To serve the dual purpose of encouraging students to achieve more, and save money in education budgets, states are beginning to push students to graduate early from high school through “ramped up” curricula and college scholarship programs. It is anticipated that such policies, which emphasize proficiency rather than seat time, will allow students ready to move on with their education the opportunity to do so (thus preventing “senioritis” or “senior slump”), relieve some of the college tuition burden, and reduce districts’ instructional expenses.
So far, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota and South Dakota have approved “early graduation” scholarship programs; other states have legislation in the works. However, the proposals are not without opponents. First of all, districts are concerned at the reduction in state funding these proposals will prompt. Second, the nonprofit group Jobs for the Future has argued that these policies to do not serve low-income and underrepresented students, and some of the existing policies do not have clear indicators for college readiness.
Representative Pat Garofalo from Minnesota disagrees with this assessment. Incentivizing early graduation turns the high school diploma from a “certificate of attendance” into a “measure of knowledge.” If kids have the chance to receive scholarships for college or to enter the military, the y will work hard to graduate early. Minnesota’s program could save the state $1 million a year in per-pupil costs.
However in states like Kentucky, such programs have been unsuccessful in the legislature. A spokeswoman from the Kentucky Department of Education emphasizes that the important thing is to get all children to graduate college- and career-ready; deferring resources from those who need the most help in graduating to high achievers who are already college- or career-ready should not be on the table.
Another early graduation model is a pilot program called Excellence for All, supported by the National Center on Education and the Economy. It is not a financial reward incentive, but focuses on a rigorous core curriculum for the first two years of high school. At the end of their sophomore year students are given an exam. If they pass, they have the option of moving on to community college or to take college-prep courses for the final two years of high school. Marc Tucker, NCEE’s president, argues this is a program for both over- and under-achievers. Those who excel at school are given the opportunity to move on, while those who struggle are given proper supports during their first two years to get to the point where they will not need to take remedial courses in college.
Both models have widespread consequences for educators across the country. In the era of accountability, the early departure of high-achieving students could negatively impact the student outcomes indicators included in most teacher evaluation formulas. Furthermore, less per-pupil funding from the state means tighter instructional budgets for districts, which could lead to more layoffs and fewer hires. These issues and more will be discussed at an upcoming chat hosted by Education Week and featuring both Rep. Garofalo and Mr. Tucker.
To read more on this issue, please visit http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/01/25/18graduation_ep.h31.html?qs=early+graduation
