Abolishing senior year: a win-win scenario

For many high school seniors, spring means high school is over and it's okay to check out, writes Andrew Rotherham for U.S. News & World Report. At the other end of the educational path, many parents struggle to afford high-quality preschool for their four-year-olds. Rotherham's solution: Why not abolish senior year, and use that money for universal access to pre-K? High-quality pre-K programs would cost tens of billions annually, and Rotherham finds most proposals for funding pre-k to be "fanciful": cut the defense budget; close corporate tax loopholes; raise taxes. Yet funding for the 12th grade, if instead put into high-quality pre-k expansion, would increase the return on investment of these public dollars. Nor would replacing senior year mean turning students loose after junior year. Senior year could be used for gap-year activities, remedial and preparatory classes, athletics, vocational training, internships, or national service. The policy change could be seen as an equity strategy: If states invest in remedial and preparatory support, the gap year could diversify participation in higher education. At a minimum, most students would be more mature and prepared for college socially and emotionally after a year's break doing something besides school. More

Source:  Public Education News Blast

Published by LEAP

Los Angeles Education Partnership (LAEP) is an education support organization that works as a collaborative partner in high-poverty communities.