Because of our time-locked system, we have to revert to remediation, after-school programs, summer school, extended days, and tutoring to help the students who cannot learn on schedule. All of these programs add cost to the system. In an approach where the child is allowed to learn at his or her own pace, there is no need for any of that. Imagine a system that required compulsory education for children from age three to 21. Graduation is based on a child’s ability to demonstrate that he or she has acquired a specified body of knowledge, like the Common Core Standards. Some children might well fulfill that requirement by age 15 and move on to college or a career, while others might need to continue working at it until age 21. One thing would be certain: Everyone getting a diploma would have demonstrated the same level of competency.
Gone would be the stigma attached to children who have to repeat a grade level, an action more punitive than productive. Our more gifted and capable students could accelerate and get on with their careers. It would be the end of Senioritis.
Perhaps in the 20th century we lacked the technology to implement a non-graded, competency-based system of education. But that is not the case today. If there was ever a time when we could provide students with individualized education, it is today. Teachers are ready to transition into being directors of instruction rather than sages on the stage. Individualized learning plans can be developed for each child, tailored to meet the child’s needs and ability level at that moment. Under teacher supervision, students could take maximum advantage of the wealth of online products and services available today—and the individual learning strategy would not be confined to the four walls of a classroom. Learning can take place anywhere as long as the child has a computer, laptop, tablet, or handheld device.
States will need to erase the grade level structure from their books and replace it with an age by which children will be allowed to enroll in school. As long as we are dreaming, let’s make that age three. There is a wealth of research that suggests that early childhood programs provide the best return on the dollars invested in education. I say allowed, as opposed to required, because I know from experience that many parents will object to having their child taken away from them by age three. Fine, age five can be the age for compulsory attendance—but early childhood education will be an option similar to what kindergarten is today. At the other end, students will be entitled to a free public education until age 21. However, students will be eligible to exit the system at whatever age they have fulfilled the performance- and competency-based requirements for graduation.
For organization purposes, performance levels could be established as benchmarks that would denote passage from early childhood to primary, intermediate, middle, and secondary. Assessments would regulate passage from one level to the next, but this would be an individual event for each student that would occur at any time in line with the student’s readiness.
This is not a futuristic vision. It is a concept that has been around for 40 years. It would be incredibly cost-effective, because it would eliminate the need for remediation, extended time, summer school, and repeating a grade. Children exiting the system early would compensate for students staying longer. We can think outside the box by thinking out of the grade level structure: True transformation.
- 2 ways to support eRate modernization - May 19, 2014
- A college readiness tool that every district should use - January 2, 2014
- Time to focus on the real education problem: Poverty - October 3, 2013