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

[oldsoul]

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.

While anecdotal, this example does illustrate the reasoning behind my proposal quite well. How can we, as a society, have a conversation about an issue, if there is a substantial percentage of the ctizentry that cannot grasp such basic concepts?

 

[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.

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.

Almost 5 present of students have some sort of learning disability that qualifies for an accommendation at school. These people are not necessary mentally challenged. Some are well above average intellenge and do just fine in school when accommodated. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education. Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

 

[Billal]

Yes I believe so and then for those who are not academically qualified must pay but not as much as college costs right now

 

[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.

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.

Almost 5 present of students have some sort of learning disability that qualifies for an accommendation at school. These people are not necessary mentally challenged. Some are well above average intellenge and do just fine in school when accommodated. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education. Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

Red:
Actually, if the figures in the references I provided earlier remain accurate, the figure is ~10% to ~12%. Of them, only 0.2% of them are intellectually disabled. I certainly agree that needing an accommodation for certain disabilities does not, in and of itself, militate against one's ability to achieve a 10th grade reading level.

In my mind, that means that for the remaining 9.8%+ of the folks who have some sort of learning disability, there is no inherent reason why they are incapable of achieving a 10th grade reading level. It is likely so that the folks in the 9.8%+ group may take longer than 15-16 years to achieve that level of reading proficiency; however, oldsoul's proposal doesn't stipulate a time frame within which he'd expect the "relevant segments" of the population to achieve that reading level. Seeing as most 10th graders are between 15 and 16 years old, I'd imagine that expecting them to have achieved a 10th grade reading comprehension capability by the 12th grade (or in order to obtain a GED certificate or graduate from the 12th grade) is reasonable.


Blue:
Social factors, like certain learning disabilities, certainly can slow the rate at which one achieves a 10th grade reading comprehension level.


Pink:
Undoubtedly, some students will be on the lower end of the intelligence curve.

​

As one can see from the human intelligence curve above, ~95% of people fall at or above two standard deviations from "average" intelligence (an intelligence score of 100). Given that one must earn a "C" or better (weighted GPA of 2.0 or higher) to graduate from high school, it stands to reason that everyone who does graduate from high school should also have achieved a 10th grade reading level.

As my earlier shared anecdote illustrates, it's quite likely that not all high school graduates have in fact achieved a 10th grade level of reading proficiency upon completing the 12th grade. Assuming that is so, one must ask why is it so? How do those people manage to get high school diplomas?

• Grade inflation?
• Academic insouciance and disinterest on the part of teachers and school administrators/systems?
• Social drivers that force schools to graduate students?
• Economic drivers that prevent schools from allowing the rolls to grow overly large due as they might were students failed instead of being graduated?
• Something else?

At public schools, I suspect one or several of those factors may apply to any or all students who fail to achieve a 10th grade reading level prior to graduating. (I can't posit one or which ones may have more or less significance as I have little firsthand knowledge of any public school system regarding those matters.) At the handful of private schools with which I'm quite familiar, I can safely say none of those things is in play; students who don't perform "up to snuff" are either held back or flunked out.

Why that isn't what happens in public schools is beyond me, but seeing as most folks attend public schools, and clearly not all of them graduate do so with a 10th grade reading competency, something's going on other than students being held back or expelled. It seems to me that public schools have an obligation to keep kinds enrolled until they become 18 (maybe 19 if that's how someone's birthday works out). After that, they should expel or refuse to re-enroll them even if the student fails to achieve, among other things, a 10th grade reading level. When that happens, the student will be forced to pass a GED exam in order to show that they've achieved a high school equivalent level of academic mastery. That, or never obtain any certification indicating they have attained that level of academic achievement.

Given the above range of scenarios and impacts, one must then consider oldsoul's "99%" criterion in terms of whether it must apply to people who actually do graduate from high school or obtain a GED certificate, or whether it applies to all people. In my mind, it should apply to the former group not the latter because the former application of the standard he's proposed means that a diploma/GED certificate necessarily means a number of objectively measured/determined things. Plus, whereas it's actually possible to guarantee that all high school graduates have achieved (at least at the time of their graduating) a specific level of academic and functional ability, it's not possible to make people want to achieve that same level of accomplishment and thereby do so were they flunked out of school and never afterward to pursue getting a GED certificate.

 

[oldsoul]

??? 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.

Almost 5 present of students have some sort of learning disability that qualifies for an accommendation at school. These people are not necessary mentally challenged. Some are well above average intellenge and do just fine in school when accommodated. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education. Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

Can you cite a source for your information?

. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education.

Making excuses for these students does not do them a favor, in fact expecting them to do poorly is akin to insulting them. I have found that when the expectation is set high, and adaquate tools are made available, nearly all people (young and old alike) rise to the challenge.

Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

Lower than average intelligence is still no excuse. While it may take longer, and more effort would need to be applied, I am confident that the vast majority of students can achieve the goals I set forth. While the 99% I suggest may prove to be an unattainable goal, I know we can do far better than we currently do. Maybe a 94% goal would be more attainable, I am no expert so I don't know what would be realistic. 94% would include the 5% you cite as well as a 1% cushion.

The difference, as I see it, between the way you are looking at this, and the way I do is that you seem to be looking for ways it won't/can't work, while all I see are opportunities to excell ourselves while helping others to achieve high standards.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes I believe so and then for those who are not academically qualified must pay but not as much as college costs right now

Would you clarify that, please. Under the proposal I offered in my OP, one either qualifies and gets free tuition for college, or one does not qualify and must pay on one's own (out of pocket, with loans, with whatever scholarships and gifts one gets, etc.) however one can.

Also, under the proposal modification you're suggesting:

• What -- what share, what types of classes, what types of schools, what what? -- would society pay for if the student isn't qualified?
• Why should society pay for one's degree if one doesn't demonstrate sufficient promise/potential to show that society has a reasonable basis -- pre-collegiate and collegiate GPA, along with a demonstrated ability to learn at a reasonable to fast pace -- for thinking its "investment" is worth it?

Have I misinferred your intent? Perhaps you mean to say that for unqualified would be students, colleges should charge less money? I just don't think I fully understand what you are proposing.

 

[320 Years of History]

...The difference, as I see it, between the way you are looking at this, and the way I do is that you seem to be looking for ways it won't/can't work, while all I see are opportunities to excell ourselves while helping others to achieve high standards.

A lot of folks, presumably for many reasons, have a penchant for figuring out why something won't work or isn't obtainable. Doing that, IMO, is by far the surest way to guarantee that "whatever" won't be achieved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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).

Only the ignorant imagine a 'free college education' is free.

The fact is, it is wasted money as far as actually educating.

And...most of those rewarded with same treat it as a vacation.


"4-year colleges graduate 53% of students in 6 years"
4-year colleges graduate 53% of students in 6 years - USATODAY.com


And this....

San Jose state college graduation rate after four years:
"9.0% undergraduates completed their degree "on-time" (within two or four years depending on the degree)"
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/san-jose-state-university/outcomes/



College for everyone....paid for by the producing-citizens.....another great socialist plan!



Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree- granting institution in fall 2007, the 6-year graduation rate was 58 percent at public institutions, 65 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private for-profit institutions. Fast Facts


Socialism infantilizes the electorate.


Six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree in fall 2007 varied according to institutions' level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies).

For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 34 percent of students completed a bachelor's degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 89 percent.

SOURCE:U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015).The Condition of Education 2015(NCES 2015-144),Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate Students.




It also depressed the housing market....ask me how.

Given the criteria I listed as the qualification for receiving a free college education, all that "blather" about how long folks take to complete a degree has what to do with it? The relevant figure, given the criteria, would be the percentage of students who complete their degrees in 4.5 years or less, not all the ones who take longer than that. Those would be the relevant figures because, given the listed criteria in the OP, those are the only ones who'd qualify for the free education, at least in terms of "time to complete their degree."

"...all that "blather" about how long folks take to complete a degree has what to do with it?"

It adds 50% to the nominal costs of the so-called education.
Someone has to pay for it.....one way or another it is the taxpayer.


You may close your eyes and ears to the reality....but it doesn't make the reality cease to be so.

 

[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).

Only the ignorant imagine a 'free college education' is free.

The fact is, it is wasted money as far as actually educating.

And...most of those rewarded with same treat it as a vacation.


"4-year colleges graduate 53% of students in 6 years"
4-year colleges graduate 53% of students in 6 years - USATODAY.com


And this....

San Jose state college graduation rate after four years:
"9.0% undergraduates completed their degree "on-time" (within two or four years depending on the degree)"
http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/san-jose-state-university/outcomes/



College for everyone....paid for by the producing-citizens.....another great socialist plan!



Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree- granting institution in fall 2007, the 6-year graduation rate was 58 percent at public institutions, 65 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private for-profit institutions. Fast Facts


Socialism infantilizes the electorate.


Six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree in fall 2007 varied according to institutions' level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies).

For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 34 percent of students completed a bachelor's degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 89 percent.

SOURCE:U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015).The Condition of Education 2015(NCES 2015-144),Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate Students.




It also depressed the housing market....ask me how.

Given the criteria I listed as the qualification for receiving a free college education, all that "blather" about how long folks take to complete a degree has what to do with it? The relevant figure, given the criteria, would be the percentage of students who complete their degrees in 4.5 years or less, not all the ones who take longer than that. Those would be the relevant figures because, given the listed criteria in the OP, those are the only ones who'd qualify for the free education, at least in terms of "time to complete their degree."

"...all that "blather" about how long folks take to complete a degree has what to do with it?"

It adds 50% to the nominal costs of the so-called education.
Someone has to pay for it.....one way or another it is the taxpayer.

You may close your eyes and ears to the reality....but it doesn't make the reality cease to be so.

Red:
That specific criterion has to do with and is a reflection of a several things:

• My unwillingness to support folks' education when they take "forever and a day" to complete it. One can take three classes per semester and finish college in six years, but I'm not of a mind to ask society to pay for it for that long. In that regard, the temporal constraint of 4.5 years lays the foundation for my proposal not becoming an open checkbook, as it were, for folks who want to stay in college "forever."
• My recognition that, in general, a student needs to take 15 credit hours per semester to complete a bachelor's degree in four years.
• My recognition that a small handful of undergraduate degrees actually take nine semesters to complete rather than taking eight.
• My awareness that most current financial aid programs generally require one to take at least 12 credit hours per semester, but that still doesn't get them to 120 credit hours in four or 4.5 years if they do that every semester. I believe the bar should be raised since what I've proposed isn't loans, but rather a "free ride."
• My awareness that just about anybody can achieve a high college GPA if they take few enough courses each semester.
• The simple fact that during any given semester, a college student who's receiving a "free ride" doesn't have a damn thing else to have to do but hit the books, do the studying, get high grades and finish. Some folks can do that and still fit in all the extracurricular activities in which they want to participate, others can't. I don't care if one can or can't, but if one can't fit them in and still get Bs at the worst and mostly A grades in their major, then they need to forgo the extracurriculars if they want the "free ride" I'm proposing.
• It's a reflection of the guidelines I gave my own kids, at least insofar as how long/how much I'd pull out of my pocket to pay for their undergrad degrees. It doesn't even matter than I have the money to pay for them to take six years to finish a baccalaureate degree; I'm just not going to do it. News stories aren't the only things that have firm deadlines. The sooner young people learn to deal with that vis a vis their own abilities, the better.

Blue:
I don't know what you are getting at by that remark, especially in light of the bullet points above.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

Almost 5 present of students have some sort of learning disability that qualifies for an accommendation at school. These people are not necessary mentally challenged. Some are well above average intellenge and do just fine in school when accommodated. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education. Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

Can you cite a source for your information?

. Some students may not have disabilities but never achieve a high reading level because of other reasons. They may come from unstable homes or their parents may not instill in them the importance of a good education.

Making excuses for these students does not do them a favor, in fact expecting them to do poorly is akin to insulting them. I have found that when the expectation is set high, and adaquate tools are made available, nearly all people (young and old alike) rise to the challenge.

Other students may simply be on the lower end of the bell curve for intelligence without specific disabilities.

Lower than average intelligence is still no excuse. While it may take longer, and more effort would need to be applied, I am confident that the vast majority of students can achieve the goals I set forth. While the 99% I suggest may prove to be an unattainable goal, I know we can do far better than we currently do. Maybe a 94% goal would be more attainable, I am no expert so I don't know what would be realistic. 94% would include the 5% you cite as well as a 1% cushion.

The difference, as I see it, between the way you are looking at this, and the way I do is that you seem to be looking for ways it won't/can't work, while all I see are opportunities to excell ourselves while helping others to achieve high standards.

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

 

[320 Years of History]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

 

[JoeMoma]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

 

[320 Years of History]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

Of course, but introducing that heads back down the road of folks having absolute limits on their ability to achieve a given level of performance.

If it were established that the statistically average person in good health is physically/physiologically capable of running a four minute mile, would you object to the "teachers/schools of running" having as a target ensuring that 99% of statistically average persons in good health who are taught to run being able to demonstrate that they in fact can run a four minute mile?

I wouldn't object to that standard.

 

[JoeMoma]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

Of course, but introducing that heads back down the road of folks having absolute limits on their ability to achieve a given level of performance.

If it were established that the statistically average person in good health is physically/physiologically capable of running a four minute mile, would you object to the "teachers/schools of running" having as a target ensuring that 99% of statistically average persons in good health who are taught to run being able to demonstrate that they in fact can run a four minute mile?

I wouldn't object to that standard.

Just under 50% of people are below average. We are not dealing with just the statistical average person. There is a huge difference in ability between someone who is near average and someone in the bottom 5 percent. Thus, some people need different goals than others.

While it is true that many on the low end may be able to achieve a 10th grade reading level, they have to make the commitment to do so. If it takes staying in grade school until the age of 30, it becomes unrealistic.

When it come to a high school education, there will be those that graduate with straight As, even while taking the most difficult classes. There will also be those that do well to earn Ds for "diploma".

 

[320 Years of History]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

Of course, but introducing that heads back down the road of folks having absolute limits on their ability to achieve a given level of performance.

If it were established that the statistically average person in good health is physically/physiologically capable of running a four minute mile, would you object to the "teachers/schools of running" having as a target ensuring that 99% of statistically average persons in good health who are taught to run being able to demonstrate that they in fact can run a four minute mile?

I wouldn't object to that standard.

Just under 50% of people are below average. We are not dealing with just the statistical average person. There is a huge difference in ability between someone who is near average and someone in the bottom 5 percent. Thus, some people need different goals than others.

While it is true that many on the low end may be able to achieve a 10th grade reading level, they have to make the commitment to do so. If it takes staying in grade school until the age of 30, it becomes unrealistic.

When it come to a high school education, there will be those that graduate with straight As, even while taking the most difficult classes. There will also be those that do well to earn Ds for "diploma".

That's only possible and accurate to say if one views "average" as a discrete point rather than a range. Intelligence and learning aptitude is something that on individual levels is measured discretely; however, educational systems and institutions don't approach it and measure academic performance or aptitude that way. That they don't is most readily seen in the fact that to earn the average grade, a C, one must usually score >=70 and <=79 or in the range of >=78 and <=84, depending on the school's grading scale.

Given that what constitutes average performance is a range, it follows that the intelligence that facilitates that performance spans a range of discrete intelligence scores, and it is.

Looking at the range of intelligence quotients (intellectual aptitude), one sees that the average runs from 85 to 100 and that only ~15% of the population is of below average intelligence. Thus, the only way for "just under 50% of people are below average" is for one to deem IQ=100 as the average, that is to view the matter in terms and as one of discrete points rather than one of ranges of ability.

You can do that, for nobody can stop you, but you'd be among a minority of folks who do. I'd be surprised to find anyone who sets education goals among the minority of folks who would also view the matter in terms of distinct intelligence scores.

 

[JoeMoma]

I did not cite the source that I obtained the 5% figure for students that have IEP accommodations. Here is a source that puts the percentage at 13% nationally: Percent Children with Disabilities: 2013-14 - ED Data Express

I do not have a problem with having a goal that 99% of students that graduate high school at least have the ability to read at a 10th grade level. However, I do believe that if being able to read at a 10th grade lever were a requirement for graduating then there would be a substantial percentage of students dropping out due to difficulty in meeting the requirement. It's simply my opinion that a goal of both a 99% graduation rate for all students coupled with a goal of 99% of graduates reading at least on a tenth grade level is unachievable considering the total population of students we have in our education system.

Goals of high academic achievement levels and high graduation rates are conflicting goals. While it's true that we as a society want both, it stands to reason that as we raise the bar higher, fewer will be able to jump over (or be willing to do the hard work/training to be able to jump over).

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

Of course, but introducing that heads back down the road of folks having absolute limits on their ability to achieve a given level of performance.

If it were established that the statistically average person in good health is physically/physiologically capable of running a four minute mile, would you object to the "teachers/schools of running" having as a target ensuring that 99% of statistically average persons in good health who are taught to run being able to demonstrate that they in fact can run a four minute mile?

I wouldn't object to that standard.

Just under 50% of people are below average. We are not dealing with just the statistical average person. There is a huge difference in ability between someone who is near average and someone in the bottom 5 percent. Thus, some people need different goals than others.

While it is true that many on the low end may be able to achieve a 10th grade reading level, they have to make the commitment to do so. If it takes staying in grade school until the age of 30, it becomes unrealistic.

When it come to a high school education, there will be those that graduate with straight As, even while taking the most difficult classes. There will also be those that do well to earn Ds for "diploma".

That's only possible and accurate to say if one views "average" as a discrete point rather than a range. Intelligence and learning aptitude is something that on individual levels is measured discretely; however, educational systems and institutions don't approach it and measure academic performance or aptitude that way. That they don't is most readily seen in the fact that to earn the average grade, a C, one must usually score >=70 and <=79 or in the range of >=78 and <=84, depending on the school's grading scale.

Given that what constitutes average performance is a range, it follows that the intelligence that facilitates that performance spans a range of discrete intelligence scores, and it is.

Looking at the range of intelligence quotients (intellectual aptitude), one sees that the average runs from 85 to 100 and that only ~15% of the population is of below average intelligence. Thus, the only way for "just under 50% of people are below average" is for one to deem IQ=100 as the average, that is to view the matter in terms and as one of discrete points rather than one of ranges of ability.

You can do that, for nobody can stop you, but you'd be among a minority of folks who do. I'd be surprised to find anyone who sets education goals among the minority of folks who would also view the matter in terms of distinct intelligence scores.

Why would interval from 85 to 100(-) be considered average while the interval from 100(+) to 115 be considered above average? Both intervals are the same distance from the true mean.
Often people confuse the term average with normal or representative. I stand by my statement as being mathematically correct that practically 50% of people are below average. That being said, using the bell curve you supplied, it would be reasonable to say that is most people fall between an IQ of 85 to 115. Thus that range could be considered normal or representative of most people.

Even going with you definition of average, below average people also graduate from high school. It fine with me if you want to set a goal that 99% of graduates read at a 10th grade level or better. But as most of the rest of the lower end of the bell curve is allowed to attend high school, a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% of graduates reading at 10th grade level is unachievable.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?

Blue:
Raising a bar higher doesn't make the goals be in conflict with one another. It makes them harder to achieve. "Hard to do" and "existing in indirect proportion with something else" (conflicting) are not the same things.

• The goal of having one's cake conflicts with the goal of eating it. The more of it one eats, necessarily, the less of it one has.
• The goal of having one's cake does not conflict with the goal of preserving it (keeping it edible, maybe not tasty, but edible nonetheless) for six months. Cake can be both hard to come by, and it can be hard to hang on to while keeping it edible (preserving it), but with enough effort one can accomplish both goals.

Unlike the cake one may want to preserve for a long time, there is no "expiration date" on knowledge, at least not one we'd normally see appearing at 18 or so years old. It is surely hard to achieve the 99% target noted for the two dimensions of measurement under discussion, but impossible, no.

• Does society's achieving one necessarily mean its achievement of the other must unavoidably go down? No.
• If in achieving one we observe that the other's achievement rate decreases, does that establish indirectly proportional causality between the two? No. It shows there may be a correlation, but it does not show that correlation to be causal and unavoidably indirectly proportional.

Some people can run a mile under 4 minutes. I will never be able to run a mile under 4 minutes no matter how hard I train.

Of course, but introducing that heads back down the road of folks having absolute limits on their ability to achieve a given level of performance.

If it were established that the statistically average person in good health is physically/physiologically capable of running a four minute mile, would you object to the "teachers/schools of running" having as a target ensuring that 99% of statistically average persons in good health who are taught to run being able to demonstrate that they in fact can run a four minute mile?

I wouldn't object to that standard.

Just under 50% of people are below average. We are not dealing with just the statistical average person. There is a huge difference in ability between someone who is near average and someone in the bottom 5 percent. Thus, some people need different goals than others.

While it is true that many on the low end may be able to achieve a 10th grade reading level, they have to make the commitment to do so. If it takes staying in grade school until the age of 30, it becomes unrealistic.

When it come to a high school education, there will be those that graduate with straight As, even while taking the most difficult classes. There will also be those that do well to earn Ds for "diploma".

That's only possible and accurate to say if one views "average" as a discrete point rather than a range. Intelligence and learning aptitude is something that on individual levels is measured discretely; however, educational systems and institutions don't approach it and measure academic performance or aptitude that way. That they don't is most readily seen in the fact that to earn the average grade, a C, one must usually score >=70 and <=79 or in the range of >=78 and <=84, depending on the school's grading scale.

Given that what constitutes average performance is a range, it follows that the intelligence that facilitates that performance spans a range of discrete intelligence scores, and it is.

Looking at the range of intelligence quotients (intellectual aptitude), one sees that the average runs from 85 to 100 and that only ~15% of the population is of below average intelligence. Thus, the only way for "just under 50% of people are below average" is for one to deem IQ=100 as the average, that is to view the matter in terms and as one of discrete points rather than one of ranges of ability.

You can do that, for nobody can stop you, but you'd be among a minority of folks who do. I'd be surprised to find anyone who sets education goals among the minority of folks who would also view the matter in terms of distinct intelligence scores.

Why would interval from 85 to 100(-) be considered average while the interval from 100(+) to 115 be considered above average? Both intervals are the same distance from the true mean.
Often people confuse the term average with normal or representative. I stand by my statement as being mathematically correct that practically 50% of people are below average. That being said, using the bell curve you supplied, it would be reasonable to say that is most people fall between an IQ of 85 to 115. Thus that range could be considered normal or representative of most people.

Even going with you definition of average, below average people also graduate from high school. It fine with me if you want to set a goal that 99% of graduates read at a 10th grade level or better. But as most of the rest of the lower end of the bell curve is allowed to attend high school, a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% of graduates reading at 10th grade level is unachievable.

Would you please directly respond to the question that opens this post?

Red:
You'll find the answer to your question here.

The intelligence score 100 is indeed the mean (average), median and mode of the distribution, thus making it, as you note, the average score obtained by takers of IQ tests. You are also spot on with regard to actual scores on IQ tests. (I'm not suggesting any other form of evaluation be used.) Being of "average intelligence" is a qualitative assessment, and that qualitative assessment corresponds to having and IQ score between 85 and 100. The "representative of most people" remarks you made are also correct. As you can see most people, ~85% of people, have average or higher intelligence.

So what does that mean for our discussion around this idea of "99% of the population being required to achieve a 10th grade reading level?" It means, as I earlier stated, that the "99%" needs to be qualified. How might one qualify the statement (standard/objective)? By saying that "99% of people having average or higher intelligence must achieve a 10th grade reading level."

I have at least twice previously concurred with you and acknowledged that expecting and/or achieving a 99% rate of 10th grade reading ability for the entire population is, as you pointed out, a "pipe dream."

• 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.
  
• 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.

Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?" I get it....for the at least third time....it's not reasonable to expect that enough below average intelligence people will achieve a 10th grade reading level before graduating from high school in order for us to achieve a 99% percent 10th grade reading rate among the entire U.S. population.

Now, if you have some evidence that shows that 99% of people of average intelligence (IQs of 85+; leaning disabled or otherwise) cannot be reasonably expected to achieve that standard, I'll consider it. If your point is that some of the people having IQ scores of 85+ may need longer to achieve a 10th grade reading level, fine, but my response to that is simple: deny a high school diploma to them until they demonstrate having achieved that reading level.

 

[JoeMoma]

320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

 

[320 Years of History]

320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....

• In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
  • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
  • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
• Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
  • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
    • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
    • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
    • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.
      
      
      
      
      
      I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.

Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.

 

[JoeMoma]

320: "Do you think that 99% of high school graduates should be able to read and fully comprehend your post above to which I've replied?"

Yes, I agree. They should.

320: Given that I have acknowledged that, why do you keep responding to my remarks pertaining to the "99% standard" as though they referring to "everybody" rather than "everybody who is of at least average intelligence?"

Because the populations our high schools are not limited to those with at least average intelligence. Students with learning disabilities and students that may not have defined disabilities that are below average are in the same classes as the average and above average students. They graduate from the same high schools and participate in the same graduation services. They receive the same diploma certificates. The graduation rate goal is usually set for the entire student body, not just for the cross section of students with an IQ of 85 and above.

I have no problem with a 10th grade reading level being a minimum standard for graduation. This standard will have an effect on the graduation rate. In my state, students can decide to drop out of high school on their own at age 17. These students often drop out because it's the path of least resistance even when they possibly could achieve the academic levels to meet graduation requirements.

Red:
Say what?....

• In your mind, is the theme of this "99%" discussion about the rate of graduation or about the share of average-intelligence (or higher) high school students who receive a high school diploma also mastering reading at a 10th grade level?
  • I absolutely thought this "99%" discussion is about the latter.
  • I really don't care what a school's graduation rate is; I care what the level of accomplishment is for the students who graduate and receive a diploma. I care that the diploma any student receives, be they an "average IQ" or higher student or a "below average IQ" student, reliably means the student has demonstrated a given set of abilities at a given level of proficiency.
• Do you view receiving a high school diploma as something that occurs as a consequence of one's merely going to school?
  • I don't. I see being awarded a high school diploma as something that happens upon one's having successfully demonstrated a set of scholastic skills and abilities, among them being able to read with some quantifiable adroitness. To that end, oldsoul has proposed that one of those skills be reading at a 10th grade level. In other words, when one who is of at least average intelligence leaves high school as a result of receiving a diploma (graduating), one must have demonstrated one's reading comprehension skill is that comparable to what's expected of a 10th grader.
    • If we want to set lower a standard, say third grade reading level, for students who are not at least of average intelligence fine. In setting that standard for them, I would nonetheless expect that 99% of the folks to whom the lower standard(s) applies meet that standard
    • If that means for, say, Year 1, the school graduates only 30% of its students who were temporally eligible for graduation (i.e., they reached either the terminal grade or terminal age permitted for being in the school), well, then so be it, provided there's nothing suggesting that the instruction they received was adequate.
    • I don't care what students take a given class together. If intellectually below average students are in the same class with average and higher students, then it will fall on the teacher to apply the standard(s) as befits the student's classification. My long dead aunt taught in a rural one room school having some 30 or so kids.
      
      
      
      
      
      I know damn well she didn't apply the same learning standards and have the same learning objectives for every student in the room/school. I think if she could apply differing standards for her students, teachers today can do the same thing. In fact, I expect they do for the learning disabled students who, as you describe are taught in the same room as "mainstream" students and who quite simply lack the mental acuity to achieve the proficiency levels expected of "mainstream" students.

Blue:
If a student drops out of school, fine. They don't get a diploma. Remember, I've referring to students who actually do receive a diploma. People who drop out of school may be able to read at a 10th grade level, or they may not. All I'm saying is that if they fail to receive a diploma (or GED), they have nothing indicating that the rest of us (e.g., potential employers) have any way of knowing whether they do or not.

If dropping out and not obtaining a GED/diploma is what they want to do, well, it just is. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I certainly wouldn't grant them a diploma or GED if they haven't demonstrated they deserve one by, among other things, mastering 10th grade reading.

I think that you and I agree on more than it may seem in this thread. I personally am fine with not having a 99% rate of graduation if this is because a reasonably high standard is set. What started this tangent to the OP was the suggestion of having a goal of a 99% graduation rate and a goal of 99% reading at a 10th grade level of higher. Since a high schools graduation rate is based on all its students, not just those likely to meet the educational objectives, all I've been doing is pointing out that achieving both goal collectively is as you put it a pipe dream.