This short NPR clip tries at least to scratch the surface of this question via a quick interview with Theodore Sizer, former high school principal, founder of the Coalition of Essential Schools, and author of The Red Pencil: Convictions from Experience in Education. Sizer comes down hard on two of the defining features of American public high schools: the unwieldy student:teacher ratio (usually around 25 or 30 to 1) and the absurdly fragmented school day, in which kids are shuffled from subject to subject and place to place every 50 minutes and in which, as a consequence, there is very little opportunity for focussed, concentrated work of any kind. Noting that the shape of the typical high school day has not changed much for the past century, Sizer suggests that it is not satisfaction with a solidly working system that has kept things so constant, but a debilitating fear of change.

Another factor is the increasingly huge size of so many of these schools. I doubt if the teacher-student ratio has changed all that much over the last century, but certainly the proportion of high schools with 3000-5000 students has increased.

It is much more difficult to create a sense of community in a very large organization. It can be done if the person in charge is an exceptional leader, but I don't think such leadership skills are very common among public high school principals.

David Foster's comment is well taken. Student-teacher ratio and average class (two different things) may or may not be as important as has been argued, but the size of the school is an important factor.

There's no arguing that a high school with 3000 students is going to have more resourses and will be able to offer more specialized classes and extra-curricular activities. But it also becomes a perfect place in which to get lost, to hide, to slide by. (For teachers as well as students, one might add.)

One wonders why such large schools could not be broken up into parallel "colleges" of, say, 500 students -- small enough for students and teachers to be visible. Each would provide opportunities for students to participate in various activities -- imagine if each had a band, a theater group, a baseball team, a newspaper, etc. Of course the quality of each would be lower--each college would draw on a smaller talent pool. But that should be a non-issue.

Of course, there's no reason for such a school not to have some activities that are school wide, as well.

Note, however, the word parallel: I fear that most large schools would want to organize such colleges by academic area or perceived ability or career interests. The one thing we don't need is another sort of tracking.

Andrew Weiss
Professor and Chair, Dept of Business
Purdue University North Central

There's an interesting book called "Let's Fix It," by Richard Schonberger, on how to run a manufacturing business. He argues that you should never have an individual plant with more than about 500 employees, unless absolutely unavoidable for reasons of technology or economics. He suggests that in some cases it is possible to gain the smaller-plant feeling by subdividing a larger facility, but believes that for this to work, the subdivision must be a pretty "hard" one--even going as far as separate parking lots.

One thing that is missing from the criticism is that our methods of assessing and promoting students through grades is also outdated. We discuss issues of readiness and development in education, but promote students based on age and not ability. There are many students that are in grades that are lower than they deserve, but are are forced to "do their time" in the grade (usually getting very high marks) and feeling unchallenged. At the same time, students are being moved into higher grades with limited (or minimal) understanding and eventually graduate without mastering the basics that many assume a high school graduate possess.

The unpleasantnesses Sizer cites are mere aggravations of a system that constitutes a relentless insult to the human spirit. That American schools are a species of prison, that the inmates therein are aware of the necessarily slight value of the program foist upon them (otherwise coercion would not be necessary), that they expend far more energy trying to defeat the measures their masters prepare for them, are the real lessons taught in these miserable insitutions. The youngsters learn it in their blood and in their bones long before they are able to articulate it in argument. And they resist and they rebel, some of them--healthy signs that they are not all, or altogether, "educated." (The succeeding piece about the drug testing in the UK is, I presume, an ironic trailer to the Sizer citation. That concerned but vaguely clownish parents would allow themselves to be violated in order to inspire their offspring to go and submit likewise is proof of just how damaging such "education" can truly be.)

John Bonnell
Professor of English (when not suspended for various thought and speech crimes)

"That American schools are a species of prison..."

Hm, well, I wouldn't go that far. My daughter will, please God, graduate from high school in June. There are some things about school I'll be glad to have her finish with: uniforms, cell phone ban, occasionally having to sit on the floor to eat her lunch. But while I suppose you could say that her school shares some things with prison, that doesn't really describe her whole school experience. She lights up when she talks about what she's learning, and that's definitely not prison-like. I think they could do away with a lot of the unpleasant institutional stuff if the schools were smaller, and if the school boards could think new thoughts. One of our school board members was quoted very recently as saying that he though the kids would do better if black history was worked into the curriculum. That is old hat and was done a very long time ago. Heck, my kid's middle and high school math books were full of black history. How much more can be shoehorned in? Another wants a return to neighborhood schools - hello, we stopped busing for desegregation about 10 years ago when somebody woke up to the fact that the public school population is about 90% black and there's nobody much to desegregate with. We've had neighborhood schools ever since.

Just throwing this out,but do kids really need 4 years of high school anymore?

Don't dismiss the kind of damage that can be inflicted by an apathetic faculty. Several of my colleagues at a rural New England high school (I'm 28 and have been teaching English for three years) are still teaching after 35 or 40 years simply because the salaries are "Too good for the small amount of work we have to do." One social studies teacher in particular can proudly boast the largest videocassette collection this side of Blockbuster. If and when I reach the point where teaching is just a 7-3 grind to pay the bills, I'll move on.

There's damage that can be inflicted by outright hostile-to-kids faculty, too. I've liked most of my kid's teachers, but there have been a few whose heads I could cheerfully have twisted off.

Scott, how much education do you think John Q. Kid needs in this day and time? Just as a default. I'm not talking about the college-bound ones because they'd be in school in their teens anyway.

"What's wrong with American high schools?"

Too many non-American students, for one.

I find it amazing that they complain so much about the class size and tell us that we should aim for 15 students per class and that doing so will solve all the problems of the school system.

I grew up a long time ago and most of my classes in high school were around 25-30 students, English classes larger. We received an education far superior to what I see in the students around here who have class sizes no larger and usually smaller than the ones I had. Most of my teachers were also older and had been teaching for years. The difference is that most of them enjoyed teaching or at least seemed to enjoy it. They also had control of their classes. They knew what students would try to get away with and considered that when they taught the class. They also insisted that we do our homework and be prepared. They did not suspend students for petty offenses but handled them in the school. You were promoted when you could do the work. You were not coddled so that your feelings would not be hurt but you also were not made fun of either. There is a way to balance these things without losing the educational aspect. I think if we could just lose a whole lot of the touchy-feely aspects of education and without the spectre of lawsuits if your son or daughter didn't finish first, then maybe the schools could get back to actually teaching our kids to read and write and figure and think.

Two comments:

1. Too many kids these days need MORE than four years -- they seem to still be at a high school level after two or more years of college!

2. Large class sizes (reasonably -- under 30) would be less of a problem if there was a return to more "tracking". Trying to manage that many becomes a problem when there are all sorts of levels of ability and interest. Although many might suggest reserving small classes for the high achievers, I'd suggest reserving them for the low achievers. High achievers need less direct guidance (and arguably less disciplining). My honors classes in high school always had 25-30 students, and we never felt "overcrowded". Of course, honors are un-PC because you might not have a perfectly proportional ethnic mix at all levels -- and better to not "feel bad" about that than to work on fixing the problem(s)!

Dear Laura,
I don't know how much education "John Q. Kid" needs,or if there is a "John Q. Kid".Perhaps that was my point,that some kids can finish secondary school in 3 years,some in 4,etc.,or that some are bound for traditional college,while others are bound for vocational school,which can be very lucrative.I'm just asking that we be flexible and imaginative,traits that seem to be lacking in 21st century secondary education.
I'd very much like to hear from Erin about this,as she is on the front lines.
Yours,
Scott

Instead of clas size, funding, or organization, the question that should be asked of everything that happens in schools is "Does this help children read, write, or analyze at the 12th grade level?" If a school does anything that does not increase academic performance of the studens, the schools should stop doing it.

Or in other words, does the public want schools to be for academic education or social engineering? Because in the long run, you cannot have both.

Critical thinking ought to be taught early in a child's life. If the common opinion is that high-school graduates aren't able to critically think, then I see great potential for high-schools to make up for that.

"The one thing we don't need is another sort of tracking."

Why is everyone so opposed to tracking in the United States? It's a very common practice in Asia, and it seems to be very successful. Is it because we don't want to condemn some students to a lower track at a young age? I don't think that would be a terrible problem. Students could possibly be moved if they are particularly successful or unsuccessful in their tracks.

I went to a large, approx. 4000, high school from which I graduated only 3 years ago. It was split into colleges of sorts, various 'magnet' schools focusing in different areas. Some of the science and language classes were shared between them, but otherwise the faculties were separate.

There was a heavy segregating effect due to the various quality of magnets. I was in the music magnet which had far more upper-income and white students. A non-discriminatory version of this would of course be better, possibly.

On a more personal note, I hated most of those around me in high school and was glad that I could at least get lost to some degree during my stay there.

Happy new year, everybody!

Chris, you say schools should teach critical thinking. What would this involve? Seems to me that to think critically about most things, in a meaningful way, one must know at least something about logic, math, science, and history...and one must be literate enough to read well and easily. Otherwise, one's critical thinking is likely to simply be blather. And to convince others of one's thoughts, one must develop some facilty in what used to be called rhetoric. All of these things are teachable, though evidently not in general being taught well at present.

But there's another element to critical thinking, and that's the thing called courage. Unless one develops this, no level of knowledge will lead to true critical thinking. And I'm concerned that we as a society, and the schools in particular, are not doing a very good job in developing this virtue.

I can easily imagine a "critical thinking" course in which you get good grades only if you think critically in the precise manner--and with the precise conclusions--that the teacher prescribes.

I would encourage you to read the final report of the National Commission on the High School Senior Year published by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. Or go to the ACT web site and read their recent report "Crisis at the Core: Preparing All Students for College and Work." There are mountains of evidence, growing by the day, that support the position that our children are not learning very much in high school. You can legitimately identify any number of reasons why, although I remain unconvinced that class size is, in and of itself, one of those reasons.

The poor quality of textbooks, fuzzy feel good curricula, social promotion, whole language ..... Pick your poison regarding what got us to the present state.

I have two in college right now, whose high school course load was largely determined by me. Were it not for my direct intervention, the school would have allowed them for the most part to choose their own courses. While I certainly discussed it with my children, I was not about to let a fourteen year old make academic decisions that could affect her postsecondary opportunities. But for many other students here in Louisiana, they are deciding what courses to take. And far too often they are choosing the path of least resistance, which is also the path of least value. So I am not suprised that many of them are unprepared for the demands of either postsecondary education or the workplace.

Not everybody here is opposed to tracking. For those who are, it usually is because of the fear that children will be placed in a lower track than they could handle early on, and will be stuck there. That is a concern that must be addressed, if tracking is done.

In Tennessee, there are certain courses that everyone must take and pass to get a high school diploma. Here in Memphis, high school students can choose a college-prep track or a vocational-technical track whose requirements over and above the state requirements are weighted toward one or the other end. In addition, before (and during) high school there is tracking in the form of CLUE, honors classes, and magnet-school programs. A major problem for some kids is that their families move several times during each school year, being bounced between relatives or having rent problems, so if they land in a program that's right for them they can't stay there. Don't know what the solution for that is.

Andrew, here is a minor nit-pick. You say that a less discriminatory version of your music magnet program would be better. Was the program really discriminating against non-white, non-affluent kids? Or was it discriminating for kids with music ability and it just worked out that way?

When I got into my magnet middle school it helped greatly that I was white since they were having trouble meeting their quotas.

The second magnet I was in was a performing arts / music magnet. You can guess which race has the money to afford things like expensive instruments and lessons for their children.

Another reason for segregation is simply the effort it takes to apply to a magnet, usually put out by the parents. I'd be willing to bet that upper class parents are more likely to push their kids.

Perhaps it was largely class segregation, it looks pretty much the same as racial segregation in LA.

Well, from what I've seen from my kids (and a brief stint as a sub), I would point to bland, boring and inaccurate textbooks along with an absence of discipline in a loony hyper-PC environment.

Almost everything that is wrong in the public high school system could be corrected by following the parochial school model. With about 1/3 the financial resources, these schools do a superior job of educating students. Public education is child neglect at best and child abuse at worst. Our daughter graduated from public high school in 1994. At the graduation ceremony, one of her fellow "students" was there in his pajamas (graduation gown on top, not zipped); he was in a wheelchair because he had been shot in the leg by a policement while this "student" was robbing a store. Meanwhile, dozens of small children looked on as their (single) mothers accepted diplomas; an underclass graduating? The proud families chewed gum, talked and laughed throughout the formalities; they left (with a lot of noise) after each of their kids was given their moment of fame on stage. The school administration pretended that they heard and saw nothing, while chaos reigned. At that moment, we had a glimpse of what our daughter had put up with for four long years in that school. I felt a burning shame for the indignity she had had to endure. She turned out fine, but that's like saying a patient got through chemotherapy with little longterm damage. To hell with public schools...

What a wonderful set of comments, including very thoughtful remarks as well as a decent share of historical myths. (I'll let the identification of the latter be an exercise for the reader.) These days, I don't think that the need for specialized academic courses is a justification for 3000-student high schools, given the ability of motivated teachers to reach wonderful supplemental material with the internet (and the obligation of all high school academic teachers to be experts in their content/delving into it with the students). And if you want huge high schools just to field a football team, well, you may get what you wish for, but I disagree in several ways.

I have to take the main entry to task, though, for assuming that Sizer's argument is with "the unwieldy student:teacher ratio." Nowhere in the interview or in Sizer's books does he say that. Ever. What he focuses on is the total student load for a teacher. You can have six classes of 20 and have 120 students—tough for any teacher, despite the low per-class body count. You can have two classes of 40, whom you teach more than one subject (though interrelated), and you have a much more manageable 80 students, though the class size is doubled.

Where Sizer oversimplifies is explaining the inertia as a matter of fear. It's more a matter of our limited imagination given the vast common experience with 50-minute periods and a standard structure of schooling. David Tyack and Larry Cuban call this the "grammar of schooling," and Mary Heywood Metz called it the rhetoric of "real school," and it's very hard to get away from it. Suggest replacing the A-F scale with written comments and—even if the comments would be tougher substantively on students—you are sure to be tarred with the "watered-down expectations" label. That's not fear but the common definition of a certain set of traits as the "real" high school, even if the "real" high school looks more like a shopping mall that focused intellectual effort.

Other readings suggested:

Metz, Mary Heywood. 1990. ìReal School: A Universal Drama Amid Disparate Experience.î in D. Mitchell and M.E. Goertz, eds., Education Politics for the New Century: The Twentieth Anniversary Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association: 75-91.

Powell, Arthur, Eleanor Farrar, and David Cohen. 1985. The Shopping Mall High School.

Sizer, Theodore. 1991. Horace's School.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering toward Utopia.

Whether or not our high schools actually amount to prisons, they certainly feel that way to many students. (My senior class t-shirt was prison-orange and read "Bob Jones Correctional Facility").

That said, a good set of teachers can really enable students to learn quite a bit; so can interested and aware parents.

I'm unconvinced that there *are* any national-level solutions - many schools have one kind of problem, many schools have another, some things that are problems for one school will not be problems for another, etc.

The most likely thing to help is to give schools a greater incentive to actually educate. Economics usually works.

"Whether or not our high schools actually amount to prisons, they certainly feel that way to many students."

And 40-hour work weeks feel like prisons to lots of grown folks, including some I work with. Welcome to life on Planet Earth.

Having recently graduated from high school (2001), I think the main problem is that there is too much emphasis on discipline, and too little on teaching. I've been told, and believe, that nobody can really pay attention for more than about 25 minutes at a time, which seems right to me. Anyone who wants to have longer class periods really isn't interested in teaching so much as discipline, and a high school principal, (sorry to sound crass) is obviously going to spend his entire career doing one thing rather than another.

And when discipline is a greater priority than education, that's when schools start sliding into "prisons." There was this Harper's article about this...

Also, yay tracking, and yay big high schools. I went to a big high school that was heavily tracked (Tracking really isn't so bad if there's fluidity between tracks. At my high school, the only thing you needed to do to take AP European History as a sophomore was tell your guidance counselor that you wanted to) and that's how I managed to get an education. And the fact that the school was so big and that really could disappear was the reason I wasn't driven to shoot anyone. I mean, remember, none of the school shootings in the 90s were at size 3000+ high schools.

If one can't concentrate for more than about 25 minutes at a time, one had better devote a lot of attention to that deficiency before hitting the work world and have to concentrate for 8 or 12 hours a day on something that is likely even less interesting than schoolwork.

Sherman,

I really do have to take issue with you again concerning the bit about teacher/student ratio. If the teacher is prepared and is not going to take bull from the students, then a higher ratio is possible easily. The problem is that the teacher is forced by the current educational norms to be both a psychologist and an educator to the classes and gets more support for the psychologist role than the educator role.

I think that we have to set the standards for what a school is for first before we get into the other subjects. If the school is to educate the student first and foremost, then a lot of the touchy-feely mush will be tossed and the teacher can then actually teach the students and can handle more students. If the school is only to make the student feel comfortable, then all bets are off and teachers should immediately be declared saints for their forebearance in not throttling the ed establishment in their sleep.

What I see happening is that the teacher is being blindsided by the ed establishment in setting goals and that when they do try to actually teach, the support that should be forthcoming from the administration is missing. As a result the teacher is less likely to actually do the job of teaching because they receive no credit for doing so if the students are going to be passed whether the teachers do their job or not. It is sort of like the problem with socialism. If you get paid x dollars whether you do the job or not and you can fluff off and still get paid, then the likelihood you will actually do the job goes out the window. That is what I see going on and I really hate it. The teachers who do try to do the job get no credit and the ones who are serving time don't give a damn what happens to the students as long as they can make the students feel good about themselves.

I think that until the parents get involved and start demanding that their kids be taught, the ed establishment will keep on keeping on and we will end up with badly educated kids who are screwed up because they think the world is going to keep on giving them what they want with no effort. We as a country are being very badly served in this work.

" 'Whether or not our high schools actually amount to prisons, they certainly feel that way to many students.'

And 40-hour work weeks feel like prisons to lots of grown folks, including some I work with. Welcome to life on Planet Earth."

I don't think anybody should be relating a school to a prison unless they have actually been in a prison. Im sure that many prisoners in American correctional facilities would rather be a high scool student than a prisoner.

I know this might anger the Teacher's Union, but the American High School should move away from the antiquated system of 9 months of school with a 3 month break. This was based on a agrarian economic system when children were needed for harvesting. As much as I hate to say it, I do prefer the European system of 3 months of school with a 3 week break in between. We then would not have to spend the first 4 to 6 weeks of the new year "reviewing" everything the students were taught the previous year.
Erin O'Connor makes a valid point in highlighting the absurdity of a 50 minute class and shuffling kids from one classroom to another without being able to focus on the subject matter in a meaningful way. My daughter presently attends a high school with 45 minute blocks of classes and complains how there is never enough time to address questions on the subject matter. She attended a different high school (I got transferred) with "block scheduling" with 1 1/2 hour classes and different classes on M/W/F than on T/TH. She feels she got more out of that system.

I think the problems with schools are much more fundamental. When I went to college I met a large number of young ladies heading into the various education majors and nearly all of them said their motivation for teaching was that they wanted to affect their students' lives. All well and good, but if you're busy affecting lives you aren't going to teach very much.

Another problem is (as many have already said) that students are not held back if they don't pass that year's classes. Again, the peoblem exists in the teacher's and faculty's attitudes. They are more worried about the students' self-esteem, or other feel-good bunk, than actually making sure the students can demonstrate proficiency in that year's subjects.

I'm currently at college studying engineering and I look upon my years in high school and junior high as one of the greatest wastes of time in my life. I got a B average without trying and only usually completing homework.

The ultimate sin, though, was my Junior Lit. teacher having us find symbols in Huck Fin. Gah!

Just throwing this out,but do kids really need 4 years of high school anymore?

Believe me - YES they do . I am an American who moved to England.

The schools have been ruined with left wing woolly thinking and then the children are dumped on the streets at 16 in a rather ignorant condition.

A few are given additional schooling and university attendance determined by how many the government wants to go to school.

Isn't socialism wonderful

"Suggest replacing the A-F scale with written comments andóeven if the comments would be tougher substantively on studentsóyou are sure to be tarred with the 'watered-down expectations' label."

Sherman,

All of the good teachers I've had over the years gave feedback in three ways: Numerical Score, A-F Grade based upon that numerical score, and a paragraph or two explaining the score. If a teacher is just slapping A-F on a paper without explaining why in some way, that's a problem. If it's a test, mark the wrong answers and provide correct answers. If it's a piece of writing or other work, use the paragraph to explain what was good and what wasn't. That's just good teaching in my book.

"The second magnet I was in was a performing arts / music magnet. You can guess which race has the money to afford things like expensive instruments and lessons for their children."

Actually, in my experience as a musician, it's really the Asians who dominate the field, and not because they've got more money than everyone else. There's a certain amount of discipline and work ethic which is inherent in Asian cultures, and when it comes to learning an instrument and practicing that's a huge advantage.

I am a high school student in tn and from the comments that i read i can see why you all want to call it a prison and sometimes it feels like one i go to school in coffe county and our school is really cheap we have open classroom i guess that they cant afford doors or something and our parking lot is so small that some people have to park in handicap spots and when those are full people have to start parking across the street from the school i just wanted yall to see it from a students point of view.

Has anybody looked at the NYS curriculum? A percentage of ~43 and ~53 on the Biology and Earth Science Regents translates into a 65. They call this a "sliding scale." They do not teach the heart anymore because that is covered in 5th grade! History simply is not taught it's sociology spiced with geography. Not that they know how many states there are, or can identify more than FLA, CA, and NY. Oh! today I had several (~5) name presidents and they could name bush, bush, bill, kennedy, washington, and lincoln. They could not name a single thing these presidents did except for lincoln! We are flushing the toilet on an entire generation so everybody can feel good and graduate with a worthless diploma--ask students to spell diploma and you'll know what I am talking about.

Teaching the most currupt thing I have ever been apart of starting from the classroo and ending in the NYS Board of regents. Unions and administrators are only out for themselves

E.S. Teacher for 5 years

wow. lots of great comments. i'm a teacher who joined the ranks a few years ago and i don't know a lot about education policy, etc. but here is my two cents: i feel like our schools are bureaucratic systems rather than places of education. our students are taught to regurgitate information, often in the form of worksheets or mediums where little thought is required, rather than synthesize or analyze. i teach regular ed and i swear my kids thought the world had ended when i explained that i don't give worksheets and we don't have free days in my class. my point is that the standards have dropped so low for our kids that when doing the minimal to get by (which i think is a common kid thing to do) the minimal is so low that they don't need to think (read and write) to reach it. as a teacher i feel these standards are almost forced upon me because if i raise the bar and my kids fail then i get called into the office. thus, when my kids refuse to do homework and have 7 zeros it's my fault. honestly. because it's all about numbers. it seems public schools are more about numbers and less about educating.

my second tangent is about parental support. i know there are lots of amazing parents out there. but even i, a bleeding heart, am fed up with parents arguing that we teachers just need to care more. what i've essentially heard is that showing compassion is equated with passing the kid. it's ridiculous.
now i'm not putting the blame solely on parents, teachers, or administrators. i'm only speaking from my perspective as a teacher. and as a teacher i feel like i'm in a catch-22 because i'm expected to do more than teach but i'm not respected as professional who can make autonomous and educated decisions about her students and classroom. i'm caught in this web where everyone talks about numbers and learning styles and theories but no one wants to take the time to dig deep and clean out the wound.

Public education is working perfectly. It socializes relatively contented workers at all levels of the social structure. HAve any of you given thought to what would happen if 80% of high school graduates scored 1300 or higher on their SATs and were motivated to go on to college? You would never have seen such an angry, discontented mob.

Every society has to filter out who gets the better jobs and who gets the poorer ones. The trick is making the latter happy with their lot. That's where television and Disneyland come in.

By the way, comparing public education today with that of 50 years ago is like comparing apples to oranges. There are many other variables in the equation. One being that in the 1950s a person could look to make a living for a family of four out of high school and didn't need to go on to college. That was the outlook, so high school prepared students accordingly. Since the 1960s there has been a drastic shift in economics in the U.S. to the point that today most Americans are living off 1970's incomes. There simply is not enough cash to go around, so people are forced to compete for income in higher education, whose commercial orientation has made the individual take on more responsibility for her success or failure. It really is a brilliant plan.

I think if we sit down and scare the hell out of high school students by showing them how the game is played here in the U.S., they might get motivated....Or we can give them pep rallies and Friday football. And I did play football in high school. OK, second string, so maybe I am a little biased.

It's very easy to make a very good public education system. But it would be a stupid idea in a capitalist society.