I want to explore the perhaps surprising answer to this question a little, and also look at what I think is a very damaging assumption that seem to underlie even apparently progressive articles like this.
It is not a big surprise to educators that University grades are not always directly linked to performance in school; in few cases does learning work in a linear way (this famous diagram is correct; for thoughts on why education can be and should be confusing rather than a simple progression see here; for a better metaphor for education than ascending a ladder see here).
So what does this mean for teachers as we construct our courses and schemes of work? The implication has to be that we cannot focus too heavily on content which is likely to be forgotten, and neglect the skills that will have long term benefit and may be transferrable to other situations. As the article states, “most students will forget the specific of, say, mitosis, shortly after their… Biology exam, but they might retain the broader concepts of… [how to conduct] an experiment and… [how to present] evidence”. The original report states it clearly: “It’s really the underlying skills that stay with people”. And of course, that explains why grades do not always improve for those who took a previous course; if the exams that the grades are based on are better at testing knowledge than they are at testing skills, then small wonder they are poor predictors.
So the reason prior experience does not affect future academic assessments is likely more a reflection on limited assessment tools, more than the experience. That pinpoints the assumption here that makes the article seem counter-intuitive, and that we should question; that our academic assessment systems are enough to judge holistic success of students and of schools. They are not – because academic attainment is a single measure; and longer-term success depends on a whole host of academic factors. So the data here are interesting, but do not support any conclusions about “the value of High School” as Deruy suggests.
Academic attainment is very important – of course; no-one would argue differently. But to focus on it to the exclusion of all else is an impoverished approach. Good High Schools help students through potentially treacherous teenage years, and their value is not to be found only in the academic. We help students find and create their own identities, values, and take important steps towards being the adults they turn into at College. Getting this right will last a lifetime; it will mean that students will not be fazed by setbacks, will not solely measure their success by external measures like grades, and will instead have solid internal compasses of their own values.
So to return to the title of the article, when is the value of High School exaggerated? It’s exaggerated and indeed misplaced when we think that a student’s future is fixed by a few years studying, or when we see grades as the fundamental point of education.
1 Response
nice