Reinvent? Re-engineer? Renew?

Reinvent? Re-engineer? Renew? A tremendous amount of research is accumulating which makes a strong case for change. The old, large, comprehensive high school has many strengths — but also lots of weaknesses.

Smaller high schools – which embrace rigor, relationships, and relevance – are much more effective, according to the Gates Foundation. (See link here: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/TransformingHighSchools/)

Way too many kids “drift” through high school – and emerge unprepared for college or a career – indicates The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce in its new report: Tough Choice Or Tough Times.

The school accountability movement has produced modest improvement, but obscures some fundamental “truths” about our school population and the appropriate design of our curriculum – argues Charles Murray in the Wall Street Journal On Education Series.

So what should we do in response to these critiques?

One option would be to do nothing differently — and assert that they are talking about other high schools in other communities — and we are doing a perfect job.

Another would be to wring our hands and bemoan the failure of the state legislature or Congress to fund us properly, or measure our performance properly, or any other of a number of things we can legitimately complain about.

Or – my preference – is to accept that some elements of these critiques are accurate, evaluate our current situation within that context, and then determine what is prudent and possible to do – here and now — to improve our performance. AND THEN TO ACT.

Suggestions? Comments? Please share – so that we can begin building a consensus for action that will improve our high schools and, ultimately, the quality of life of our community.