[Speed Gibson,
Tuesday December 20, 2005 at 12:37am]
Wrong Way
There is a program turning 20 years old called PSEO: Post-Secondary Enrollement Options. The Minneapolis Star Tribune thinks the program is worthwhile, though the praise is curiously a bit restrained.
I can't get excited over this for a number of reasons. First of all, do you really want 16 and 17 year olds on a college campus filled with 18 to 21+ year old students? Book smarts don't promise street smarts.
Second, high school is 50 percent social (IMO). Time spent away at "college" is time not spent with your peers. If "pre-Calculus" isn't enough, how about spending some of your time helping your friends get through it?
Third, there is no real academic gain here, not unless the high school is deficient in offering suitable options and electives. Say you want to take "advanced placement" (AP) Chemistry at the nearby community college. It sounds wonderful, but what the high school calls AP Chemistry is just Chemistry 101 at the college. Spend those precious teen years doing something you can only do in high school - join the drama club for example, work on the school yearbook, do sports, get a part-time job, or take an art class. Chemistry can wait.
Fourth, this is really the wrong approach - it goes the wrong way. If anything, the colleges should consider coming to the high schools. It's logistically much easier and far less disruptive to send a professor to the high school. Make that AP History class a Senior elective; don't hold it on campus. I know of one case where this is being partially done, and it's been very successful.
Finally, don't allow yourself to be placated here. Just because your child could qualify and benefit academically from such a program doesn't mean it's the best choice. Be realistic; what will be the best investment of your student's time in terms of growing up to be an adult?
Through PSEO, juniors and seniors can take college classes for free and earn credits toward both high school diplomas and college degrees. Over the years, it has become clear that the approach was prescient; a recent study by the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota found that students saved time and money, learned more and felt more academically prepared for college. That's good for the students, and for the system; producing better prepared students translates into spending less on college "catch up" work.
I can't get excited over this for a number of reasons. First of all, do you really want 16 and 17 year olds on a college campus filled with 18 to 21+ year old students? Book smarts don't promise street smarts.
Second, high school is 50 percent social (IMO). Time spent away at "college" is time not spent with your peers. If "pre-Calculus" isn't enough, how about spending some of your time helping your friends get through it?
Third, there is no real academic gain here, not unless the high school is deficient in offering suitable options and electives. Say you want to take "advanced placement" (AP) Chemistry at the nearby community college. It sounds wonderful, but what the high school calls AP Chemistry is just Chemistry 101 at the college. Spend those precious teen years doing something you can only do in high school - join the drama club for example, work on the school yearbook, do sports, get a part-time job, or take an art class. Chemistry can wait.
Fourth, this is really the wrong approach - it goes the wrong way. If anything, the colleges should consider coming to the high schools. It's logistically much easier and far less disruptive to send a professor to the high school. Make that AP History class a Senior elective; don't hold it on campus. I know of one case where this is being partially done, and it's been very successful.
Finally, don't allow yourself to be placated here. Just because your child could qualify and benefit academically from such a program doesn't mean it's the best choice. Be realistic; what will be the best investment of your student's time in terms of growing up to be an adult?