As others have already pointed out, the issue may be less about a specific number of years, but rather whether high school students are ready academically and otherwise (e.g., socially or emotionally) for college. A student’s satisfaction of high school graduation requirements often does not correlate with his or her preparedness for college. While initiatives like common standards for college and career readiness should help to align K-12 requirements with the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in postsecondary education, currently that is not the case. Many students graduate from high school, but then need to take remedial courses (or developmental education courses) when they arrive in college. Of those students who begin college enrolled in developmental education, over 60 percent do not earn a postsecondary degree. Thus, it is important to be more thoughtful about the “how” of the transition from secondary to postsecondary education, and not just the “when.”

The policy in Indiana may turn out to be beneficial to higher achieving students who would likely have been successful in college anyway. However, there are many high school students who are on track to graduate within four years from high school who are not prepared for college. The transition point for them should not simply be a summer between their last year of high school and matriculation as a college freshman. The transition should be envisioned as longer term: for example, starting as early as 11th grade and stretching into and perhaps beyond a student’s first year in college. While we could certainly argue that all of high school (9-12) or secondary education (6-12) should represent the transition “starting ramp” for postsecondary education, we still need to recognize that by the middle of high school in the current context we have students who are doing reasonably well by high school standards (maybe considered “students in the middle”), but who will not be ready for college despite their aspirations. These students need support now.

The creation of a set of services for these high school-capable, but college-unready students, that represents a coherent trajectory of aligned supports may offer promise for limiting the number of these students who end up in developmental education, and can get on with the business of earning regular college credits starting with their arrival at college. In many localities various pre-college programs exist and offer supports for students. However, some of these are offered by colleges, others by high schools, many are redundant, and across all of them there are often some gaps in their preparation of students for college. Given that these services offered by different institutions are often not explicitly linked to one another, a student does not experience multiple programs that might offer a real opportunity to build necessary skills and knowledge. Students do not see how the pre-college summer program they did before their senior year on a college campus connects (or could connect) to another set of services they may receive at their high school during the academic year. A coherent and coordinated pathway is not presented or evident to these students. It will take local colleges and high schools working in partnership to identify these students, to understand their needs, and to align and coordinate services that address these needs. Secondary and postsecondary institutions need to collaborate more closely on a longer transition period for these students who are on-track for college matriculation but postsecondary developmental education, such that they are better prepared. Local, state, and federal policy may prompt or facilitate such partnerships, but it will take more than making it possible for students to leave high school earlier to enter college.

Governor Daniels’ proposal to allow students to use state funds for post-secondary education is certainly not unreasonable. Cognitive and social development in students is rarely linear nor is it uniform across all students. Therefore, some students will be ready for the academic rigor of post-secondary education after three years of high school. And, some will not. Student interests, motivation, and goals should pace their progress toward intellectual and social development. Explicit parental permission should also be mandatory.

A critical component of this should also be collaboration between PK-12 school systems and higher education. Currently, these systems are highly regimented and sometimes completely unconnected. The discussion of this proposal in Indiana should encourage PK-12 and higher education to engage together in conversations regarding the standards of performance required to support students across systems to fulfill the students’ aspirations. Implementation of the Common Core Standards and the definition of college- and career-readiness further necessitate this discussion. Further, state funds should be available for students who are undertaking rigorous, substantive coursework that is required for a job or college major, and not simply “some kind of post-secondary education.”

It makes abundant sense to increase flexibility in education because of one of the most obvious truisms we have: No two people are exactly alike. Indeed, they are often very different, with greatly varying interests, talents, rates of maturity, and desires. Unfortunately, public schooling is inherently ponderous and bureaucratic -- it is, after all, a government system -- and it doesn't deal well at all with diversity. Enabling students to have even a little more control over their own education via early graduation is a good step away from that.

Interestingly, few if any respondents so far have noted how readily available vocational training options are in many nations, but not the United States. As the recent Pathways to Prosperity report strongly suggests, allowing students to choose such options -- free of the huge financial and rhetorical shoves politicians give them toward college -- would also be a significant step in the right direction.

Letting kids graduate early, though, or more easily enroll in vocational training, are just starters. In stark contrast to the national-curriculum-standards direction we've been moving in, what we ultimately need is a system in which parents can freely make schooling decisions based on their intimate knowledge of their unique children, and educators have the freedom to open new schools, specialize in the needs of specific subsets of kids, and try new things. We need a system of broad educational freedom, something that actually deals with the fundamental reality that children aren't even close to being uniform widgets.

Human reality makes clear that we need a lot more flexibility in our education system. Allowing students to go to college early is just a small, but welcome, step in that direction.

Gov. Daniels has proven to be an advocate for education innovation, as evidenced by Indiana’s leading the nation in the number of New Tech Network High Schools on the ground (16 and counting). He also created flexibility at the state level (through waivers) to drive innovation at the classroom level.

Thankfully, in a world of learning options are not black and white. We are not bound by seat time and are not limited to just two options: 1) have students take four years of high school classes (including that “fun-filled cruise through senior year” that Gov. Daniels talks about, or 2) graduate them early.

Many students now have the opportunity to take college credit in Early College High Schools, an innovative, dual-enrollment model that demystifies the college experience for younger learners and has achieved rich success in my home state of Ohio and in other states.

While scores of younger learners are ready, academically, to take that next step, they are more likely to succeed when they have support and structure, which is Early College High Schools provide. About two thirds of these high schools are located on college campuses through partnerships with local colleges or universities, providing students up to 60 hours of free college credit.

EdWorks, a subsidiary of KnowledgeWorks, has initiated nine such high schools in Ohio (two of which have been named among “America’s Best High Schools” by U.S. News & World Report. Today, EdWorks is replicating that success nationally. Last fall, EdWorks and the State University of New York launched 11 Early College High School partnerships across the state. Any day now we expect to announce more such schools in the Empire state.

It’s no surprise that states such as North Carolina, Texas, New York and Ohio have launched systemic efforts to expand Early College High Schools. They do an excellent job of preparing students for the future and are legacy-building. Many ECHS attendees are the first in their families to go to college. We followed some of their success stories last year in mini documentaries. Access it by clicking here.

When we embarked upon this work, we invested in at-risk students that historically were deprived of a rigorous curriculum and access to post-secondary education.

The reward has been great.

To cite one example, in Canton, Ohio, we partnered with the district to open Canton Early College High School (CECHS). There, more than 50 percent of the graduates from the first two classes at CECHS earned associate’s degrees. The state’s Early College High Schools report an average graduation rate of 91 percent, and more than one in three students graduate from high school with both a high school diploma and two years of college credit or an associate degree.

I like the fact that Gov. Daniels and others are looking to innovate, including eliminating seat time, and creating viable linkages to post-secondary education.

Early Colleges High Schools could give those students head start and provide the structure and support to ease the transition. Amid the escalation of voices predicting the imminent bursting of the higher education bubble, Early College seems all the more alluring.

I’m sure there are many politicians in cash-strapped states who want to get rid of senior year because it’s an easy 8% across-the-board budget cut. But do we really need to cut the last year of high school? And if we do, will we be cutting of our nose to spite our face?

Individually, sure, there are always going to be a small percentage of kids for whom it is better to move through school a little faster. Fortunately, there exists now, and always has existed, the option of finishing high school in less than four years: just get your required courses completed more quickly.

When I was in high school, most of my friends were done with their required courses by the end of their junior years. I finished mine after the first semester of my senior year.

What did this leave time for? Some of my friends took courses at a local community college. Some went to school only in the mornings so they could put in a full day on the job. I took an entire slate of electives, three of which ended up laying the foundation for successful college and career choices.

Knowing, as an entering high school freshman, that I had a little slack in my schedule, allowed me to take advantage of opportunities that existed only as electives. I took two years of computer programming—in the 1970s! I took several music classes from amazing teachers which lead directly to a short but successful and extremely rewarding career in the entertainment industry.

In my mid-20s, my entrepreneurial work turned out to be a perfect blend of my high school computer programming and music experiences. I also took a wonderful class in psychology—available only as a second semester senior elective—where I developed and administered an actual psychological study. That experience, I now realize, sparked my interest in the human mind, and became the basis of my study of cognitive science, something I rely on all the time now when I work with kids in schools.

So, sure, I could have jetted off to college, or done something else with my senior year. Most of my friends could have, too. But none of us did. And I think we were all better for it.

If school becomes a fast-tracked assembly line experience of endless required courses and end-of-grade tests, many kids will miss out on the opportunities of a lifetime. The serious academic work of high school is vital. But there is other work to be done that is just as serious and vital—if not moreso for some—at this time in kids’ lives.

Obviously, there is social, emotional, and physical maturation going on. How many parents would want their kids going off to college, out into the workplace, or living on their own, rather than being at school during their senior year? A few, probably. And they, of course, have the option of fast-tracking their kids already.

One of my classmates started high school at age 11, I think, finished at 14, and started at the University of Washington at 15. This young man was talented, disciplined, and clearly way ahead of the rest of us on many levels. Still, when I saw him a few years later, he told me that while studying at the college level was not a problem for him, it sure was awkward socially.

Then, of cousre, there is the opportunity for important intellectual maturation during a student’s senior year as well. As Mr. Kress notes, “What percent of 17-year olds are truly ready for post-secondary education? 15%? Maybe 20%?” Even if that many kids are truly ready for college, we should keep in mind that there are other things to get ready for, too—like life, for example.

Again, reflecting on my own experience, most of the college and career work I have done in my life came out of electives I took in my last semester of my senior year. Up to that time, I had no idea where I wanted to end up in the world. The second half of my senior year of high school—admittedly a blow-off time for many students—was for me the most formative few months of schooling I ever pursued.

There is no compelling reason to move away from the traditional four-year high school model—not even cost-savings. Kids who want to get their requirements covered in three years can always do it. Kids who want to avail themselves of a broader array of opportunities should have the opportunity to do so. We can also create more dual-enrollment and early college high school programs.

Senior year can be reformed as an experience of guided choice, high productivity, intense focus, and personal exploration. But it should not be replaced—especially not with nothing. Besides, if we cut senior year, no one will ever get to go to their senior prom. Reforming education doesn't require reforming everything about education. It only requires reforming important things. And just as Mr. Lomax and Mr. Kress suggest, we have far more important things to work out than the issue of shortening high school.

This discussion of eliminating the senior year is a distraction we can't afford.

Sure, there is a tiny fraction of rising seniors for whom we should have better options in the way of college-level courses or quicker access to college.

But, for the vast majority of students, we should stay focused on keeping the senior year and making it far more productive.

I assume most contributors to, and readers of, this blog have seen and understand 11th grade achievement data in this country.

What percent of 17 year olds are truly ready for post-secondary education? 15%? Maybe 20%?

What percent have dropped out or are behind in terms of readiness? 50%? Maybe 60%?

And what percent of those who are doing reasonably well at or slightly above grade level could benefit from a well structured curriculum in the senior year?

Let's focus our energy on making the senior year more productive for all rather than getting distracted with the fruitless and unhelpful gambit of eliminating it.

Some students are ready academically to proceed to college without finishing high school. Morehouse’s early-admission program certainly has a record of distinguished graduates: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Duke philosophy professor Dr. Benjamin F. Ward, Atlanta’s first African American mayor Maynard Jackson, and my immediate predecessor as president of Dillard University in New Orleans, Dr. Samuel DuBois Cook.

But this needs to be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis. In the first place, although some fifteen- or sixteen-year-olds may be ready for college, not all colleges are ready for them. How many colleges have programs are in place that provide social support to students two or three years younger than the vast majority of their classmates?

My observation as a college professor and president, moreover, is that academic readiness doesn’t always equate to emotional and social maturity. Some bright and academically advanced students may not have the emotional grounding to deal with the increased freedom and responsibility that come with being a college student living away from home, and those developmental issues put them at risk of failing or falling through the cracks in the wrong college environment. While a number of us in the Morehouse early admission program did well at college and after, others didn’t fare so well, almost always because they weren’t emotionally mature enough for the experience.

So if a student is ready for college, both academically and emotionally, and the college is ready for younger students, let them move ahead.

But let’s place this issue in context: Our nation’s real problem isn’t that too many kids sail through senior year when they could be getting started in college. Our problem is that too many seniors who finish high school don’t have the academic preparation that will ensure college success. We need to make sure that senior year is academically rigorous and does all that it should to prepare graduates for the rest of their educational journey, so the high school diploma they receive signifies academic readiness, not time served. If students are treating their final year as a “funville cruise through senior year”—well, it’s no surprise that graduating seniors are prone to high spirits. But shame on their parents, teachers and principals—shame on all of us--for letting it happen.

As a community college teacher, I and my colleagues have seen many students who have technically completed their high school requirements, yet they lack both the academic skills and the maturity to handle college level work. This includes students from public and private schools (contrary to the persistent myth that all private schools are great, and all public schools are horrible). We’ve seen high school valedictorians crash and burn in their Freshman level core courses; meanwhile, other students whose transcripts and placement scores say they are not ready, make astounding progress and graduate.

Those of us who value and understand student learning have long argued that student progress along the educational continuum should be determined by demonstrated knowledge, not age, seat time, or test scores. Although most systems still try to convey students through school on a linear assembly line, each student experiences the teaching/learning processes differently. These individual differences are generally not picked up by traditional standardized tests which are not designed for that level of specificity, particularly if those test results are not properly analyzed in a timely way by classroom teachers familiar with the student.

Colleges usually determine readiness with placement tests that are often not aligned with the curriculum actually taught in PK-12 schools, and certainly not with many state high school exit exams. For example, the skills most needed for success in a class such as Freshman English Composition, are those most likely to have been reduced or eliminated at the high school level in favor of more generic ones that show up on state tests. My own college’s study of incoming freshmen over a five year period found that the deeper our feeder schools moved into the state testing program in English, the poorer students’ writing ability and grammar usage had become. The question is not when should students be allowed to leave high school; it’s what should they know and be able to do when we declare them ready to move on to the next phase of their lives.

Everything in education for the past century has been time-based in an effort to apply a factory-efficiency model to the academic preparation of children. As my colleague and co-author, Shannon C’de Baca noted in our book, Teaching 2030: What We Must Do for Our Students and Our Public Schools Now and in the Future:

Our knowledge of how people learn continues to expand exponentially. We have significant data and instruments that can help us determine individual learning preferences. And yet we adhere to a system of assembly-line education delivery that requires all students to resent their thinking every 50 minutes, all the while expecting them to master increasingly complex content that does not chunk easily into small boxes of time. It just doesn’t work. (p. 93).

I currently teach dual enrollment high school students [high school students taking college courses], most of whom are the top students within their local schools. Sadly, many of the skills and habits that have brought them success at the secondary level, lead to frustration and even failure in their college courses. Yet, they have done everything they’ve been asked to do.

One step towards correcting this misalignment is to treat education, particularly what we now consider secondary (middle school/high school) and college levels as a continuum both pedagogically and fiscally. Rather than diverting funds, as Gov. Daniels suggests, merge the resources, the curriculum, and the instruction to produce a more coherent, individualized, and rigorous educational system for all children.