Kids today! Low expectations! Low standards! Bad teachers! Lazy kids! Cell phones! Social media!
We are in the midst of yet another panic about high schools failing to prepare their students for college. I speak now as an historian. When college enrollments were limited to those who graduated from elite private high schools and to those from public schools with exceptional grades, there was no outcry about unready, unprepared students. When public colleges and universities lowered their admission standards to accept almost anyone who wanted to go to college, the outcry began. It reached a crescendo in 1983 with the publication of the Reagan-era “A Nation at Risk,” which sounded the alarm about low standards and “a rising tide of mediocrity.”
As James Harvey, who was on the research team that drafted “A Nation at Risk” wrote, high-level members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education “cooked the books.” The report was intended to salute American schools for their success in opening their doors to students who were previously excluded or dropped out, but the bigwigs turned it into an indictment instead, cherry-picking statistics to condemn the schools and giving birth to decades of failed “reforms.”
Peter Greene writes here about the current surge in
High school graduates aren’t ready for college! The articles about this problem are popping up all over (here, here and here). Chad Aldeman, who I think of as a relatively level-headed member of the reformy crowd, just dropped a piece passing on UC’s increasing number of math-failing froshies.
The National Center for Education Statistics has a paper that looks at those numbers for 1999-2000, 2003-2004, and 2007-2008, and while it breaks them down a variety of ways, the overall conclusion is that 1999-2000 was worse than either of the other years sampled, and all of the numbers hovered around the twenties, low or high. But this article from Chicagoland says that over a third of students entering college need remedial help, based on 2008 stats from the government– same as the previous report. A Harvard professor looking at a 2003 study comes up with one third as well. The Inside Higher Ed Bridge to Nowherereport throws around a 30% number. And I would swear that I recently heard 46% tossed into the remediation soup as well. Most of these sources do not compare the current figures to any from the alleged golden age of non-remediation. So can I at least suggest that the numbers are “controversial” or “contested” or maybe even “pulled out of a variety of different orifices”
Apparently today’s freshmen were not saved by an entire educational career spent under the guidance (more or less) of Common Core. But before we start using the success rate of college freshmen as an indictment of high school quality, let me suggest a few more factors to also consider.
Admissions process: As the generations entering college get smaller and smaller, and more and more people decide college isn’t worth the bother and/or expense, colleges are doing their best to fill up with students who possess a warm body and can write checks that don’t bounce. Lowering the bar is going to result in students with less college ready capabilities.
Measuring remediation needs: If we’re talking about students who need remediation, we need to talk about how the college is identifying that need. Because sometimes it’s a not-very-good assessment test.
Marketing: One of the big policy pushes, especially from neoliberals dems, has been to get everyone to go to college. “Get a college education, or you will be doomed to living in a van down by the river eating cat food on a hot plate!” has been a big message, and it has scared a lot of people into college who might have been better served by a trade school or another post-high school option.
And perhaps most important is this last one, because if we’re seeing an actual dip in educational attainment, I can think of one factor that distinguishes the education of the generation now entering college that is different from the generations that came before.
Test-centered education is not great: Today’s college freshmen got thirteen years of more-or-lee (depending on their state) Common Core flavored education, which in practice has meant thirteen years of getting prepped for the Big Standardized Test. If we are questioning the quality of the K-12 system, it seems only sensible to look at the policy that has taken control of K-12 education in this country. Maybe centering education on passing a single mediocre math and reading multiple choice test is not a great idea.
There is an extraordinary irony here. Many of the folks now saying, “Boy, you public school teachers are really messing up your job” are the same folks who spent the last twenty years saying, “Here, public school teachers– we are going to tell you how to do your job and you’re going to listen to us or else.” This is an old education story– “accountability” never means “accountability for policy makers.”
We could dig up a few other responses, like questioning why “just raise expectations” is a useful prescription for high schools, but not for colleges.
And there is always the possibility that this is one more faux crisis. But if there is an issue here, it would be useful to look at it more closely than simply declaring that Kids These Days are graduating from high school with underdeveloped thinky parts and it’s probably the fault of Those Damned Teachers and their lousy public schools.

To find out if this is another manufactured issue, like all of the others starting with Reagan’s BIG LIE A Nation at Risk, when it comes to public teachers and K-12 public education, I asked Google: Are college graduation rates rising, staying the same or falling?
I think the answer shows this is another manufatuered crises.
National college graduation rates have plateaued and are currently staying the same, holding steady at approximately 61.1% for the most recent tracking cohorts. While the six-year completion rate has historically risen significantly over the last few decades, recent data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center shows that this growth has flattened out.
Completion rates at two-year public community colleges have been trending upward over the past several years. They climbed from roughly 41% for the cohort that entered in 2014 to 43.9% for more recent cohorts, though that upward momentum has started to level off recently as well. [1]
The six-year graduation rate for public four-year institutions has largely stabilized. Overall, public universities maintain a six-year graduation rate of around 63% to 71% depending on the specific state and dataset used.
The total volume of students earning degrees has actually fallen. Many students are pivoting toward trade programs, leading to a ten-year high in vocational certificate earners instead.
The OECD measures “tertiary educational attainment,” which includes associates, bachelors, and vocational degrees. The U.S. has a 52.2% attainment rate, noticeably higher than the overall OECD average of 42.7%. [1, 2]
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is an extraordinary irony here. Many of the folks now saying, “Boy, you public school teachers are really messing up your job” are the same folks who spent the last twenty years saying, “Here, public school teachers– we are going to tell you how to do your job and you’re going to listen to us or else.” This is an old education story– “accountability” never means “accountability for policy makers.”
You can say that again
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, then I thought of another question, which revealed the real reason for this being a fake issue.
Has the cost of college education caused college age students to focus on vocational training instead, after high school?
Yes, rising college costs and economic pressures have led a growing number of high school graduates and Gen Z students to choose vocational and trade schools instead of traditional four-year degree.
Trade School Benefits: Why Gen Z Chooses Trades Over College
LikeLike
Peter Greene could have mentioned a couple of major studies [Martorell and McFarlin Study (2007/2011), and Columbia’s Community College Research Center (CCRC) Studies (2012)] that reveal college remedial courses as ineffective or counterproductive. Not to mention exploitative, as such courses are paid at full tuition rate for zero credit. Many states have since replaced that system with corequisite models—where students enroll directly in college-level credit courses while receiving concurrent academic support. [The “30%” state means only that 30% incoming college students took at least one remedial course.]
Fuel for the latest fire over test-blind college admissions has come from U-Cal STEM programs [over 2,300 STEM faculty and multiple math department chairs] claiming 13% of incoming students in the 5 yrs since policy began test below high school math proficiency– including 9% who require remediation in middle school math concepts. Rather than formally restructuring the entire curriculum into lower-level courses across the board, the gap places the burden on instructors to bridge middle-school skills on the fly, leading to high failure and withdrawal rates (up to 46% for students struggling with baseline topics).
I don’t know exactly how I feel about the U-Cal STEM situation. You want to provide access to STEM for all students in a public college system. Establishing a drop-dead entrance score reqt could mean denying access to maybe 13% who could pass with extra academic support. Are they trying that, as opposed to ‘bridging middle-school skills on the fly’ while teaching fully college-level math courses?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for an excellent contribution!
LikeLiked by 1 person
gee thanx Diane (blush)
LikeLike