Over the past few months, national
politicians have begun to propose important changes in our public education
system. Specifically, they have proposed
that some aspects of higher education be funded in ways similar to how we fund
K-12 schooling. The Obama
Administration, for instance, has proposed that community college
education—essentially the first two years of a baccalaureate degree—be funded
through tax dollars and made available at no additional cost to the
student. Some have expanded this to suggest that all four years of the undergraduate degree
at state colleges and universities shoudl be free to the student.
This
is not as revolutionary an idea as it may sound. At the beginning of the 20th
century, it was not unusual for students to leave school at the end of the 8th
grade. In many cases, students were
required to pay tuition to attend high school.
However, recognizing that the skills needed for citizens to succeed in
the industrial economy, the U.S. made high school universally available—funded
by local property taxes—and, soon after, began to require it. A high school degree became the minimum
qualification for many entry-level jobs.
Let’s
assume, then, that the current call to make at least the first two years of
college available free to the student will result in at least half of the
baccalaureate degree being available as part of basic citizen education. Over time, then, most American teenagers will
continue past twelfth grade to get a two-year postsecondary education—a
technical certification, an associate degree, or the first half of a
baccalaureate degree.
How
might this change how we organize education?
Some thoughts:
There already is a
fair amount of overlap between the high school and undergraduate general
education curricula. If the majority of high school graduates go on to the
first two years of college, we should take a fresh look at what both schools
and colleges are teaching and strengthen the curricula. The curriculum overlap is evident in the
number of high school grads who can test out of college general education
courses and in the increasingly common practice of “dual enrollment” courses
that grant both high school and college credit.
In the short run, it would make sense to build a stronger system to
support dual enrollment, reducing both the cost of college and the time to
degree. What we need, as I have noted in
an earlier posting, is to organize a system that encourages sharing of courses
for dual enrollment and to share open educational resources across
institutions.
In the long run,
though, the movement of more high school students on to free postsecondary
education calls for the field to take a fresh look at the combined high school
and college general education curricula to see how they can be streamlined and
made more effective. The history/civics
curriculum is a good case in point. Using my local school district as an example,
students study civics and basic economic concepts in eighth grade, world
history in ninth and tenth, American history in eleventh, and choose two
courses from a list of options (Democracy in Action, Current Issues, Economics,
Sociology, and Psychology, along with a list of other courses for advanced
students) in twelfth grade. Then, when
they move on to college (using Penn State as an example), they may choose from
a wide range of humanities and social/behavioral sciences courses as part of
the general education distribution requirement.
The challenge, as increasing numbers of students move directly on to
college, will be make the entire scope of this requirement more efficient, but
also more coherent. For instance, it
would be essential to ensure that “civics”—citizen education in American
history, the Constitution, etc.—be included in the first twelve years, so that
students are prepared to become voters when they turn 18. That said, the need to revisit the structure
and continuity of the curriculum applies equally to literature and the
humanities, math, the sciences, social sciences, and the arts.
The mid-twentieth
century high school curriculum included required courses in home economics (for
the girls) and shop (for the boys). The
assumption, I suspect, was that young people needed to have these practical
skills in order to take on their adult roles in the home. While the old model assumed social roles
that were already out of date by the 1960s, we might ask: what practical skills must students have
today to be effective adults, regardless of their vocational/professional
choices?
In
the process, curriculum policy makers might also consider the role of service
in universal education. One implication
of the free college movement is that many, if not most, young people will
continue their role as students into their adult years. The new curriculum might consider how to give
students the opportunity to explore life options. Perhaps a year of service—or other kinds of
extended practical experiences that get students involved in their communities—should
be built into the new curriculum.
It
may be many years before college becomes a societal expectation for most students. However, we should begin exploring the
implications today.
