5 ms·

I wonder if it'd just be easier for high schools to convert over to a college model: students are free to pick courses corresponding to their preferred times, a

by QML 8y ago

I wonder if it'd just be easier for high schools to convert over to a college model: students are free to pick courses corresponding to their preferred times, and to leave and enter campus on will. Of course, there will be incentives to consider -- why would a high schooler attend their classes if they're not paying directly out of pocket? In contrast, a school district would try to maximize the attendance rate as that's how funding works (at least in California). In hindsight, there's always a tension between high schoolers and those who administrate them; it's never a partnership since teenagers are quick to abuse / misuse a privilege.

rjbwork 8y ago
Drastically reduce administrators. Give the kids something like 25 to 50 cents per class attended.
- annywhey 8y ago
  Honestly, direct pay for attendance would be a great incentive for the poorest demographics. A few dollars can be make-or-break at the margin and even greedy parents that misuse the funds would end up wanting to get the kid showing up and not getting in fights - the bare minimum for a school day to go by undisturbed.
  - zo1 8y ago
    I'd be all for that, as long as there were negative penalties as well. E.g. Disturbing class = no points. Failing homework = no points. Failing test = losing all accumulated points. Failing end of year exams for the subject = lose all money for that subject. I.e. Attendance is only part of the equation, actually fostering learning/growth is what you really want, even if it's semi-artificial. Otherwise you're just making another perverse incentive for kids to keep their butts in the seat and not really engage. And then further on, only give the money back in the subsequent year, month to month. Make it a long-term commitment with a pay-off.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      The problem with that is that low-income families either plain can't afford, or tend to be completely bad at delaying gratification for long-term rewards.
      - zo1 8y ago
        Agreed. Education by itself and the benefits it gives are very long term, too. So this payment has benefit in that it's a quicker return than plain education and would impact a net amount of people. Perhaps there may even be network effects in that those that are able to plan for this medium-term returns can convince and be examples for those that aren't able to.
AnssiH 8y ago
That's how it works in Finland in lukio (upper secondary school between 9th grade and university), we picked the courses ourselves and left/entered campus on will. Looks like the course-based system was introduced in 1982. And personally I did prefer course instances that were later on the day over those that were earlier. We still had mandatory lesson attendance, though, unlike most university courses.
darkerside 8y ago
This seems like a great way to kill the public secondary school system. What percentage of kids do you estimate would stop going to class under this model?
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Make attendance mandatory and create some comfortable spaces for in-between classes.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Attendance is mandatory already. This will just make it easier for kids to leave. In fact, they'll be coming and going all the time. Isn't that the whole point?
    - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
      How would it make it easier? the rules for attendance would be the same. It is already fairly easy to skip school, especially if there is an open lunch or you can forge a parental note. You can also set up classes in a way that doesnt allow for more than 30-60 minutes between classes, allowing relaxation in common areas and the library, for example. Or allow more freedom as kids age. Just because it is "more like college" doesnt mean it is an exact replica.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    We all know that the same teenagers that want to sneak out of their houses at night to go on their escapades (typically 2:1 supervision) would totally follow the rules of mandatory attendance (40:1 supervision )
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      Then in what sense is QML’s proposal worse than the status quo?
    - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
roel_v 8y ago
The best ranking high school in my area (south of the Netherlands) works more or less like this (I don't think all attendance is fully at will). There is a lot of innovation going on in this space, even those who were in high schools just 5 years ago would notice major changes.
kchoudhu 8y ago
This interferes with the primary babysitting function that schools occupy in our society.
matwood 8y ago
> students are free to pick courses corresponding to their preferred times, and to leave and enter campus on will. I was doing this as a senior in HS in the 90s. Because I had been ahead since elementary school, by the time I was a senior in HS there were only a couple classes left I needed to take. I showed up late, left early and most days went to work.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
A high school I attended had a fairly novel system that's not too far off from this. People in the program I was in would get to school at 8 and leave at 12, with a good deal of variety in what classes they chose to attend. And classes were run on a college schedule with two sets of classes - short MWF classes and longer TTh classes. The overall affect of this is that good students would end up receiving a more directed education and were in a much more desirable system with immense freedom to pursue their education and growth as they saw fit. But at the same time 'less good' students did extremely poorly. And I think in general there is going to be a strong connection between increasing freedom and increasing the polarization of results. In a way it's really an educational analog of the differences between capitalism and communism.

by QML 8y ago

rjbwork 8y ago

Drastically reduce administrators. Give the kids something like 25 to 50 cents per class attended.

annywhey 8y ago
Honestly, direct pay for attendance would be a great incentive for the poorest demographics. A few dollars can be make-or-break at the margin and even greedy parents that misuse the funds would end up wanting to get the kid showing up and not getting in fights - the bare minimum for a school day to go by undisturbed.
- zo1 8y ago
  I'd be all for that, as long as there were negative penalties as well. E.g. Disturbing class = no points. Failing homework = no points. Failing test = losing all accumulated points. Failing end of year exams for the subject = lose all money for that subject. I.e. Attendance is only part of the equation, actually fostering learning/growth is what you really want, even if it's semi-artificial. Otherwise you're just making another perverse incentive for kids to keep their butts in the seat and not really engage. And then further on, only give the money back in the subsequent year, month to month. Make it a long-term commitment with a pay-off.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    The problem with that is that low-income families either plain can't afford, or tend to be completely bad at delaying gratification for long-term rewards.
    - zo1 8y ago
      Agreed. Education by itself and the benefits it gives are very long term, too. So this payment has benefit in that it's a quicker return than plain education and would impact a net amount of people. Perhaps there may even be network effects in that those that are able to plan for this medium-term returns can convince and be examples for those that aren't able to.

AnssiH 8y ago

That's how it works in Finland in lukio (upper secondary school between 9th grade and university), we picked the courses ourselves and left/entered campus on will. Looks like the course-based system was introduced in 1982. And personally I did prefer course instances that were later on the day over those that were earlier. We still had mandatory lesson attendance, though, unlike most university courses.

darkerside 8y ago

This seems like a great way to kill the public secondary school system. What percentage of kids do you estimate would stop going to class under this model?

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Make attendance mandatory and create some comfortable spaces for in-between classes.
- darkerside 8y ago
  Attendance is mandatory already. This will just make it easier for kids to leave. In fact, they'll be coming and going all the time. Isn't that the whole point?
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    How would it make it easier? the rules for attendance would be the same. It is already fairly easy to skip school, especially if there is an open lunch or you can forge a parental note. You can also set up classes in a way that doesnt allow for more than 30-60 minutes between classes, allowing relaxation in common areas and the library, for example. Or allow more freedom as kids age. Just because it is "more like college" doesnt mean it is an exact replica.
- notyourday 8y ago
  We all know that the same teenagers that want to sneak out of their houses at night to go on their escapades (typically 2:1 supervision) would totally follow the rules of mandatory attendance (40:1 supervision )
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Then in what sense is QML’s proposal worse than the status quo?
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago

roel_v 8y ago

The best ranking high school in my area (south of the Netherlands) works more or less like this (I don't think all attendance is fully at will). There is a lot of innovation going on in this space, even those who were in high schools just 5 years ago would notice major changes.

kchoudhu 8y ago

This interferes with the primary babysitting function that schools occupy in our society.

matwood 8y ago

> students are free to pick courses corresponding to their preferred times, and to leave and enter campus on will. I was doing this as a senior in HS in the 90s. Because I had been ahead since elementary school, by the time I was a senior in HS there were only a couple classes left I needed to take. I showed up late, left early and most days went to work.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

A high school I attended had a fairly novel system that's not too far off from this. People in the program I was in would get to school at 8 and leave at 12, with a good deal of variety in what classes they chose to attend. And classes were run on a college schedule with two sets of classes - short MWF classes and longer TTh classes. The overall affect of this is that good students would end up receiving a more directed education and were in a much more desirable system with immense freedom to pursue their education and growth as they saw fit. But at the same time 'less good' students did extremely poorly. And I think in general there is going to be a strong connection between increasing freedom and increasing the polarization of results. In a way it's really an educational analog of the differences between capitalism and communism.