Where Did High School Come From

This blog is about building a case for redesigning our public schools. In several posts I have commented about the fact our schools are based on a model that was conceived and implemented some time around the 1870's. And it hasn't changed much. 

One thing I didn't know is where the design for high school came from. In reading the first chapter of a book called, Personalizing the High School Experience for Each Student, I have learned that it comes from a model to reach about 5% of the young people in this country - and it was developed in the 1890's. 

In a previous post I included a table that shows the graduation rates in US High Schools. Now that I understand that High School was really designed to graduate about 5% of the population I think we can reasonably say it's a miracle that more than 50% actually graduate. 

In our work we make a distinction between incremental innovation and breakthrough innovation. In a previous post I've asked the question whether schools as we know them need to be improved or redesigned. 

I hope we can see that it's time to provide support for the re-invention of public schools and to move beyond incremental improvements and get to breakthroughs. We are, or were, the innovation leader in the world. With a public school system that we have now that leadership is surely in jeopardy. 

Here's a quote from the first chapter of that book:

In the 1890s, Harvard College, a regional institute of higher education, desired to become a national university. To guide Harvard leaders in how to do this and to ensure that they would be getting students from across the country who were properly prepared to be successful in higher education, the college convened the Carnegie Commission. Yes, we're talking about that Carnegie Commission—the commission that decided that our high school students needed to earn course credits based on seat time. This 19th century concept, which is based solely on educating students who would be able to go on to Harvard, is still the basic organizing structure of our high schools in the 21st century.

The United States in the 1890s was a country whose population felt that an education past the 4th grade was a waste of time for most individuals. It was a country where high school was only for those who needed the connection between elementary school and higher education. It was a country where very few women and at most 5 percent of the young men went to college. That's who our high schools were designed to educate: 5 percent of our young men. The rest of our adolescents were employed in our mills, mines, and farms.

That's Right, Do More of the Same

In a recent post I expressed some concern about the ideology being employed in public education. I would suggest that most educators involved in public education feel they are doing the 'right thing' every day. In most public schools that means preparing young people to take tests - NOT to succeed in an ever changing, technological world.

In some areas of the country the idea of lengthening the school day has been proposed as a way to help 'failing' schools. The idea being proposed is to give these schools more time to prepare young people for the tests they must take - and teach subjects that have been dropped from the curriculum (like art, music and drama).

It seems to me that the issue isn't how long the day is but what is being done during the day that matters. If educators don't change what they are doing - how they teach - then just giving them more time isn't going to solve much. In fact, it will probably just make matters worse.

Here's an article that articulates this 'solution' in the New York Times:

Failing Schools See a Solution in Longer Day
by DIANA JEAN SCHEMO
Published: March 26, 2007
FALL RIVER, Mass. — States and school districts nationwide are moving to lengthen the day at struggling schools, spurred by grim test results suggesting that more than 10,000 schools are likely to be declared failing under federal law next year.

In some places, like New Mexico, the extra time is being used to 'tutor' young people in the subjects they are struggling with.

I'm not sure I really understand why teachers don't see that teaching is an equal part in the equation of learning. Why is it just the learner that is the 'problem?'