Further critique of Goldin-Katz in David Labaree’s Someone Has to Fail:
Early in the book, the authors [Goldin and Katz] identify what they consider to be the primary “virtues” of the American education system… “public provision by small, fiscally independent districts; public funding; secular control; gender neutrality; open access; and a forgiving system.”
Labaree’s reaction:
Note that none of these virtues of the American school system speaks to learning the curriculum… But for the human capital argument that Goldin and Katz are trying to make, these virtues of the system pose a problem. How was the system able to provide graduates with the skills needed to spur sustained economic growth when the system’s primary claim to fame was that it invited everyone in and then was reluctant to penalize anyone for failing to learn? In effect, the system’s greatest strength was its low academic standards. If it had screened students more carefully on the way in and graded them more scrupulously on their academic achievement, high school and college enrollments and graduation rates would never have expanded so rapidly and we would all be worse off. But of course, this doesn’t fit the narrative of the Human Capital Century, does it? Goldin and Katz are arguing that high school provided a rich store of general knowledge and skill that proved highly useful in the technologically advancing workplace of the twentieth century. Yet their depiction of the system’s virtues seems to tell a different story altogether. [emphasis original]
Question: What do you think would happen if we embraced “social promotion” – giving diplomas to everyone based solely on age? Most economists’ answer, I suspect, would be the same as mine: social promotion would redistribute jobs and income from better to worse students. Bad students could “pass” for normal – and dilute the credibility of everyone else’s education in the process. But as Labaree suggests, isn’t dilution of standards the main way America managed to boost educational attainment in the first place? And if everyone went to college, wouldn’t we just end up repeating the same mistake all over again?
The post appeared first on Econlib.
So there are many things everyone can master, like some minimum level of reading or math. To Me this argues to me that there should be a 2 tier system. Tier 1 is mastery. Everyone is expected to be able to master all skills in tier 1. It's meant to have a minimum level of competence that 90% of folks should be able to achieve. The second tier should be about achievement. This is about finding and maximizing your level of potential. Everyone should fail the second tier. The question is how far you go before you do.
Graduating tier 1 should take as long as it takes, it might be possible for a precocious 4th grader, or a dull 12th grader, but that's fine. Tier 2 should fade into college.
When I was in high school, at a very well regarded math/science school. We had classes in things like number theory, eventually I got off the math track I went as far as I can go, and am pretty proud of it. At the same time I didn't feel bad that I couldn't be a mathematician. I also had trouble with econometrics in grad school. We need to push kids till they fail, and ensure everyone has basic skills, these goals don't have to be opposed.
"But as Labaree suggests, isn’t dilution of standards the main way America managed to boost educational attainment in the first place? And if everyone went to college, wouldn’t we just end up repeating the same mistake all over again?"
I am pretty sure that is exactly what we are doing now, sadly enough.