Current efforts to reform the American high school face a number of complex realities. Among the most significant are the far-reaching economic and demographic changes in the United States over the past several decades. The restructuring of the economy has made some education beyond high school the new prerequisite for middle-class jobs, raising the bar for what levels of skill all students must acquire. At the same time, demographic changes mean that the most rapidly growing segments of the student population—now and into the future—are those whom the education system serves least well. High schools today must meet the dual challenge of preparing all students to function at higher levels and performing better for those least well served. Their task is not simply to help most students graduate with a minimal level of competence, but also to ensure that all students leave high school college-ready (that is, able to enter college without needing remediation). This is true both for students who will enter college immediately after high school and for those who will enter the work force but need ongoing education over time to advance economically. The standards-based reform movement provides a strong foundation for meeting these challenges, especially because of its emphasis on setting higher and clearer expectations for what students need to know and be able to do. Although standards-based reforms have steadily raised achievement at the elementary and middle school levels, they have not yet succeeded in significantly improving outcomes for the increasingly heterogeneous students who stay in high school, let alone for the many who drop out before earning a diploma. The problem is not just a failing of high schools but also of the secondary
{"title":"Accelerating Advancement in School and Work","authors":"H. Pennington","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2003.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2003.0017","url":null,"abstract":"Current efforts to reform the American high school face a number of complex realities. Among the most significant are the far-reaching economic and demographic changes in the United States over the past several decades. The restructuring of the economy has made some education beyond high school the new prerequisite for middle-class jobs, raising the bar for what levels of skill all students must acquire. At the same time, demographic changes mean that the most rapidly growing segments of the student population—now and into the future—are those whom the education system serves least well. High schools today must meet the dual challenge of preparing all students to function at higher levels and performing better for those least well served. Their task is not simply to help most students graduate with a minimal level of competence, but also to ensure that all students leave high school college-ready (that is, able to enter college without needing remediation). This is true both for students who will enter college immediately after high school and for those who will enter the work force but need ongoing education over time to advance economically. The standards-based reform movement provides a strong foundation for meeting these challenges, especially because of its emphasis on setting higher and clearer expectations for what students need to know and be able to do. Although standards-based reforms have steadily raised achievement at the elementary and middle school levels, they have not yet succeeded in significantly improving outcomes for the increasingly heterogeneous students who stay in high school, let alone for the many who drop out before earning a diploma. The problem is not just a failing of high schools but also of the secondary","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75538251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comment","authors":"Stephen P. Heyneman","doi":"10.1353/pep.2003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78988170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, increasing attention has focused on the inadequate preparation of American students for future jobs as well as for life in general. This complaint is heard from both industry and higher education. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports continue to remind the public that a large majority of twelfth graders are below proficiency in most subject matter areas, including mathematics, science, U.S. history, civics, and geography. From 70 to 90 percent of high school seniors scored below the proficient level on each of these subject matter tests.1 The results are somewhat better only in reading, with 60 percent of the students scoring below the proficient level.2 The NAEP Governing Board defined proficiency as the level that all students should reach. In mathematics and science, the proportion of students below the proficient level was estimated to be around 80 percent.3 The concern of this paper is with the proficiency of U.S. twelfth graders in the areas of quantitative and scientific literacy. Developing proficiency in these two areas is certainly critical to the future success of graduating seniors, be they university-bound or headed immediately into the work force. For those who pursue higher education, mathematical competency in particular often operates as a gatekeeper, controlling not only entry to the more prestigious colleges and universities but also to the courses of study that are
{"title":"Too Little Too Late: American High Schools in an International Context","authors":"W. Schmidt","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2003.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2003.0021","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, increasing attention has focused on the inadequate preparation of American students for future jobs as well as for life in general. This complaint is heard from both industry and higher education. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports continue to remind the public that a large majority of twelfth graders are below proficiency in most subject matter areas, including mathematics, science, U.S. history, civics, and geography. From 70 to 90 percent of high school seniors scored below the proficient level on each of these subject matter tests.1 The results are somewhat better only in reading, with 60 percent of the students scoring below the proficient level.2 The NAEP Governing Board defined proficiency as the level that all students should reach. In mathematics and science, the proportion of students below the proficient level was estimated to be around 80 percent.3 The concern of this paper is with the proficiency of U.S. twelfth graders in the areas of quantitative and scientific literacy. Developing proficiency in these two areas is certainly critical to the future success of graduating seniors, be they university-bound or headed immediately into the work force. For those who pursue higher education, mathematical competency in particular often operates as a gatekeeper, controlling not only entry to the more prestigious colleges and universities but also to the courses of study that are","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82946939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michael T. Nettles, Catherine M. Millett, Douglas D. Ready
For decades researchers have discussed the lower levels of educational achievement of African American compared with white students.1 This achievement gap exists even among the youngest children; African American students arrive at kindergarten considerably behind their white peers in measurable cognitive skills.2 Although the gap has narrowed somewhat over the past several decades, the average African American still scores below 75 percent of white students on standardized tests.3 Alarming racial gaps are consistently found on the SAT, which plays an important role in the quality of access to higher education and, in turn, to social and economic mobility. Between 1976 and 1988 substantial progress was made in closing the gap, and the advantage for whites was reduced by 25 percent.4 In subsequent years, however, the gap has remained steady or even increased slightly. In 1999 the African American–white SAT gap was between 0.75 and 1 full standard deviation (SD).5 A seemingly endless array of theories has been advanced to explain the consistently lower academic performance of African American students: linguistic and social incongruities between home and school culture; historic immigrant status; differing levels and types of parental involvement; contrasting forms of cultural and social capital; the generally lower socio-
{"title":"Attacking the African American-White Achievement Gap on College Admissions Tests","authors":"Michael T. Nettles, Catherine M. Millett, Douglas D. Ready","doi":"10.1353/PEP.2003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/PEP.2003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"For decades researchers have discussed the lower levels of educational achievement of African American compared with white students.1 This achievement gap exists even among the youngest children; African American students arrive at kindergarten considerably behind their white peers in measurable cognitive skills.2 Although the gap has narrowed somewhat over the past several decades, the average African American still scores below 75 percent of white students on standardized tests.3 Alarming racial gaps are consistently found on the SAT, which plays an important role in the quality of access to higher education and, in turn, to social and economic mobility. Between 1976 and 1988 substantial progress was made in closing the gap, and the advantage for whites was reduced by 25 percent.4 In subsequent years, however, the gap has remained steady or even increased slightly. In 1999 the African American–white SAT gap was between 0.75 and 1 full standard deviation (SD).5 A seemingly endless array of theories has been advanced to explain the consistently lower academic performance of African American students: linguistic and social incongruities between home and school culture; historic immigrant status; differing levels and types of parental involvement; contrasting forms of cultural and social capital; the generally lower socio-","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78628237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Comment","authors":"Sheila E. Murray","doi":"10.1353/pep.2003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9272,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Education Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74041805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：