Readiness for What?: Defining High School Standards

(9/27/2010)

As iconic American manufacturing plants have closed in the past several years, the space for dialogue on America's workforce and the public education system that creates the foundation of it has opened. With record high unemployment rates in the double digits, Americans are increasingly critical of an educational system that is not only failing to meet the needs of its students, but also of the nation as a whole.

The value of a higher education--from technical training to an advanced degree--intensifies in times like these, when unemployment rates for those with only a high school diploma (topping out at 11.2% in November 2009) are twice that for college graduates (which hit a peak at 5.0% in December 2009). Informed individuals readily agree on the value of higher education, yet the question remains how to structure a system that best supports college attendance and more importantly, degree completion. Fifteen years ago, the United States led the world in the college graduation rates. A decade later, we dropped to 14th coupled with the second-highest college dropout rate of 27 countries. Currently 40% of entering college students must take at least one remedial course, a factor that decreases their likelihood of completing their degree at all. Amongst efforts directed at encouraging college enrollment, often absent is an examination of the ways in which we prepare--or fail to prepare--students for college.

An increased emphasis on growing college enrollment must be coupled with requiring high school coursework that supports students in higher-education success. Such a commitment to rigorous high school standards is the necessary foundation for developing a more educated, innovative, and productive workforce into the next decade.

Not until this past August, when Utah adopted the new Common Core did the state align high school standards with the expectations of college and careers or align graduation requirements with college- and career-ready expectations. In other words, as a state we had put the cart before the horse, advocating for college attendance without defining, or better yet preparing, students for that endeavor. If we, as a community, state, and country, can collectively value higher education as an opportunity for all of our children, we must do our students the service of adequately preparing them--a step that involves following through on aligning high school standards with college expectations and implementing challenging and engaging coursework that adequately prepare students for the rigors of college.

While the shortage of college graduates undoubtedly shortchanges national opportunities for innovation and economic vitality, it shortchanges the very students who are at the center of public education. Without requiring students to engage in college preparatory classes we short sell both their own potential as well as the future of the nation. Rather than a call for universal college attendance, this is a demand for providing students with the preparation that gives all students that option.

In the late spring, when commencement ceremonies offer opportunities for celebration, I inevitably find myself wondering about the futures of the students who walk before me and if we have provided a path for each student that includes the option to successfully access higher education. Without a clear commitment to that goal, we inevitably fall short. If we do not clearly aim to prepare our students for the option of higher education, what are we preparing our students for?