| > Just teach more advanced subjects in both High School Many affluent high schools have an abundance of AP/IB courses. Many high schools also have additional college-credit courses (where the high school acts as a sort of proxy for a local college, often a community college). At a "good" high school, students can combine all of these options to have not just a year, but even junior or senior standing by the time they start college. There are three problems with this approach: 1. Not all high schools are affluent / have their crap together enough to offer these options. 2. students need to be prepared. Enough of them that you can fill a course. This can be a barrier in less affluent areas. 3. Students have to know about this option, usually starting in middle school so that they can begin working ahead early (e.g., finish algebra in middle school). > ...and college The pattern here seems to be picking the college vs. picking the more advanced courses at the college. So, you don't take "more advanced couses at regional State campus"; instead, you go to (your field's equivalent of) MIT/Stanford/Berkeley/CMU. Or at least the state flagship.
C.f., algorithms at an elite university vs. algorithms at the branch campus of a middling state system. The differences in both depth (rigor) and bredth are, in many cases, quite extraordinary. > No child left behind and other programs hinder education by applying one size fits all policies. Do you have any data to justify this assertion? AP offerings have increased since NCLB was enacted. I don't disagree with you that NCLB is a net harm, but I don't think it's accurate to place the blame there for this particular problem. (Also, whenever NCLB comes up, it's worth pointing out that states bear a lot of responsibility -- they have quite a bit of leeway in how NCLB is implemented.) |