The commentariat is feasting on Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl, calling it brutal, botched, and an example of why we shouldn’t elevate inexperienced billionaires to positions of public trust. And those are the kinder depictions.

Like everyone in education reform, I wish she had made a stronger defense of charter schools, showed more knowledge of how things are going in her home state of Michigan, and made it clear that, although student achievement rose dramatically in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has been mostly stagnant since then.

But more than anything, I regret that she gave such lackluster answers to Stahl’s questions about school discipline. We’re about to have a big national debate about the Obama-era school discipline policy, and it’s essential that she and other administration officials be capable of explaining the issues at hand.

Let’s play Monday morning quarterback and suggest some better ways the secretary could have better handled Stahl’s (loaded) questions.

STAHL: So you've been on the job now over a year. What have you done that you're most proud of?

DEVOS: We've begun looking at and rolling back a lot of the overreach of the federal government in education. We are studying that [Obama-era rule seeking to prevent discriminatory discipline in schools]. We need to ensure that all students have an opportunity to learn in a safe and nurturing environment. And all students means all students.

Monday morning quarterback: So far so good.

STAHL: Yeah but let's say there's a disruption in the classroom and a bunch of white kids are disruptive and they get punished, you know, go see the principal. But the black kids are, you know—they call in the cops. I mean, that's the issue: Who and how the kids who disrupt are being punished.

DEVOS: Arguably, all of these issues or all of this issue comes down to individual kids. And—

STAHL: Well, no. That—it's not.

DEVOS: —it does come down to individual kids. And—often comes down to—I am committed to making sure that students have the opportunity to learn in an environment that is conducive to their learning.

MMQ: She should have said, “Leslie, that’s a great example. Students should never be treated differently for doing the same thing. That is, always has been, and always will be illegal, and it’s the duty of the Department of Education to offer protection to students who bring forward a complaint like this. Nothing we are considering doing would change that fact that such a school would be found to have violated the law, and would be held accountable.

STAHL: Do you see this disproportion in discipline for the same infraction as institutional racism?

DEVOS: We're studying it carefully. And are committed to making sure students have opportunity to learn in safe and nurturing environments.

MMQ: She should have said, “Let me repeat: If students are being treated differently for the same infraction because of their race, that is against the law, and we will not tolerate it. What we’re looking at is an Obama-era policy that said that even if students are treated the same, even if schools have discipline policies that are fair and implemented even-handedly, they still could be found to have violated the law if students of a certain group are disciplined more frequently. That’s downright Orwellian. And the concern is that it is leading some schools to be less safe and orderly, and leading some schools to have lower expectations and lower standards for the behavior of some groups of students. That’s another form of institutional racism*—the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

***

Liberals are going to argue that DeVos is considering opening the door to discrimination. They are wrong, and DeVos and other officials should say so.

* Cribbed from Max Eden’s comments at Heritage on Monday.

This Wednesday, students are walking out of America’s schools in protest of gun violence. It’s projected that 2,500 schools will participate. As I scan Facebook and Twitter and listen to the parents sitting in the bleachers with me at my kids’ sporting events, one thing is clear: There is no agreement over how schools should handle these walkouts.

I have no problem with my children, though a bit young now, walking out of school to protest an issue that is important to them—though I’d certainly expect it to be an issue that they’ve taken the time to research and understand. I would, however, have a problem if their decision to walk out of school was officially sanctioned by the school and free from consequences.

Sacrifice is part of what makes protest so powerful.

It is certainly true that the movement around school safety and greater gun control has tremendous momentum at the moment and the upcoming school walkouts—and the schools’ varying responses to them—are evidence of the tremendous political pressure school leaders and community leaders feel in the wake of the shooting in Parkland, Florida.

While there appears to be confusion on the part of parents and students about the purpose of the walkout, Dakin Andone of CNN explains it as a protest that is part memorial and part protest action.

Students and teachers across the United States will walk out of their schools and universities to honor the lives of the seventeen people killed at Stoneman Douglas and press lawmakers to pass stricter gun control laws, according to EMPOWER, the group organizing the action.

And there are specific demands embedded in this protest action.

EMPOWER is the youth branch of the Women’s March and is where the idea of the national walkout originated. Whether one agrees with the walkout or not, it is a political action.

What’s a protest without sacrifice?

America exists on a foundation of protest. It is a defining feature of democracy. Brave citizens across our history have literally faced fire hoses, dogs, beatings, jail, and even death in the name of protest and yet, somehow, parents and advocates across America think their children should be allowed—and even encouraged—to walk out of school without even the risk of a consequence.

I’m sorry, what?

It is highly unlikely that the majority of students will take the time to study the issues, learn the names of their representatives in Congress, and think deeply about the very serious issue of school safety if there is no accountability attached to the their act of civil disobedience. In fact, if the school officially sanctions the action, there is no disobedience. Or sacrifice.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment if people believe that students have a constitutional right to walk out of class and exit their school buildings free of consequences. Free speech means that we are free to say what we want and not be jailed for it. Or killed for it.

The First Amendment does not free us from the consequences that may come as a result of our choice to exercise that right. People are fired for things they say all the time and students find themselves in trouble for things they choose to say. I highly doubt that those touting the First Amendment as the reason students can walk out—free of consequences—would say the same about racist language or words that bullies other students.

District leaders and school leaders who choose to officially support the walkouts on Wednesday will have set a dangerous precedent. If they are to be consistent and unbiased, they will have to allow students to walk out of their classes and out of the building to stand up for any political belief, including ones that are far less popular.

Are we ready to allow students to walk out of school, free of consequences, to protest limits on the Second Amendment, or to march against abortion with graphic posters of babies in utero?

Are school leaders willing to support their students who choose to wear their red “Make America Great Again” hats and walk out of class in support of President Trump’s agenda?

If my own children are inspired and passionate enough about an issue whether it’s gun safety or something else, to walk out of school, they will likely have my full support. And the school will have my full support in handing out a consequence for their decision. The last thing I want my children to believe about the world is that they are entitled to break the rules, even in the name of protest, and face no consequence.

I want them to believe that their discomfort—which obviously pales in comparison to those who have come before them—is worth whatever cause they believe in so firmly that they are willing to get up and walk out of school.

Editor’s note: This essay was original published in a slightly different form by the Education Post.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

Whenever a classmate would question the question, my favorite law school professor would say, “Don’t fight the hypothetical.” It’s a good premise for intellectual exercises—like a Wonkathon—and so I’ll begin by answering the question directly before getting to the deeper issue at hand.

Standards for graduating high school

There should be just two overarching standards for high school graduation.

First, every student must demonstrate academic competency. No diploma (*spoiler alert—or certificate or credit) will carry a graduate far without high competency in core academics because every student must be a lifelong learner. Others can debate how to demonstrate that competency and in which specific subjects, but those debates should not overshadow or water down the critical premise: If a student is not prepared to continue learning, then she is not prepared to graduate.

Second, every student must demonstrate that they can apply the skills they’ve learned in a post–high school setting. Employers are constantly telling us that how you can apply skills is as important as what you actually know. When hiring, they’re looking at habits and behaviors. Students must be able to think critically, collaborate with colleagues, solve problems, and adapt in real time. Fortunately, there are many pathways for demonstrating achievement in this standard—and I have some ideas below.

How to get there

Now how we get there—that’s the bigger question. What should the high school experience look like? What should high school students be doing?

So here are a few ideas—call them guiding principles—to chew on.

Agility starts with academics.

Successful high schools emphasize a rigorous curriculum because they know they’re preparing lifelong learners. Competency in core academic skills is the key to every other door. Even the most expertly trained technical student is likely to need some additional education or skills training during her career.

There is good research to support this idea. Effective apprenticeship models facilitate high permeability between vocational and academic programs. Students master the fundamentals so they can go back and forth between tracks and learn new skills as needed.

What we know about the future of work should influence our thinking here too. Automation and artificial intelligence are forcing radical shifts in the workforce. Over the next two decades, a huge number of jobs will disappear as new ones take their place. 

Today we talk about preparing students for a career. Yet being trained in one specialty will only get graduates so far; it’s far more likely that even those who go directly into a career will need to go back to school at some point to stay in the workforce long-term. Agility will become currency. Workers will need to be agile in order to adapt and succeed, and that requires the ability to learn continuously.

Our school system must become agile too—which leads us to the next element.

Twelfth grade is not a hard stop

A high school diploma has to be a forward signal, not a record of past achievement; there’s more to your diploma than just completion of grades kindergarten through twelve. The line between high school and post-secondary education isn’t just blurred, it’s irrelevant and should cease to exist.

Pioneers of this principle have been hard at work for years. Dual-enrollment programs offer students the chance to pursue college courses in addition to their high school classes. Early college high schools go a step further, enabling students to earn full college credits. The Colorado Early Colleges Network public charter schools, started in Colorado Springs, CO, consistently rank among the top-performing high schools in the state, and 80 percent of 2017 graduates earned an associate degree along with their high school diploma. Students at Metro Early College High School in Columbus, OH, who complete their core academic classes can move on to take college-level courses at The Ohio State University and/or Columbus State Community College.

In fact, the average graduate of an early college program has earned thirty-six college credits. Such opportunities can make the transition to college seamless; early college students are more likely to attend college after graduation because they’re already on the path.

These programs—and the next evolution of them—need to become the norm because the experience they provide for students can no longer be exceptional.

Students are the focal point.

Successful high schools will figure out how to personalize learning opportunities for every student and offer a variety of programs to meet their specific needs. Small learning communities and college and career counseling are among the top evidence-based strategies identified by the U.S. Department of Education for Next Generation High Schools (along with rigorous curriculum, dual enrollment, and early-college programs).

And for good reason. Small learning communities provide the space for individualized learning and support, where students have a defined peer network critical for developing the social skills necessary to succeed later in life. Likewise, college and career counseling are particularly important for low-income and first-generation college students, who often can’t rely on access to adults who have “done it before” to illuminate the opportunities available to them or guide them through the choices they’ll have to make.

To do all of this, we’ll need an agile funding system too, one that provides sufficient resources to meet students where they are (meaning students with greater needs receive a greater share of the resources) and sufficient flexibility to follow students to wherever (and however) their learning takes place. Rather than locking resources into a building that is supposed to house all educational opportunities, state funding schemes should unlock the combined power of technology, choice, and specialization to enable students to learn in a variety of venues from multiple providers.

Educators and operators can and will step up to the challenge of creating a more agile education system that responds to changing job and student needs—if we design school funding models to be agile enough to accommodate whatever they dream up.

Experience is the lead teacher of a core subject.

Critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration with peers, and the soft skills everybody reading this takes for granted—these are all keys to success in a twenty-first-century workforce. Graduates without such skills are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to capitalizing on the enormous freedom and opportunities that technology and continuous innovation provide.

Twenty-first-century skills aren’t taught in a course; they come from experiences. Whether the experience is gained in real workplace environments, apprenticeships, or college classrooms, every high school student needs opportunities to learn these skills and demonstrate her proficiency in them.

Once again, many educators—often through innovative partnerships with business leaders—are ahead of the curve here, paving the way for the rest of our high schools to catch up. Check out Honda’s partnership with the STEM Academy Early College High School in Marysville, Ohio. Or South Carolina’s Apprenticeship Carolina program, giving high school students job training while they’re still in school.

If we rethink high school with these principles in mind, secondary education just might become meaningful again.

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

The national high school graduation rate has risen from 73 percent to 84 percent in the decade since 2006, which is good news. But the veracity of this increase has been called into question, in part because twelfth grade NAEP reading and math scores have stayed flat during this time.

There’s more than a little suspicion that at least some of the grad rate increase is a by-product of the heightened focus on grad rate by states and districts over this period, which gave schools and teachers the incentive to let marginal students earn course credits. Unlike many other academic metrics, the standards for student grades and course credits are subjective, and are largely determined at the school level.

Yet ESSA doubles down on graduation rate as a core academic performance metric. States are required to include it in their accountability framework, and it is also the sole metric states must use to identify high schools eligible for “comprehensive support.”

Ironically, a convincing case can be made that that the graduation rate metric used under federal guidance, the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR), does not even meet ESSA's own standards for being a valid indicator of “meaningful differentiation” between schools.

Under ESSA, the academic indicators states use for their accountability frameworks must “provide for fair, valid, and uniform annual meaningful differentiation across schools and LEAs.”

It is hard to argue that ACGR meets this standard. The lack of a uniform standard for earning grades and course credits from school-to-school and state-to-state and the large variation in the level of skills and knowledge signified by a diploma from different high schools make it very hard to compare grad rate “across schools and LEAs.”

There is, however, flexibility under ESSA that states can use to increase the uniformity, validity and integrity of the graduation rate metric.

For instance, an inherent problem in calculation of ACGR is that non-graduating students are attributed to the cohort of the last school they attended, even if they spent only a few days at the school. So a student who spends three-plus years at his neighborhood school, falls behind, and then transfers to a charter school in spring semester of his senior year would be counted against the grad rate of the charter school simply because it was the school he attended when the four-year clock had expired.

The school where he fell behind for three-and-a-half years escapes all accountability. This is a powerful incentive for high schools to game the system by counseling students at risk of not graduating in four years to enroll in another school (often a virtual program.)

The “partial attendance provision” of ESSA, (Section 1111(c)(4)(F)) can make it harder to play this game. Students who have not spent at least half of a year at a school before dropping out (or failing to graduate when the four-year clock is up) are reverted to the graduating cohort of a previous high school they attended for the purpose of calculating graduation rate.

States can use this provision to reduce the incentive for high schools to play the game of “counselling out” students. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in state ESSA plans that they plan to take advantage of this provision.

Under ESSA, all high schools with a grad rate under 67 percent are required to be identified as eligible for “comprehensive support and improvement,” which is equivalent to labelling them as failing schools.

For most traditional high schools in which the student population is very stable, a grad rate of below 67 percent would indeed indicate a problem. But for schools with a highly mobile student population, such as some low income urban schools and many virtual high schools, it might not.

Here’s why: Imagine a school in which half its students enrolled as juniors and were a full year behind in credit when they enrolled. Certainly none of these students would graduate with their cohort, but say that every one of them accumulated credits at a normal pace from the moment they enrolled. This school would have an ACGR no higher than 50 percent. But is it a failing school?

Probably not. Further evidence is required to make that judgment. Just looking at ACGR can give a false signal when looking at schools with high levels of student mobility.

Luckily, ESSA now gives states the flexibility to not be slavishly tied to ACGR when making the judgment of which schools to include on the list of comprehensive-support high schools. The statutory wording in the relevant section does not actually specify that ACGR is the metric that must be used.

Every other section in ESSA that refers to grad rate does use the term-of-art “ACGR,” but not the section on identifying schools for comprehensive support. That section just uses the phrase “fails to graduate two-thirds of its students.”

In the draft accountability rules adopted in 2017, the DOE did specify that ACGR had to be the metric for that purpose. But those rules are of course now gone compliments of the Congressional Review Act.

So states now have the flexibility to look a little deeper than ACGR when identifying schools for comprehensive support. Taking advantage of this flexibility could prevent the waste of scarce resources on schools whose low ACGR is just an artifact of a highly mobile student population.

It is likely that graduation rates under ESSA will continue to rise—and will continue to be viewed with skepticism. When the standards for earning credit are so subject to manipulation and the intricacies of how ACGR is calculated is so subject to gaming, its usefulness as a reliable indicator of performance is diminished.

But states can take a step towards making grad rate a metric that is “fair, valid, and uniform ... across schools and LEAs” by taking advantage of the flexibility that ESSA provides.

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

Years ago, I was asked to speak to school officials and parents who were rethinking their district’s graduation requirements. They wanted outside opinion on what should be required.

I suggested they talk to employers who hired high school graduates and to community college instructors. What knowledge and skills did an eighteen-year-old need to qualify for an entry-level job and pass an entry-level class? That should be the requirement.

The district was trying to focus on the “whole child” and was considering adding a requirement covering emotional health, good citizenship, love of learning—stuff like that. An earnest man asked what I thought.

“Imagine a student who’s a miserable human being,” I said. “He hates school, doesn’t get along with people, isn’t a nice guy, but he’s passes all his classes with A’s. Now imagine denying him a diploma.”

A shudder went through the audience.

“You wouldn’t do that,” I said. “So don’t require it.”

That’s still my advice. Don’t require the impossible—unless you’re prepared for a lot of cheating.

These days, all high-school graduates are supposed to be ready for college. Most enroll. The unprepared drop out quickly.

Many high schools are pushing up graduation rates by making it easy—very easy—for students who’ve failed classes to make up credits. Most exit exams, which typically ensured graduates had mastered eighth-grade skills, have been dropped. The scandal in Washington, D.C., which was handing diplomas to no-show, no-learn twelfth graders, is not unique.

If we want nearly everyone—or everyone who shows up and makes an effort—to get a high school diploma, not just a “certificate of completion,” then the requirements must be lowered to the bare minimum. Community college leaders say there’s some hope of success for students who show up with seventh-grade skills or better. Perhaps that’s the minimum for a “basic” diploma that would signify the student showed up, followed the rules, and learned something. Employers like people who show up and follow rules, which is why traditionally they’ve preferred high school graduates to GED earners.

Schools should make it clear to students that higher-level diplomas have higher payoffs. I envision a “career-readiness” diploma for students aiming for on-the-job or community college–based vocational programs. It might include certifications in specific job skills, but the key is to teach students the academic skills they’ll need to learn in the future. Some might go on to earn a four-year degree. Others will find they don’t need or want it.

For those aiming for a bachelor’s degree or higher, schools should offer a rigorous “honors” or “university-ready” diploma that truly signifies preparation for college-level academic work.

I’d also like to see a very strong effort to identify students who are falling behind in elementary and middle school, figure out why they’re struggling and give them help to get on a career-ready or university-ready track before it’s too late.

We expect high schools to perform miracles and then, when that doesn’t happen, we expect colleges to perform miracles. Let’s get real.

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

A high school diploma should be more than just a piece of paper. It’s a promise we make to our children: Put in the hard work to earn one, and you’ll be on the path to achieve your goals in life. By that standard, we in public education are lying to hundreds of thousands of students every year.

The problem extends far beyond the handful of cities accused of manipulating their graduation rates. Nationwide, fewer than half of all high school graduates are prepared to earn even a “C” in their college courses, based on SAT and ACT data. About 40 percent of those who enroll in college are placed in remedial classes, where they spend time and money learning skills they were told they’d already mastered. And most who take a remedial class won’t go on to earn a degree.

Graduates who opt for a career straight out of high school aren’t faring much better. Most employers report that high school graduates enter their roles “deficient” in the skills they need to do their jobs well.

In other words, you could walk into any high school in the country, and the odds are you’ll find at least some students on track to earning diplomas that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. That’s the problem we need to solve: How can we ensure students are finishing high school on track to meet their life goals?

We could make a Common Core–style push to move from the current hodgepodge of state graduation requirements to one set of national standards. I personally think that would be good policy, but politically it’s a pipe dream. And graduation standards will always have a difficult time accounting for the full range of students’ aspirations—for example, careers that don’t require a four-year college degree but require a specific kind of postsecondary certification or training.

So here’s a better and more realistic idea: Instead of diving right into tinkering with graduation requirements, let’s focus on explaining students’ progress against those requirements in a way that’s more transparent and relevant to them and their families. That means actually asking students what they want to do after high school, and providing easy-to-understand updates on their progress toward their life goals—not just when they graduate, but throughout their K–12 career.

Here’s how it could work. Beginning in elementary school, schools should ask students and their families about their postsecondary goals, and track the answers just as they would grades or other important academic information. This should happen at least once a year—through some combination of a survey and parent-teacher conferences—because students’ goals will evolve over time. And schools should use this process as an opportunity not just to passively collect information, but to encourage students to set truly ambitious goals for themselves.

Once schools know what students want to do after high school, report cards at every level could include a narrative section that clearly explains whether students are on track to meet their goals (not just graduation standards). And when students graduate from high school, their diplomas should come with a report that clearly explains whether they are ready to take the next step toward their career goals. For example, is the student ready to be successful in a four-year college or not? States and districts should track these assessments and should be willing to stand behind them, especially if they are checked against graduates’ actual post-secondary success.

Connecting diplomas more explicitly to students’ life goals would provide students with more honest, useful information about their academic progress. Notably, schools would need to make much more accurate assessments of college readiness because most students’ goals include attending college.

This system would also provide policymakers and researchers with access to a wealth of new data about students’ life goals, and how many graduated on track to meet them. They could supplement these data by following students after graduation—for example, to see how many students certified as “college ready” actually earned credit in their freshman courses or went on to earn a degree. That would open up new, more meaningful accountability measures for schools and school systems focused on what percentage of students (overall and by subgroups) go on to achieve their college or career goals. And it could lead to a more thoughtful conversation about changes to graduation standards, based on a clearer picture of how current standards connect to students’ lives after high school.

Most importantly, this new view of diplomas would create powerful incentives for schools to reorient all their policies and practices around understanding and helping students meet their life goals. Instead of expecting students to adapt to the current one-size-fits all approach to school if they want to succeed, we’d start expecting schools to craft education programs for every student that acknowledge their potential and honor their aspirations. And we’d ultimately judge school systems not on how many of their students earn a paper credential, but on how many actually reach their goals after high school.

You might assume this is how schools already operate, but think about it: If you’re a parent, when’s the last time a teacher or principal asked about your hopes and dreams for your child after high school? When’s the last time anybody asked your child? I think the key to many of the challenges we face in public education today lies in asking those questions, listening, and making the answers our collective North Star. Applying that principle to high school diplomas seems like as good a place to start as any.

1. Editors in Youngstown opined this weekend on the seeming chaos wrought by the resignations of 3/5 of the Academic Distress Commission in the last week. (Youngstown Vindicator, 3/11/18) Meanwhile, some folks in the rather tony Boulder Valley school district in Colorado were wondering—out loud and on the record, of course—why someone like Youngstown CEO Krish Mohip would be a good fit for their district leadership. You know, since Youngstown is so “different” and everything. And by “different”, I think they mean… What? Oh, you already KNOW what they mean. OK. I won’t spell it out then. (Boulder Daily Camera, 3/8/18)
    
2. Meanwhile, concerned Akron citizen D. Livingston writes in regard to HB 87: “A plan to send tax dollars squandered by charter schools back to the local school districts they cheated — and not to the state — has cleared the Ohio House.” What? That WASN’T a letter-to-the-editor? (Akron Beacon Journal, 3/11/18)
    
3. Elsewhere, concerned Cleveland citizens P. O’Donnell and J. Pelzer write: The proposal to merge the state’s pre K, K-12, and workforce development governance “…would also wipe out about 80 percent of the power of the state school board and give it to the governor, [and] has drawn some support but also a backlash from educators and the public.” Wait! That’s not a letter-to-the-editor EITHER? (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 3/12/18)
    
4. Finally today, the biggest question on this topic is left unanswered here, but kudos to Lorain City Schools—and to the local plant nursery—for reaching out to recent arrivals from Puerto Rico. The schools are offering information on accessing the district for their children and the nursery is offering jobs to their adult family members. Yep. Kudos. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 3/12/18)

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

“_____’s recent history is replete with spectacular…failures. An incalculable number of meetings, symposia, working groups, and studies have been dedicated to ‘righting the wrongs’ in _____.”

Sound like recent hand-wringing of edu-wonks you love and know? You’ll certainly be forgiven if you thought the blank here was “K–12 education,” but it actually comes from Military Review. “How the Army Ought to Write Requirements” takes on the very fundamental issue of how the Department of Defense should decide exactly what a new helicopter, tank, or radio should reliably do.

K–12 education similarly struggles: What will users truly need when they get to the field? Education leaders and policymakers, too, need to revamp how they generate requirements.

But we can’t talk about that until we talk of “A,” a teen student, and his principal, Eric. Eric’s working valiantly to get 400 teens ready for state achievement tests. “A” is now—sadly, tragically, violently, wastefully—dead.

“‘A’ was fluent in American Sign Language. He lived in a silent home, and he loved coming to school to be social and to engage out loud and engage he did; often extremely loudly. He was smart. He had huge gaps in his knowledge, as many of my students do, and he was way behind in his learning. But he was so intelligent….He made his friends and teachers both laugh out loud when they least expected it. He cared about people….He never lied. Ever….He was a peacemaker. He could resolve almost any conflict that occurred at school. He pulled people aside and mediated on his own, all the time. He was my early warning system….He drove my teachers crazy. He didn’t do any work. And he disrupted every class with his questions, his wondering, his flirting with girls, his goofiness, and his laughter.”

Go ahead, go and read the rest. When you’ve dried your eyes and recomposed, we can talk about a requirements-process for high school.

We need far more young men like “A.” If you were his principal, I hope you’d have bent every rule to get him a diploma and into an environment where they didn’t have gangs. He could’ve been a great leader—in his community, in a Marine unit, in a business, for the Red Cross. He was so close to the finish line, so close to reaching the age of escape.

Several groups today take on the mission of changing high school to better fit teens like “A.” The XQ Institute is the best-funded. It backs eighteen model “superschools.” Education-Reimagined facilitates innovative regional efforts and schools. Its magazine documents schools shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. KnowledgeWorks bridges these and others with its own state and national policy shops. Its efforts to shift pedagogy, law, and policies toward personalized learning effectively support time-flexibility in the core subjects. Big Picture Learning offers one of the more promising network models for non-traditional learning experiences. The Buck Institute and others are driving project-based learning forward.

Nothing systemic, however, yet supports such change. While these organizations do great work, they need more help to accelerate this transformation. Help, that is, reaching the 27,000 high schools on the right end of the Calkins Invention Curve.

Let’s return to Lt. Col. Thomas “Bull” Holland’s Military Review article and governments’ job of determining requirements: “Consumer choices in a competitive marketplace provide companies with evidence for business decisions….Every successful business model relies on market forces and competition to drive innovation, efficiency, and productivity….The fail fast mentality of successful innovators is predicated on collecting and analyzing evidence about customer needs (i.e., requirements).”

For a high school diploma, legislators who set the bar have the most tenuous of connections to students and employers. Think tanks, lobbyists, textbook publishers, the old guard of math and English academics, testing organizations, voters who haven’t been in a classroom in fifty years, farmers with 500 acres of taxable land—they all weigh in. Then it’s set in stone.

How do we get to a more agile requirements-process for high school?

First, by getting out of the way, as the authors of a Fordham Institute report suggest. Structural and management issues often suppress student learning at all ages. The authors say that states ought to address those issues directly. This smart deregulation approach could be a policy focus for coming years. And to that I’d add one more policy: Break up large urban districts.

Second, completely reimagine academic expectations.

When we talk of the “value” of a high school diploma, “the soft bigotry of low expectations” vis-à-vis college readiness still drives our thinking. We can’t yet let go of this.

But too many of us mistake the testing designed to correct this as an educational tool instead of the crude legal tool it is. Testing gives us reliable data on populations; its value degrades as we consider real, individual kids.

Take reading-level. Reading-level measurement remains an extremely crude art. Beyond the eighth-grade level, it is, at best, a good measure of the carelessness (or antiquity, or pomposity) of the writer. Our vocabularies diverge far too much at that point.

While we woe that “high school students are reading books at fifth-grade-appropriate levels,” and PARCC seems to be testing youth at substantially above the appropriate levels, the truth is that few of us (me included) need to read at a “twelfth-grade level.” Fewer still need or want to read archaic nineteenth-century literary passages like those tested on NAEP. When it comes to writing, the ACT is well known for having its own logic and quirks, and will often contradict the most seasoned of writers or grammar experts.

We need much better assessments, much more modern—and vetted—curricula, more growth-oriented measures for all teens, more hands-on experiences, and improved quantity and quality of project-based-learning efforts. We need to make high school more open-walled, and to give every teen several tries at passion projects. We need to send fewer students to dual-enrollment, and to engage more teens with non-academic adults and communities. We need to augment the Supreme Court–centric AP Civics course with perhaps twenty solid, far more democratic sea-to-shining-sea curricula. We need to consistently serve gifted teens. It’s a huge, tough, SpaceX-type challenge.

The good news? Curriculum and assessments are more like web development frameworks than helicopters with forty-year design lives.

Instead of quinquennial policy or curriculum upgrades, K–12 education can adopt the faster innovation-iteration cycles of open source software communities. Teachers—with experts, community members, and even students—can iterate coherent curricula (and assessments) together, instead of alone at night, via Pinterest.

Thus we’ve pursued, since 2010, theory and practice of radical #coursechoice. Ohio law provides all teens the option of taking courses outside their school of registration. Any course. Where can this lead?

In designing future education policies, the word “course,” leads us astray. The legal choice teens make is (for now) at the course level; the learning choice made could be (when properly designed) at a much finer granularity—via what are variously known as competencies, pathways, and transparent, vetted, open badges.

It’s in those fine-grained choices that the magic will happen. That we’ll tease out coherent high school experiences that flow smoothly, instead of the cobbled-together mishmashes some states are driving towards now.

It’ll take patient experiments. We have to remake the high school operating system.

Legally and economically, this path of requirements-gathering might just match the disruptive transformation of sectors these teens will enter. Maybe it’ll also save a few teens like “A.”

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

According to 2017 data from the US Census Bureau, almost everyone has a high school diploma. In fact, a December press release from the Bureau claimed that, for the first time in history, nearly 90 percent of Americans have successfully completed high school. Even before this milestone, stakeholders across the education world had flagged rising high school graduation rates and criticized how easy it had become to attain a diploma. For example, Molly Spearman, state superintendent in South Carolina, was quoted in the New York Times saying, “Quite honestly, it had become very easy, and it didn’t mean a lot.”

In light of these shared—and very legitimate—concerns: How can we make high school diplomas meaningful again?

For centuries, we’ve been valuing diplomas intrinsically based on what goes into the achievement itself—curriculum, instruction, assessment, and student determination. And then we hope for the best.

We’ve relied on macro-level research connecting the ingredients of a diploma with positive outcomes. For example, research has shown higher test scores have been associated with higher gross domestic product, and high school graduates earn more income and pay more taxes than dropouts. This reinforces what we already believe: More successful students mean a more productive nation.

And yet there is increasing evidence that graduation rates are inflated amid a rising chorus from colleges and employers that our high school grads are not prepared to succeed.

When the intrinsic value of a diploma is so easily questioned, we should reinforce tools that externally validate diplomas.

Meaning and value are regularly determined externally. For example, the value I have for my house is more than monetary; I have sentimental attachments to the home where my family lives. But third-party evaluators—like Zillow and the county assessor—are less interested in family memories, and more concerned with the value of the house if I were to sell it. My point is that third party evaluators value my home differently than I do. Their valuation is external and in relation to the value of other homes nearby, which is a particularly significant calculation when I move from one home to another.

In the same way, when students move from high school to post-secondary endeavors, external validation—including colleges and employers—should serve as a critical tool.

We haven’t done a great job of widely and deeply measuring the extrinsic value of a diploma. There are blunt instruments like income and job data, but they are not tailored or timely enough to teach us how to improve. And these instruments don’t provide any information about how colleges and employers assess the value of high school diplomas—information that families, schools, and school systems desperately need.  

So here’s an idea: external validation by survey. More specifically, state policymakers should survey alumni, employers, and colleges to rate the value of diplomas. This effort could accomplish at least two important goals:

• First, rating diplomas would provide an external check-and-balance on local school boards and state education agencies; and
• Second, when policymakers furnish accessible and useful information, families are empowered to make better decisions.

Of course, creating surveys that render the desired accurate and useful data can be expensive and complex. I admit it. The idea comes with bushels of questions. For example, how many validators and commenters are ideal? What is the best analytical approach to understanding differences of opinion? Should all employers be surveyed, or just those relevant to state and regional economies? Who gets credit for a highly-rated diploma if the high-school graduate attended three different high schools? I don’t have clear answers.

And there are other ways to externally validate diplomas, some of which are already in place. Think standardized assessment, accreditation, and regulatory audits. Still, I like the idea of surveys best because there doesn’t seem to be a more direct way to understand the value of a high school diploma than to ask the people and organizations who are most immediately affected.

• Alumni: What is the utility of your high school diploma? Does it help you accomplish your next goal?
• Businesses: Does earning a high school diploma adequately prepare your employees? What do you need your new employees to be able to do?
• Colleges: Which students are best prepared for college? Why? What high schools did they attend?

Surveys aren’t perfect measurements. And even if we could perfectly rate the value of a high school diploma, the rating itself would not guarantee that the diploma’s value improves over time. So this recommendation is certainly not a panacea. But when the meaning of a high school diploma seems lost, perhaps understanding what’s meaningful is a good place to start.

Editor's note: This post is a submission to Fordham's 2018 Wonkathon. We asked assorted education policy experts whether our graduation requirements need to change, in light of diploma scandals in D.C., Maryland, and elsewhere. Other entries can be found here.

Research provides ample and persuasive evidence that even if students don’t pursue a college degree, taking a rigorous course load in high school leads to better outcomes later in life. But far too many students are deprived of this future. Thousands of students drop out every year or are disengaged from school. Only about half who make it to college succeed, a problem only partially solved by using rigorous standards in reading and math.

Prepared high school graduates possess academic knowledge and can problem-solve, organize, and manage time. They successfully navigate the transition to their postsecondary pathway of choice.

The twenty-first century American economy and the demands of equity can ill-afford graduates who lack these skills. States prepare graduates by (1) establishing rigorous college-, career-, and life-ready coursework requirements for high school graduation and (2) supporting local innovation to transform high schools into institutions of meaningful learning.

Indeed, one of the core problems is that state high school graduation requirements aren’t rigorous enough. They’re not aligned with the requirements of public four-year universities, they don’t require career preparation courses, and they don’t require elements of a well-rounded education. To be sure, some states—like Tennessee, Louisiana, and Delaware—are exceptions. But nearly every state has some area where they should improve their requirements to better align with college and work expectations. Ideal high school graduation requirements for a regular (non-honors) diploma would meet four basic criteria.

Of course, reaching this ideal in every high school—especially in under-resourced ones—will take Herculean and coordinated effort by districts, communities, and higher education institutions. In support, states should:

• Audit, then provide, the eighteen-credit college- and career-ready courses universally.

Currently, only about half to two-thirds of U.S. high schools offer the full range of the fifteen-credit college-ready courses. States should conduct audits of teacher and course availability, especially for math, science, and career and technical education, to get a full picture of which courses students have access to.

• Prepare students to complete this college- and career-ready course sequence, and more accurately measure how well students learn.

Only about a third of high school students are prepared for college-level reading. This level of unreadiness often reflects gaps in meeting basic needs, which coordinated services can provide. Federal formula funds under the Every Student Succeeds Act can support these efforts, including those in Title I, Title II and Title IV.

To learn at the highest levels, students need access to intentional instructional design. However, existing credit accumulation requirements can present barriers to such innovations. Policymakers can amend policies or provide limited waivers to allow for small-scale piloting of efforts, setting the stage for potential future policy changes. For example, states can confer “innovation” status to traditional public schools with similar flexibilities that charters use; provide flexibility in credit attainment policies; and fund schools according to these new structures. Policymakers can also provide guidance on how districts can use existing federal and state dollars can support their work.

In addition, states can dedicate a portion of federal and state dollars to develop assessments that are aligned with new approaches to learning, like competency-based education.

• Use state longitudinal data systems to manage, report, and use good data to continuously improve and hold schools accountable.

States should design their data systems so that the data can answer sophisticated research questions, such as understanding college remediation rates disaggregated by high school courses. Such data help states develop targeted strategies for improvement. For example, Delaware’s remedial education rate for college students who took high-level math in high school identifies that the state has clear areas to improve.

Tracking and using sophisticated data provides an opportunity to partner with outside researchers to manage data, and is an especially helpful strategy to avoid the ethical concerns of controlling the very same data that is used to hold oneself accountable. States should also be using these data to measure annual school performance.

We must set demanding expectations of our high schools and provide them with adequate support to meet these ideals. Only when we expect more of and support our high schools can we reasonably do the same for our high school students.