What is the Purpose of K12 Schools?

The latest buzzphrase is "college and career ready", the idea being that the school's mission is to prepare its pupils for college if they so are so inclined and capable, or else prepare them for a non-"professional" vocational career straight out of high school, such as a painter, carpenter, salesperson, secretary, etc.

The problem with this mindset is manifold. For one, there is almost no vocational training available in today's k12 schools. Vocational schools used to be in vogue in this country years ago, when most people didn't go nor aspired to go to college. Back then it was considered the obvious and practical thing to do. If the student is not going to go to college, then what is the point of the k12 education if not, among other things, to train them for a job?

However, this approach is no longer considered equitable. No child or parent wants to hear "your little Johnny is not college-material and so we're putting him on a vocational track, rather than a liberal arts track", with all the attendant supposed stigma and lower earning potential.

This is why nowadays if you walk in to any middle school or high school, kids are indistinguishable from one another. The expectation is the same of all of them and insofar as they do not attain the same grades and achievements, it's deemed to be due to a lack of studying hard enough, or paying attention in class, etc. It's not deemed to stem from innate factors, such as intelligence, genetics, even socioeconomic conditions beyond the scope of the school.

This is all an illusion, and a costly one at that.

The truth is that all students are NOT the same. Some are capable of achieving a lot more than others. Some simply do not have the capacity of succeeding in any liberal arts setting, period. They are practical. They are artistic. They are concrete. They are kinesthetic. They are athletic. They are sporty. If a student is any of the above types, they loathe the atmosphere and curriculum in today's k-12 schools.

The solution.

The solution is to return to real tracking; not the kind of tracking that groups students based on ability but leaves the curriculum and assessment instruments uniform. We need real substantive differences in the way we teach college-bound individuals vs. non-college bound ones.

In order to do this, we also need to remove the stigma associated with not going to college. Charles Murray (in the book "Real Education") is a great advocate of this and I fully agree with him on it. His estimate is that about 80% of students do not belong in a college-bound track. He is flexible with the cutoff percentage; you may well argue that more students belong in college (which would be bound up with the debate over the level of rigor colleges should demand). One thing is clear, however, he rightfully points out: 50% of students are in fact below average, by definition. And so unless you set the standard really really low, by definition they will be unable to achieve even an "average"-referenced standard.

What can we do to remove the stigma?

At a minimum, what we can do easily in the here and now without much fanfare and revamping of the status quo is to design a different curriculum (and its aligned standards and assessments) for LT (lower-track) students. This means that the "general" students that I teach, for example, shouldn't be expected to learn the same skills and knowledge that the "advanced" kids learn in my school.

If this is done without unduly prominent announcements, then noone will have reason to resist.