Should the General Education Diploma (GED) be eliminated?

because the GED program turns out to be a waste of money (sound familiar?) for the most part

the same $ applied at the primary end of the school system - helping kids develop their non-cognitive abilities - has better results in the long-term for a larger group of students

I don't see that as a realistic scenario.

What makes you believe that any savings would be used for developing non-cognitive abilities?

Thanks for all the links, ehbeth, I found them interesting and informative.

Heckman seems more opposed to the GED option which is offered while the student is still attending school (something he says is available in only 12 states) than he is to the GED option which is available after a student has already left school. So his objections do not seem to be aimed at all GED programs, if I understand him correctly.

In addition, his criticisms of GED diplomas are not really based on academic deficiencies/inferiorities when compared to regular high school diplomas, but rather that the students, or former students, who gain these GEDs are less well prepared, or developed, in non-academic/non-cognitive areas, than those who obtain regular diplomas.


It is those non-cognitive abilities--self discipline, persistence, impulse control, ability to handle frustration, etc.--which Heckman sees as the keys to predicting an individual's future success, and, for that reason, he feels educational programs should put greater effort into helping the development of such capacities rather than focusing on the purely academic. And he further feels this should begin on the pre-school level, and he appears to generally be a strong advocate for pre-school programs--something I also strongly support, particularly for low income or socially disadvantaged segments of the population, where the child's home or family environment may not adequately support learning--of both the cognitive and non-cognitive type.

So, Heckman's thinking goes far beyond whether a GED is a useful diploma from an economic point of view. He's genuinely interested in understanding human development and cognitive development, and how these things are affected by the child's social/familial environment, and how the educational process could best facilitate more positive outcomes. He seems to be a very interesting man.

They wouldn't have to be. Given the factual premises, abolishing the GED would be progress even if states spent the saved money on something else. Spending nothing on nothing, just in itself, beats spending something on an ineffective program.

But if we're talking about getting rid of useless programs, one would think we'd start with the biggest ones and work our way down.

How much are we spending on GED programs compared to how much we're spending on testing students with useless tests?

How much class time is wasted on useless testing? How many human hours of work are we wasting?

A lot more than we are on GED programs, I'll wager.

And at least some students are benefiting from GED programs.

I don't know that the U.S. would use the $ for developing non-cognitive abilities.

I agree with Heckman that the money would be better used to help children develop non-cognitive abilities.

why wait til the biggest ones are gone? why not get rid of any programs that work whenever we can get rid of them?

I haven't had a chance to read all of the links since broke-foot boy is bored.

From what I understand, Head Start, et al, gains quickly evaporate once the kids enter their neighborhood public schools, which are terribly underfunded and lead by "direct instruction" which is even more stifling than "regular" instruction. So I'm not convinced that money is well spent, but I agree that it is better than nothing.

I know that anything skill based is laughed at in education politics these days, it's considered social engineering. I can't see the average American being sold on that after being beaten over the head with NCLB and RttT these last 12 years. Drill and test is the name of the game and investing in early childhood education won't fix that.

I was listening to this last night, I think it's very good:



(Her speech is really only the first half hour or so of the video, I checked out for the Q&A at the end)

I think she does a good job of addressing non-cognitive abilities.

If all you're saying that abolishing the GED shouldn't be a high priority, and abolishing "no child left behind" would be better, I'm with you. Still, abolishing a useless program is a good thing, and I approve of good things. The fact that there is more waste to cut elsewhere doesn't make it a not-good thing.

As I said to DrewDad --- if your problem with abolishing GED is that it doesn't go far enough and that unschooling our children might be much better, you won't be getting an argument from me.

My problem is that I'm not convinced that eliminating the GED is a good idea.

I only know one person who has one and I know it was a huge thing for her. It made her feel like she could accomplish something, that she could do make it on her own after her family turned their backs to her.

I haven't read Heckman's studies, or any other studies that probably contradict his, but studies often lack a human element.

I am proud of my GED. So are some of my friends. I have gotten a few jobs for which I was not otherwise eligible to apply.

You're one of the people the program was actually meant for. It was meant for veterans - who, for the most part, already had the non-cognitive skills missing for the majority of people now taking advantage of the program.

She does. But if you think Astra Taylor is a hostile witness against Heckman's views, you need to listen again. Especially to these two minutes or so:


That's excactly what Heckman is saying, except that Heckman likes this whereas Taylor doesn't. Taylor emphasises her point by citing an article by a well-credentialed high-school teacher.


Again, that's exactly Heckman's point, except Taylor doesn't like what's going on whereas Heckman does.

I'd recommend at least reading the summaries if you can't find time to read more - the interview with Heckman is particularly interesting.

He is against many of the things about the American school system that you often post about - teaching to the test, that sort of thing.

Wouldn't that make her a hostile witness?

She's citing John Taylor Gatto. He's an interesting fellow: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

I think you've reversed Heckman's position.

I will read them, I promise. I'm very interested in this kind of thing.

But I think I can agree with him and disagree on this particular point.

Then how did you figure out in your earlier post that Heckman's analysis "makes clear the danger when economists (and anyone other than educators) start dipping their toes into education policy?" Don't you need to read the analysis you're criticizing before reaching such broad conclusions of your own? Sorry for being a bitch about it, but I truly think you do.

It makes her a friendly witness for his theory of what's going on. Whether what's going on is good or bad is a separate matter of worldviews.


Thanks for the correction. I was wondering if I heard the name right.