CDZ Should college education be available for free to anyone who qualifies academically?

[Tresha91203]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Red:
Fine, but that would be a matter of means, not ends. This thread is about whether one considers of merit the end, not whether there be practical means, or what they be, for achieving the end.

You still have not addressed those who are providing free to them college education and how it is failing.

In a perfect world, we would ALL be educated, healthy, happy, financially stable, and have a pink unicorn. We can't MAKE any of it happen on sheer will.

Purple:
Note/Disclaimer: I was referred to posts 38 and 106 as references for states that have attempted to offer free college to their citizens. I see no links in post #106; thus I've not responded to the comments in that post.

Earlier, someone pointed out that several states have the aim of providing a tuition free college education at any/all state universities. In reviewing each and every one of them, I find that various writers have taken exception not with the end itself, but with the methods (and their consequences) by which that end is achieved.

Let's look at the arguments the Norbert Michael presented in the editorial referenced in post #38.

• Louisiana -- As Norbert Michael writes, Louisiana's program, the Taylor Opportunity Program (TOPS), guarantees free a college education to "all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT. Mr. Michael argues against the program based on the following:
  • Despite college attendance rates having increased, as a result of the program, by ~20%, "the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it."
    
    I do not consider the mere increase in the number of folks attending college to be a relevant factor with regard to my OP proposal. I don't care who does or does not attend college. I care that people who have a demonstrated facility at above average academic achievement are not denied the opportunity to obtain a college degree merely because they lack the funds. I also have no desire to pay for (make free) the college education of individuals who do not deliver as high performers in or before attending college. Lastly, if one does not graduate in the specified time frame, again, I have no interest in giving one a free college education.
    
    As for who pays for the free degree and how the funds are obtained or distributed are matters of means, not ends, and thus not in scope for this thread.
  • The increase in state college enrollment as a result of TOPS "strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff." Also, Mr. Michael contends, "Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream."
    
    To that I ask, "What exactly is the problem with that?" Would one want to see lower professor-to-student ratios than when enrollment was lower? I recognize that the additional costs for facilities and payroll is among the cost of bringing the end I've proposed to fruition.
    
    Again, the question this thread asks is whether the end is worthy of achieving, not how much it will cost or how to pay for it.

In short, the TOPS program and the end about which I asked aren't the same things insofar as many people who'd qualify for the TOPS program would not qualify for the one I've proposed.

As an aside, it's surprising to me that nobody has proposed adding a "need based" criterion to the criteria I listed in the OP. I've seen several folks, as well as Mr. Michael, remark that my proposal would benefit middle class and upper class kids/families. I would have expected that one of those folks proposed some sort of income/wealth criterion; none did. I can assume they didn't because they don't overall see the proposed objective as one worthy of achieving; thus they saw it irrelevant to propose a "need" criterion.

As goes a need-based criterion for qualifying to receive a free college education, I'm not opposed to the idea. In a few years time, I will have put three kids through boarding school and college, maybe grad school too. I/they don't have a need to be given a free college education, so I don't mind that a need-based criterion would eliminate my own kids from getting one for free. I suspect that others who are similarly situated as I would feel the same way. The people for whom I'm concerned, the people for whom I think my proposed objective is necessary and "worth it," are people who are (1) bright, capable and willing, (2) not so poor they can receive ample funding and (3) who are not well off enough to not need it, yet who have shown by their high school performance, and who show by their college performance, that they deserve to and that we as a nation will benefit incrementally from having given it to them.

Post 106 was me telling you how it has played out in Louisiana. Here's a link, though, of its demise.

TOPS funding halted as state deals with budget crisis

As far as the damage to smaller universities, it DOES matter. Not everyone can afford to go away to college. I guess we could do without Nicholls State, Louisiana Tech and Southeastern ... if we dont mind rural kids not getting a degree unless they can afford another rent payment, electric bill, water bill ...

 

[jon_berzerk]

if the populous is to fund higher education

much reform would be in order

many of these schools are off the rails on cost

imagine if the get automatic free $$$$$

 

[JoeMoma]

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

 

[320 Years of History]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Red:
Fine, but that would be a matter of means, not ends. This thread is about whether one considers of merit the end, not whether there be practical means, or what they be, for achieving the end.

You still have not addressed those who are providing free to them college education and how it is failing.

In a perfect world, we would ALL be educated, healthy, happy, financially stable, and have a pink unicorn. We can't MAKE any of it happen on sheer will.

Purple:
Note/Disclaimer: I was referred to posts 38 and 106 as references for states that have attempted to offer free college to their citizens. I see no links in post #106; thus I've not responded to the comments in that post.

Earlier, someone pointed out that several states have the aim of providing a tuition free college education at any/all state universities. In reviewing each and every one of them, I find that various writers have taken exception not with the end itself, but with the methods (and their consequences) by which that end is achieved.

Let's look at the arguments the Norbert Michael presented in the editorial referenced in post #38.

• Louisiana -- As Norbert Michael writes, Louisiana's program, the Taylor Opportunity Program (TOPS), guarantees free a college education to "all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT. Mr. Michael argues against the program based on the following:
  • Despite college attendance rates having increased, as a result of the program, by ~20%, "the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it."
    
    I do not consider the mere increase in the number of folks attending college to be a relevant factor with regard to my OP proposal. I don't care who does or does not attend college. I care that people who have a demonstrated facility at above average academic achievement are not denied the opportunity to obtain a college degree merely because they lack the funds. I also have no desire to pay for (make free) the college education of individuals who do not deliver as high performers in or before attending college. Lastly, if one does not graduate in the specified time frame, again, I have no interest in giving one a free college education.
    
    As for who pays for the free degree and how the funds are obtained or distributed are matters of means, not ends, and thus not in scope for this thread.
  • The increase in state college enrollment as a result of TOPS "strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff." Also, Mr. Michael contends, "Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream."
    
    To that I ask, "What exactly is the problem with that?" Would one want to see lower professor-to-student ratios than when enrollment was lower? I recognize that the additional costs for facilities and payroll is among the cost of bringing the end I've proposed to fruition.
    
    Again, the question this thread asks is whether the end is worthy of achieving, not how much it will cost or how to pay for it.

In short, the TOPS program and the end about which I asked aren't the same things insofar as many people who'd qualify for the TOPS program would not qualify for the one I've proposed.

As an aside, it's surprising to me that nobody has proposed adding a "need based" criterion to the criteria I listed in the OP. I've seen several folks, as well as Mr. Michael, remark that my proposal would benefit middle class and upper class kids/families. I would have expected that one of those folks proposed some sort of income/wealth criterion; none did. I can assume they didn't because they don't overall see the proposed objective as one worthy of achieving; thus they saw it irrelevant to propose a "need" criterion.

As goes a need-based criterion for qualifying to receive a free college education, I'm not opposed to the idea. In a few years time, I will have put three kids through boarding school and college, maybe grad school too. I/they don't have a need to be given a free college education, so I don't mind that a need-based criterion would eliminate my own kids from getting one for free. I suspect that others who are similarly situated as I would feel the same way. The people for whom I'm concerned, the people for whom I think my proposed objective is necessary and "worth it," are people who are (1) bright, capable and willing, (2) not so poor they can receive ample funding and (3) who are not well off enough to not need it, yet who have shown by their high school performance, and who show by their college performance, that they deserve to and that we as a nation will benefit incrementally from having given it to them.

Post 106 was me telling you how it has played out in Louisiana. Here's a link, though, of its demise.

TOPS funding halted as state deals with budget crisis

As far as the damage to smaller universities, it DOES matter. Not everyone can afford to go away to college. I guess we could do without Nicholls State, Louisiana Tech and Southeastern ... if we dont mind rural kids not getting a degree unless they can afford another rent payment, electric bill, water bill ...

Red:
Okay. But how it played out is a consequence of the means LA used to achieve the outcome. Their experience is instructive for the purpose of understanding how not to implement alternative means of achieving the outcome.

That's all well and good, but again, all I've asked is whether folks see the end as worth achieving. For instance, both Tesla and Edison had the goal of providing electricity to the masses, but they each had different means of doing so: Tesla --> AC; Edison --> DC. The goal/end of providing electricity was the same goal. The mode and means of doing so is what differed; the electricity itself and its intended recipients certainly weren't different then nor are they today.

If, as a nation, we were to in the main concur (there nearly always will be dissenters) the end is worth achieving, it'd make excellent sense to learn from the failings and downsides of LA's experience. That LA has found it difficult to achieve its stated goal, or that LA sees the TOPS program as more discretionary than not, is what it is, but what it is not a reason to conclude that achieving the end is impossible. It is simply an indicator that different modalities/means must be tried to arrive more effectively and efficiently at the end.

Looking at the poll results -- the whole point of the poll was so I had an easy way to gauge the relevance of opening another thread to discuss means -- it appears there still is insufficient interest in achieving the end to entertain discussing how to do so. If people do not demand cheese, it doesn't matter how much cheese costs, or how readily available one can make it, or anything else; they don't want cheese, so none of that matters. Think of it this way: if one is allergic to cheese, one will personally consume none and the price of cheese is irrelevant.

 

[320 Years of History]

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:
So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
• Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
• Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
• Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
• Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

 

[JoeMoma]

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:
So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

The math makes more sense to say that more than 1% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. I would say much more than 1%.

 

[320 Years of History]

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

The math makes more sense to say that more than 1% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. I would say much more than 1%.

Well, if one must include intellectually disabled people, reading the content I provided re: the types and quantities of folks having learning disabilities, one sees that 0.2% of the U.S. population are intellectually disabled. Assuming that ratio remains consistent among the adult population -- I doubt that it does for folks having those afflictions have shorter life expectancies than does the general population -- that would imply that fewer than 1% of high school graduates (should) have difficulty reading (fully comprehending) my post found in the set of quotes included in this post.

 

[JoeMoma]

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
• Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
• Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
• Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
• Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

 

[320 Years of History]

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
2. Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
3. Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
4. Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
5. Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

Red:
Okay. I suspected that may be the case. TY for the confirmation that it is.

Still, please see question #2 above. I just don't think oldsoul was considering learning disabled folks when he cited the 99% figure. Indeed, I think that because, until you mentioned them, they were among the farthest things from my mind as goes the discussion.

Blue:
Okay. I have no issue with that. I think it a very good thing that educators and education funding entities are willing and able to make those accommodations available to people who need them.

If you are saying that the 99% measure oldsoul stated is unrealistic and unrealizable because of the mere existence of learning disabled people, okay. Yes, that's conceivably true. If, instead, your key point is that his proposed goal of achieving a 10th grade reading level for 99% of students who have no learning disability is unrealistic and unrealizable, I have to disagree. However hard it be to achieve, whether it's indeed already been achieved, how far we have to go to achieve it, I believe it is an achievable goal and I believe it's a goal worth achieving.

P.S./Edit:
FWIW, the reason I thought your introduction of folks having learning disabilities might have been obtuse/pedantic is because from what I could tell, the conversation about reading was "rolling along" smoothly enough, and then you "chimed in" talking about IDPs and people who need them. Your doing so at the eleventh hour, so to speak, make that remark seem akin to your "ace up a sleeve" to ensure the accuracy of your implied earlier assertion about the preposterousness of the 99% achievement rate throughout the U.S. population of a 10th grade reading skill level.

Had you raised that limiting factor with regard to the 99% from the get go, it would not have come across, at least not to me, as in any way obtuse or pedantic. It's a legit factor that must be accounted for in the defining of any nationwide human capital development goals. It's a matter of timing affecting, in this case adversely, the tone/connotation of one's remarks.

 

[JoeMoma]

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
2. Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
3. Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
4. Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
5. Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

Red:
Okay. I suspected that may be the case. TY for the confirmation that it is.

Still, please see question #2 above. I just don't think oldsoul was considering learning disabled folks when he cited the 99% figure. Indeed, I think that because, until you mentioned them, they were among the farthest things from my mind as goes the discussion.

Blue:
Okay. I have no issue with that. I think it a very good thing that educators and education funding entities are willing and able to make those accommodations available to people who need them.

If you are saying that the 99% measure oldsoul stated is unrealistic and unrealizable because of the mere existence of learning disabled people, okay. Yes, that's conceivably true. If, instead, your key point is that his proposed goal of achieving a 10th grade reading level for 99% of students who have no learning disability is unrealistic and unrealizable, I have to disagree. However hard it be to achieve, whether it's indeed already been achieved, how far we have to go to achieve it, I believe it is an achievable goal and I believe it's a goal worth achieving.

Part of my point is that when a near 100% graduation rate is attempted, that high standards tend to suffer in achieving that high rate. This tends to devalue the worth of a high school diploma.

 

[Alex.]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

No college by and large is to make the person marketable and liker any other enterprise there are costs that must be absorbed by the one who is entering the market in this instance it is the cost of education.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
2. Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
3. Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
4. Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
5. Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

Red:
Okay. I suspected that may be the case. TY for the confirmation that it is.

Still, please see question #2 above. I just don't think oldsoul was considering learning disabled folks when he cited the 99% figure. Indeed, I think that because, until you mentioned them, they were among the farthest things from my mind as goes the discussion.

Blue:
Okay. I have no issue with that. I think it a very good thing that educators and education funding entities are willing and able to make those accommodations available to people who need them.

If you are saying that the 99% measure oldsoul stated is unrealistic and unrealizable because of the mere existence of learning disabled people, okay. Yes, that's conceivably true. If, instead, your key point is that his proposed goal of achieving a 10th grade reading level for 99% of students who have no learning disability is unrealistic and unrealizable, I have to disagree. However hard it be to achieve, whether it's indeed already been achieved, how far we have to go to achieve it, I believe it is an achievable goal and I believe it's a goal worth achieving.

Part of my point is that when a near 100% graduation rate is attempted, that high standards tend to suffer in achieving that high rate. This tends to devalue the worth of a high school diploma.

I recognize that as a practical matter, and as a pattern of observed events, high standards defined for the educational achievement of students tend to be accompanied by objective performance measures of instructors that do indeed result in teachers (and their advocates) artificially ameliorating their individual achievement by accepting lower levels of intellectual rigor. I think many folks would call that "grade inflation."

My personal view is that grade inflation will result when evaluators of teachers insist on using "quick and easy" means to assess performance. I think that objective measures such as the quantity of students who pass standardized tests and other types of objective measures have their role and import, but I think that their significance comes to the fore when they are used for very high level assessments of overall performance -- system wide, county wide, statewide, nationwide, etc. -- and even there, such measures, IMO, are valuable only on a comparative basis.

For instance, it's meaningful and relevant to say "such and such a school district in Year 1 achieved a 97% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension and in Year 2 there was no change." In contrast, however, it's pointless to say and make much of a fact such as "Eighty percent of Miss Mary's students in Year 1 scored at or above the national average in reading, but in Year 2, only 72% of them did the same." It stands to reason that if Miss Mary's and the school district's approach to teaching hasn't changed, the reason for decline in student achievement isn't likely to have been caused or controllable/preventable by either of them.

Accordingly, I think what is in order is a different methodology for assessing teachers and school systems, not reducing the performance expectation/goal of achieving a 99% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension among non-learning disabled students. Might it be that an alternative assessment approach be more time and labor intensive to use effectively and fairly? Yes. Does that make it something that should not be done? Not necessarily.

 

[320 Years of History]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

No college by and large is to make the person marketable and liker any other enterprise there are costs that must be absorbed by the one who is entering the market in this instance it is the cost of education.

TY for your response.

 

[JoeMoma]

??? Say what?

• How are those two things incompatible? I realize that nobody who does not demonstrate a 10th grade reading competency cannot expect to graduate from the 12th grade. I don't see how graduating from the 12th grade is incompatible with demonstrating a 10th grade reading level. Achieving both those things for 99% of the relevant segment of the population is undoubtedly difficult, but as goals incompatible, conflicting? Not at all.
• Since when is achieving a 10th grade reading comprehension level for 99% of our student citizenry, all of whom must complete school through the 12th grade, a "high standard?" It seems to me a standard that is two grade levels below what is expected of graduating from the 12th grade. A high standard, IMO, would be expecting that students demonstrate a collegiate freshman level of reading comprehension/ability prior to being a college freshman.

Reading your post, I must wonder whether deeming and expecting a 10th grade reading proficiency from people who must graduate from the 12th grade is part and parcel, perhaps even causal, of the "dumbing down" of America that Foxfyre writes of in her The Dumbing Down of America thread.

Just as a point of reference/perspective with regard to my remarks and question in second bullet above, the remarks above correspond to a "high school" reading level, in fact, a ~10th grade reading level. Are you really suggesting that something fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty comprehending this post? I should hope not.

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
2. Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
3. Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
4. Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
5. Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

Red:
Okay. I suspected that may be the case. TY for the confirmation that it is.

Still, please see question #2 above. I just don't think oldsoul was considering learning disabled folks when he cited the 99% figure. Indeed, I think that because, until you mentioned them, they were among the farthest things from my mind as goes the discussion.

Blue:
Okay. I have no issue with that. I think it a very good thing that educators and education funding entities are willing and able to make those accommodations available to people who need them.

If you are saying that the 99% measure oldsoul stated is unrealistic and unrealizable because of the mere existence of learning disabled people, okay. Yes, that's conceivably true. If, instead, your key point is that his proposed goal of achieving a 10th grade reading level for 99% of students who have no learning disability is unrealistic and unrealizable, I have to disagree. However hard it be to achieve, whether it's indeed already been achieved, how far we have to go to achieve it, I believe it is an achievable goal and I believe it's a goal worth achieving.

Part of my point is that when a near 100% graduation rate is attempted, that high standards tend to suffer in achieving that high rate. This tends to devalue the worth of a high school diploma.

I recognize that as a practical matter, and as a pattern of observed events, high standards defined for the educational achievement of students tend to be accompanied by objective performance measures of instructors that do indeed result in teachers (and their advocates) artificially ameliorating their individual achievement by accepting lower levels of intellectual rigor. I think many folks would call that "grade inflation."

My personal view is that grade inflation will result when evaluators of teachers insist on using "quick and easy" means to assess performance. I think that objective measures such as the quantity of students who pass standardized tests and other types of objective measures have their role and import, but I think that their significance comes to the fore when they are used for very high level assessments of overall performance -- system wide, county wide, statewide, nationwide, etc. -- and even there, such measures, IMO, are valuable only on a comparative basis.

For instance, it's meaningful and relevant to say "such and such a school district in Year 1 achieved a 97% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension and in Year 2 there was no change." In contrast, however, it's pointless to say and make much of a fact such as "Eighty percent of Miss Mary's students in Year 1 scored at or above the national average in reading, but in Year 2, only 72% of them did the same." It stands to reason that if Miss Mary's and the school district's approach to teaching hasn't changed, the reason for decline in student achievement isn't likely to have been caused or controllable/preventable by either of them.

Accordingly, I think what is in order is a different methodology for assessing teachers and school systems, not reducing the performance expectation/goal of achieving a 99% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension among non-learning disabled students. Might it be that an alternative assessment approach be more time and labor intensive to use effectively and fairly? Yes. Does that make it something that should not be done? Not necessarily.

We have gone off topic from your op, but it's an interesting conversation.

One question that needs to be addressed is how is a particular grade level defined. It is unrealistic to expect all students to be reading at the same level simply because they have been in school the same amount of time. There will be a distribution curve, perhaps a bell curve, of student reading ability simply because individuals are different. So should a tenth grade reading level be defined as the mean, median or mode of some measured reading level of tenth grade students, or should it be defined by some arbitrary standard set by educators that they believed tenth graders should be able to achieve? Simply due to the statistical nature of human abilities and achievement, if 99% of high school graduates are able to achieve some minimal standard, then the top half of students will be much beyond that standard.

 

[oldsoul]

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Setting high standards (such as 99% of high school graduates can read at grade level 10 or higher) and raising the national graduation rate to 99% or higher are conflicting goals. They both will not be met unless the definition of a 10 grade level is severely watered down.

How so? Why, in your opinion would we have to "water down" anything to achieve a high level of reading ability for 99% of students? Additionally, what would be a more appropriate reading level? As an example, I as a person who was in remedial reading classes at a young age, I was able to achievea 9th grade reading level during my 6th grade year. So, why would it be unattainable for 99% to achieve a similar result (ie 10th grade level) within six additional years? As with all standards, accomodations would have to me made for those who, for whatever reason, would be unable to achieve said standard. We do not expect those who are parapalegic to walk in order to be able to meet physical standards, why would the same not hold for those with imaired cognotive ablity?

 

[hadit]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

Red:

• Wait a minute....I never proposed "throwing and [sic] education at" anyone. I take the first part of the "red" sentence as, in part, implying that college education (or trade school) would be required of high school grads. That is not at all what I've proposed. I identified specific criteria one had to meet in order to receive a free college education, and quite frankly, if past trends remain consistent, the quantity of folks who meet the criteria will be fewer than the quantity who do not. I have not proposed giving a free college education to low academic performers.
• What college degrees, in your opinion, are they that one might obtain and that will do one "little good in the real world?" What, in your opinion, is the measure of "do little good?"
  
  To the best of my knowledge, any college degree generally offers more value than no college degree.
  • The Value of a College Degree
    
  • College Calculus: What's the real value of higher education?
  • Examining the Value of a College Degree -- This is a collection of essays on the matter of a degree's value. Among them:
    • When the Humanities Are Worth It
      
    • How a College Education Contributes to Long-Term Success in Life
      
    • Out of Focus: Career Outcomes Should Not Be the Measure of An Undergraduate Degree
      
    • Is College Worth It? Yes, But Not Always

Yes, you are correct that a student who does not graduate would not have their education paid for. My thought, though, is that we would see more students attempting and failing. As for the value of a degree, I still maintain that some majors are more personally enriching than are of enough value to society at large for society to pony up 6 figures to pay for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

Red:

• Wait a minute....I never proposed "throwing and [sic] education at" anyone. I take the first part of the "red" sentence as, in part, implying that college education (or trade school) would be required of high school grads. That is not at all what I've proposed. I identified specific criteria one had to meet in order to receive a free college education, and quite frankly, if past trends remain consistent, the quantity of folks who meet the criteria will be fewer than the quantity who do not. I have not proposed giving a free college education to low academic performers.
• What college degrees, in your opinion, are they that one might obtain and that will do one "little good in the real world?" What, in your opinion, is the measure of "do little good?"
  
  To the best of my knowledge, any college degree generally offers more value than no college degree.
  • The Value of a College Degree
    
  • College Calculus: What's the real value of higher education?
  • Examining the Value of a College Degree -- This is a collection of essays on the matter of a degree's value. Among them:
    • When the Humanities Are Worth It
      
    • How a College Education Contributes to Long-Term Success in Life
      
    • Out of Focus: Career Outcomes Should Not Be the Measure of An Undergraduate Degree
      
    • Is College Worth It? Yes, But Not Always

Yes, you are correct that a student who does not graduate would not have their education paid for. My thought, though, is that we would see more students attempting and failing. As for the value of a degree, I still maintain that some majors are more personally enriching than are of enough value to society at large for society to pony up 6 figures to pay for it.

Pink:
Okay. Even if that were to occur, under my proposal, society would make no financial contribution to those individuals' unsuccessful attempts. Remember I identified three criteria one must meet in order to have one's college degree paid for by society.

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

Perhaps you've not ever "done the math" to understand what a 3.6 GPA means, but minimally it means one has earned notably more A grades than any other grade. To illustrate, if one takes 10 three credit hour classes and gets only A and B grades, one must earn at least 6 A grades to get a 3.6 GPA in those classes.

Obviously, earning a 3.0 GPA (what amounts to a "solid B," not a B-, overall) is a good deal easier, and there are more ways to make that happen than there are to earn a 3.6 GPA in one's major, but even there, one cannot do it getting many Cs (the lowest grade that allows one to earn credit for a class taken), and it's all but impossible to do with Ds or Fs insofar as those two grades are insufficient for earning one credit for the classes in which one gets them, yet those classes nonetheless factor into the calculation of one's GPA. (Strictly speaking, one could conceivably, after getting Cs, Ds and Fs, take enough classes to eventually boost one's overall GPA up to a 3.0, but to do so, the course load one would have to take and still meet the 4.5 year component of my requirement would be nigh impossible.)

FWIW, the lowest grade one can get and earn master's degree credit is a B, and for a PhD, there is no grade -- one either does what needs to be done or one does not; however, I am not proposing that we, as a nation, pay for anyone's master's and/or doctoral degrees.


Blue:
I do not think one can abstractly assert that any single degree, regardless of its field of study, provides more or less value to the individual than to society in general. I base my view on my own academic career experiences. I double-majored -- accounting and an interdisciplinary major of my own design that blended history, economics, philosophy and psychology with a business focus -- and minored in history. (It took me 4.5 years -- solid, I had to take classes every summer -- to complete all the courses and finish with a 4.0 in my majors and minors and 3.9 overall...I regrettably took friggin' golf and got a B, which may, to this day, have something to do with why I abhor golf. LOL.)

There's no denying that my accounting courses provided me with very specific skills pertaining to the theory and practice of accounting; however, that program nonetheless taught me a variety of thinking skills and concepts that have application outside of accounting, even when there's no money directly involved in the situation at hand. For example, the accounting concept of internal control can be applied to just about anything pertaining to establishing an oversight function. The accounting concepts of completeness, materiality and comparability can be applied to the examination of a host of topics having nothing to do with accounting. In short, accounting greatly boosted my analytical skills, and that happened even though the instructors didn't make a point of demonstrating or articulating the value, outside of accounting practice, for doing so.

As for the history and philosophy courses I took, they have real value all the time. History taught me how to evaluate the cause and effect of events, and how to identify what acts play a greater and which play a lesser role in driving downstream outcomes. Philosophy too was great for developing my rational thinking and logic skills, but it also gave me the opportunity to examine, via the dialectic, the opposing sides and angles of business ethics issues.

Of course, I happened to also pick up subject-matter-specific details such as understanding the history of, say, the Dutch East India Company. That information, though I can't recall when (if ever) I have had cause to use it specifically, is nice to know, but it was, for me, but a foil for developing the thinking skills that I actually use on a daily basis. Also, given the great quantity of papers I had to write, not only for philosophy classes but also for history, I became quite well organized in my thinking and in my ability to present ideas. That is a skill I probably would never have bolstered/developed well (beyond that which I mastered in high school) from just studying accounting or another technical field. (At the graduate level, one would have to acquire that skill, but as a undergrad in a technical field, one mostly doesn't need to demonstrate it outside the construct of equations and formulas.)

On the matter of whether all that liberal arts and social science study has provided me and society with any value, I have to say it absolutely did. For one thing, it developed me into a "quick and thorough study" of whatever I need to learn at any given point. That's an invaluable skill in any career field.

I'm sure that some folks might argue that some of the skills I mentioned are ones taught in high school. To some extent they are. The thing is that while those things are introduced in high school, it's in college that they are honed and perfected. That's the key distinction. Sure, exceptional individuals who finish high school with a lot of A grades in AP and/or college preparatory academic classes under their belt will have effectively mastered some of those thinking skills, but that's not the reality for most people. For most folks, college, and performing well there, is when and where they develop and master the skills I've described.

And, of course, there are fields of study, particularly technical fields like accounting, economics, engineering, physics, math, etc. that are only comprehensively available in college and that one must study in college in order to have a successful career in those fields. For those degrees, yes, it's much easier to see the value proposition associated with them. That does not mean, however, that a comparable value proposition does not exist for non-technical degrees; it just means one must look beyond the obvious to find it.

What I've described so far largely pertains to qualitative skills and their value. The merit of my undergraduate education also has provided measurable objective value to me and to society. Most simply, it allowed me to become make partner eight years into my career. As a consequence of that, I've enjoyed the benefits of having a decently high income, which means I spend a lot of money; thus I pay a lot in excise taxes. Moreover, for the vast majority of my adult life, I've been subject to the highest marginal tax rates. Not thrilled about that in and of itself, but it is what it is; paying the taxes hasn't impeded my ability to do what I want to do.

Most importantly for this discussion, the circumstances of my career success means I've been for a score of years been a contributing member of society. Similarly, insofar as it's been repeatedly shown that a college degree results in one's having an overall greater lifetime/career income, it follows that, if the sum of taxes paid is a measure of contribution/value to society, a college degree of any sort bodes well for one's contributing more than one could/would without one.

In closing, I'd point out that, yes, it's very easy for us to see the value of contributions such as the invention of the light bulb, personal computer, co-axial escapement, and other devices. It's similarly easy to see the merit of things like the perfection of the process for transfusing blood and storing/transporting blood plasma and the vaccine for polio. But what above the contributions made by Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, Adam Smith, and others? In short, the value of keenly honed human thought and imagination is just as key a contribution to our society as are they myriad devices on which we daily depend.

 

[320 Years of History]

At the bottom tail end of the bell curve for intelligence, there is most likely more than 1% of the population that will never be able to achieve a 10 grade reading level.
Yes, I am suggesting that fewer than 99% of high school graduates would have difficulty reading your post. You may want to research IEPs: Individual Education Plans.

Red:
With all due respect for the mentally disabled folks in our nation, I truly did not develop this thread nor offer any remarks in it with their exceptional needs or (dis)abilities in mind. I realize that learning disabilities range over a wide spectrum and that some of them absolutely will prevent affected individuals from ever achieving a 10th grade reading level.

Of the various learning disabilities, I am currently unqualified to address which of them make achieving a 10th grade reading level impossible and which do not, to say nothing of not being in a position to attest to whether, even if they don't make that accomplishment impossible, what impact they have in making it impossible to attain prior to graduating from high school.

Individualized Education Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Was anyone here, other than perhaps you, assuming the proposal I made in my OP applicable to intellectually disabled people?
2. Did I miss something in the discussion you and oldsoul were having about reading as a goal whereby it was made clear that leaning deficient students, and most especially those with significantly hobbling maladies such as Down's or Fragile X Syndromes, were among the population of people for whom the "99%" standards noted are expected to apply?
3. Do you have some specific point you want to make re: learning disabled people and that is contextually relevant to this discussion, be it the general one broached in my OP or the specific one pertaining to reading skills?
4. Are you instead being deliberately obtuse, or perhaps obtusely and deliberately pedantic is more what I mean to ask, by introducing factors that pertain to the ~10% of the population who have learning disabilities of some sort?
5. Would you please clarify objectively for me at what point your, in this thread's discussion, raising the matter of IEPs, and the people who need them, moves from being reductio ad absurdum to being a legitimate reason to forestall identifying a free college education for qualified (as per the OP) as a goal to which our nation should aspire because some share of the students, a share that likely never will be able to read at all much less at a 10th grade level, indeed cannot read?

My comments were not directed to your proposal. They were directed at the counter proposal of achieving a 99% graduation rate with 99% of graduates achieving a ten grade reading level or better.

Probably more than 1% of students in high school have accommendations as part of IEPs. One very common accommendations is that tests are read aloud to them. Many students get 50% more time to take tests. These accommendations are often a good thing because there are cases in which a student who may never achieve a high reading level may be brilliant in math. Or the converse may be true in that a student that struggles in math may have excellent reading and writing skills. These accommendations allow students to achieve in areas in which they are capable

Red:
Okay. I suspected that may be the case. TY for the confirmation that it is.

Still, please see question #2 above. I just don't think oldsoul was considering learning disabled folks when he cited the 99% figure. Indeed, I think that because, until you mentioned them, they were among the farthest things from my mind as goes the discussion.

Blue:
Okay. I have no issue with that. I think it a very good thing that educators and education funding entities are willing and able to make those accommodations available to people who need them.

If you are saying that the 99% measure oldsoul stated is unrealistic and unrealizable because of the mere existence of learning disabled people, okay. Yes, that's conceivably true. If, instead, your key point is that his proposed goal of achieving a 10th grade reading level for 99% of students who have no learning disability is unrealistic and unrealizable, I have to disagree. However hard it be to achieve, whether it's indeed already been achieved, how far we have to go to achieve it, I believe it is an achievable goal and I believe it's a goal worth achieving.

Part of my point is that when a near 100% graduation rate is attempted, that high standards tend to suffer in achieving that high rate. This tends to devalue the worth of a high school diploma.

I recognize that as a practical matter, and as a pattern of observed events, high standards defined for the educational achievement of students tend to be accompanied by objective performance measures of instructors that do indeed result in teachers (and their advocates) artificially ameliorating their individual achievement by accepting lower levels of intellectual rigor. I think many folks would call that "grade inflation."

My personal view is that grade inflation will result when evaluators of teachers insist on using "quick and easy" means to assess performance. I think that objective measures such as the quantity of students who pass standardized tests and other types of objective measures have their role and import, but I think that their significance comes to the fore when they are used for very high level assessments of overall performance -- system wide, county wide, statewide, nationwide, etc. -- and even there, such measures, IMO, are valuable only on a comparative basis.

For instance, it's meaningful and relevant to say "such and such a school district in Year 1 achieved a 97% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension and in Year 2 there was no change." In contrast, however, it's pointless to say and make much of a fact such as "Eighty percent of Miss Mary's students in Year 1 scored at or above the national average in reading, but in Year 2, only 72% of them did the same." It stands to reason that if Miss Mary's and the school district's approach to teaching hasn't changed, the reason for decline in student achievement isn't likely to have been caused or controllable/preventable by either of them.

Accordingly, I think what is in order is a different methodology for assessing teachers and school systems, not reducing the performance expectation/goal of achieving a 99% rate of 10th grade reading comprehension among non-learning disabled students. Might it be that an alternative assessment approach be more time and labor intensive to use effectively and fairly? Yes. Does that make it something that should not be done? Not necessarily.

We have gone off topic from your op, but it's an interesting conversation.

One question that needs to be addressed is how is a particular grade level defined. It is unrealistic to expect all students to be reading at the same level simply because they have been in school the same amount of time. There will be a distribution curve, perhaps a bell curve, of student reading ability simply because individuals are different. So should a tenth grade reading level be defined as the mean, median or mode of some measured reading level of tenth grade students, or should it be defined by some arbitrary standard set by educators that they believed tenth graders should be able to achieve? Simply due to the statistical nature of human abilities and achievement, if 99% of high school graduates are able to achieve some minimal standard, then the top half of students will be much beyond that standard.

Pink:
Yes, we have, and that occurred to me. I concluded that 26 pages and 200+ posts in, going off topic to a related area isn't such a great "sin," particularly seeing as the poll shows not enough folks see the goal as one worth achieving. Perhaps before the poll closes we'll see a shift in opinion. If so, we can return to the central topic; I may even find myself opening a thread to discuss proposals for how to achieve the stated end.

Purple:
You may find this helpful for understanding how grade levels are determined.

• Assessing a Student's Level
  • Learning A-Z Level Correlation Chart
• Learn About Leveled Reading
  
• Vocabulary lists -- I recall there being some ~10K words I had to learn for the SAT. I don't' know why (or whether, for that matter, because I've not counted the words, nor will I) the list has shortened.
  • http://www.freevocabulary.com/
  • SAT Word Lists : Vocabulary Word lists for the SAT
• 11th (or 10th) Grade Reading List
  
• A comparison, using Flesch-Kincaid, of the reading level of various documents. (Click on the first image below to access a larger version as well as the source of it and the subsequent ones. Note: I don't "buy" much of what the writer/composer of the charts has to say, but his empirical data collection is useful.)
  
  
  
  (Comically, it's apparently little wonder why the ACA is not well understood by many folks.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Or in other words....
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Now why it is that fewer than 25% of U.S. adults read at a 12th grade level is beyond me. I realize that some share of that 75% of the population who do not are immigrants for whom English is not their first language and the levels are most likely predicated on one's understanding of English (maybe they aren't; the books noted are certainly published in languages other than English), but such people don't account for the lion's share of the 75%....neither do intellectually disabled people.

One thing that is clear to me is that a lot of people seem to have reading comprehension difficulty. For example, I once wrote in web forum, "I am not moved" by "such and such." (the specific subject matter isn't relevant.) The overwhelming majority of readers of that statement interpreted it and responded to it as though I had written, "I don't like" such and such; they did not realize that my statement indicated indifference. "Move" is not a complicated word, neither is "not moved" a difficult phrase. Yet many folks completely misunderstood it in that sentence.