges, but it also means 2-year colleges, vocational schools, apprenticeships and more.

That said, K-12 education is not intended to be vocational training. Neither, for that matter, is undergraduate work. Education can and should be an end in itself. I find all of this talk about work as the focus of school depressing and disheartening.