Should the General Education Diploma (GED) be eliminated?

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

It seems to me that if someone can accomplish something in 100 hours, mostly on their own, instead of 1,000 hours with lots of help that it says something good about the GED test taker.

that would be terrific if part of what they learned was how to keep their cool on the job

~~~~

education should be more than teaching to the test/studying to the test - which is all the GED is about

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In the meantime, employers want to know that prospective employees have a minimal literacy, and some basic arithmetic.

and employers have discovered that isn't enough to keep an employee. Employers want employees who work well with others, who can deal successfully with customers. Hard skills aren't enough.

~~~

If you read the interview with Heckman, I think you'd have trouble saying he's not aware of real-world problems.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Getting a GED doesn't give people the soft skills many of them need to maintain jobs and to do well in other areas of their lives.

But getting a diploma doesn't either.

Using this as an argument to reduce the number of people getting a GED just doesn't make any sense to me.

The lack of soft skills is a social problem, not an education problem. I do think it could be addressed within our education system but I can hear the cries of "liberal indoctrination" from here.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

One issue I have with this is the assumption that education is designed to make people employable.

Education should focus on cognitive skills. HS diplomas and GEDs are designed to identify those who have shown a certain level of proficiency in those skills.

They aren't a banner saying "this person is a good office drone."

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Hard skills are really all they're teaching in school (with a nod and a wink to the humanities).

If more and more kids are saying "screw it, I can do this quicker on my own" more power to them.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Heckman's position is pretty much the opposite of that. It is not just about employment, though that is a component of it.

People who have problems in non-cognitive realms often have problems in all areas of their lives, not just employment. Their difficulty in maintaining employment can be a symptom of lack of development in the non-cognitive areas - which is extremely difficult to deal with in adults.

If it's about basic academic proficiency, there's really no point in anyone going to school. Leave them at home til they're 10 or 12 - set up courses to teach straight to the GED test. Drop all social science programs, remove gym/music/art/language programs. They're pointless if education is about basic proficiency in a couple of cognitive areas.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Yes, I understand that he wants to teach the soft skills in school along with the academics.

I don't entirely disagree. I see a lot of benefits to teaching kids sportsmanship, teamwork, patience, manners, etc.

(I do have some issues with allowing a government-run institution determine what "proper" behavior should be. I know a guy who was raised in the East German creche system before Germany reunified. Basically, the state set out to destroy familial attachments and ended up with generations of people with no healthy attachments to family or the state. A nation of damaged people.)

Unfortunately, we're all at the mercy of fate to determine what household we're brought up in. There's only so much that a government institution can do to mitigate the effects of a bad family environment.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

boomerang wrote:

The lack of soft skills is a social problem, not an education problem. I do think it could be addressed within our education system but I can hear the cries of "liberal indoctrination" from here.

probably why Heckman's (and others') research results aren't popular

Many kids are failed by family/society/school before they are 10 years old. Identifying those kids and getting them help with their non-cognitive skills early might allow them to be successful in school/work/life. It's what Heckman advocates for.

Getting a GED can be a symptom of an earlier system failure. The GED is being used to avoid having to provide a more comprehensive education - the increasing use of the GED is a result of NCLB (this comes from research other than Heckman's as well as his).

Quote:

I can hear the cries of "liberal indoctrination" from here

I don't see that as a valid argument to not try to improve the educational system.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

That doesn't alter that the diploma or certificate is what gets one in the door. I did read the interview. He is ignoring that despite what may be alleged to be the effect of being without his vaguely defined non-cognitive skills, employers still look to diplomas or certificates as clues to the employability of a candidate. He's ignoring that there is no direct relationship between a lacuna in non-cognitive education and the utility of the GED. He's ignoring that whether drop-out, serviceman or ex-con, an individual still needs a ticket to get in the door. As you have pointed out yourself, the research does not support a claim that the GED does any harm at all, let alone that it does more harm than good.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I agree with a lot of what he says. And I agree that "liberal indoctrination" worries aren't a good reason to not improve education.

Quote:

The GED is being used to avoid having to provide a more comprehensive education

I think this is only partly true. I think students are using it to avoid having to sit through the mind numbing drills that pass for education these days.

One thing I noticed in the research paper was that the average age of people taking the GED started dropping quickly in 1992. I wonder why that was but I'm going to have to do some digging since they didn't discuss it in the paper.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That doesn't alter that the diploma or certificate is what gets one in the door.

that is true for some jobs and some levels of employment. Persistance, dependability and consistency keep people in jobs.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040108/heckman.shtml

The GED itself is not the issue. The increasing use of it is a concern. It was designed to be used by veterans. It was not meant to cover-up failures in the education system.

The life outcomes for people with GEDs were unexpected. The GED didn't cause the problems - but it can be a marker.

Quote:

“Inadvertently, a test has been created that separates out bright but non-persistent and undisciplined dropouts from other dropouts,” Heckman said. “It is, then, no surprise that GED recipients are the ones who drop out of school, fail to complete college and fail to persist in the military. "

Quote:

One well-studied, early childhood program operates in the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Mich., where disadvantaged children were randomly assigned and received intensive help, as did their parents. The study then followed and monitored the pupils into adulthood.

“Evidence indicates that those enrolled in the program are higher earners and have lower levels of criminal behavior in their late 20s” than do comparable children who did not participate in the program, Heckman said. “Reported cost-benefit ratios for the programs are substantial,” he said. The program is expected to yield $8.70 for each dollar invested over the lifetime of the participants. A substantial portion of that return (65 percent) comes because of reduced levels of crime among the participants.

The findings dispute the claims of some scholars that early childhood interventions are not effective because test score advantages for children with preschool experiences tend to fade as they go through school.

“Academics have a bias toward believing that cognitive skills are of fundamental importance to success in life,” Heckman said. “Because of this, the relatively low malleability of IQs after early ages has led many to proclaim a variety of interventions to be ineffective.” The evidence from the Perry Preschool program shows that such programs reduce criminal activity, promote social skills and integrate disadvantaged people into mainstream society. “The greatest impact of these programs is on socialization and not IQ. Social skills and motivation have large payoffs in the labor market, so these programs have the potential for a large payoff.”

1 Reply

@Setanta,

But steering students who are still in school toward a GED might be "throwing them toward the wolves" if that credential won't help them get better employment, which is what the research suggests, or if they are so lacking in self discipline and persistence that they won't be able to maintain employment. Employers also want people who can follow rules, show up on time, do their required job, and function in a reliable and predictable manner--and that's what a lot of these kids can't do, which is why they wind up in the in-school GED program. It's not that they lack the intellect, they have other problems that affect their functioning. And they'll continue to have those problems even with their GED--and that's Heckman's point.

It would make more sense to keep these students in a regular diploma track, help them to make up missing credits, and focus on their behavioral/personality/discipline problems--what Heckman refers to as non-cognitive issues--that would really help them in being able to get and keep a job, or continue with more advanced education and/or job training.

Those who drop out can still have the option of later obtaining a GED, or a regular diploma, perhaps when they are a little more mature or more highly motivated to do so.

I don't see where anyone, including Heckman, is strongly advocating doing away with GED exams for adults--those over 18--who have already dropped out of school. For those individuals, a GED might help them get a decent job, or a college degree. But it's also a more select and motivated population because these people are choosing to get that credential because they see it as being important to their future, while the same might not be true of the 16 year old who is still in school but has been steered into a GED track because of poor academic performance or behavior problems.

These in-school GED programs may help to keep kids off the streets, and they bring money into school districts, but they might not be adequately preparing these students for the real world of either work or higher education. Alternative schools, which put the focus on really trying to engage these students, and which provide necessary support services, so they possibly can get a regular diploma, or be able to later pass a GED exam, make a lot more sense than these GED programs for 16 and 17 year olds who are still attending school.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

. . . if they are so lacking in self discipline and persistence that they won't be able to maintain employment. Employers also want people who can follow rules, show up on time, do their required job, and function in a reliable and predictable manner--and that's what a lot of these kids can't do, which is why they wind up in the in-school GED program. It's not that they lack the intellect, they have other problems that affect their functioning. And they'll continue to have those problems even with their GED--and that's Heckman's point.

Perhaps you can explain to me how eliminating the GED opportunity will solve any of these problems. Perhaps you can explain the functional difference between the holder of a diploma with these personal problems and she who obtains the certificate who has these personal problems. Perhaps you can explain to me how an employer will be able to spot the applicant without that self-discipline and "persistence" (whatever is meant by that . . . perspicacity?). Are you suggesting that an employer should assume that a GED certificate is evidence of these flaws? What is the solution for young men and women who are beyond the stage of early childhood education?

Quote:

It would make more sense to keep these students in a regular diploma track, help them to make up missing credits, and focus on their behavioral/personality/discipline problems--what Heckman refers to as non-cognitive issues--that would really help them in being able to get and keep a job, or continue with more advanced education and/or job training.

I see absolutely no reason to assume that this is true.

Quote:

Those who drop out can still have the option of later obtaining a GED, or a regular diploma, perhaps when they are a little more mature or more highly motivated to do so.

I am bemused. How are they to do that if the option is not available? Is there such a thing as a weakly eliminated GED? Is this not a case of GED or no GED? That is, after all, the subject of the thread, Mr. Heckman notwithstanding.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

The GED itself is not the issue.

It is, however, the subject of this thread.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

You don't seem to understand that there are 2 types of GED programs--one for 16 and and 17 year olds who are still attending high school, and programs to help those who have already dropped out of school prepare for the GED exam. The first type of program is only available in 12 states and that's really what's being objected to in the OP, because these kids are still in school--a school that should be focused on graduating students with a regular diploma, and not steering them into a GED track because they have other problems that affect their academic functioning.

These in-school programs, for students still attending high school, are what's controversial.

The GED exams available to adult drop-outs have nothing to do with the school districts, and I don't see where anyone is seriously questioning the value of providing GED tests, and preparation, to those adult drop-outs.

The issue is really whether the in-school GED programs are encouraging both the educators, and the students, to forgo making the necessary efforts required to enable these students to obtain regular diplomas. And, if the in-school GED track wasn't available, they'd have to be making those efforts.

The GED exams available to adult drop-outs really aren't the issue.

1 Reply

@firefly,

No, you don't seem to understand the topic of the thread.

boomerang wrote:

An article in my paper today argues for the elimination of GED programs.

Note, programs, plural. If you want to talk about something else, that's OK by me. I'm trying to speak to the topic here.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

It would make more sense to keep these students in a regular diploma track, help them to make up missing credits, and focus on their behavioral/personality/discipline problems--what Heckman refers to as non-cognitive issues--that would really help them in being able to get and keep a job, or continue with more advanced education and/or job training.

it's not just work that members of this group are having problems with - too many of them are having difficulties in other facets of their lives.

Heckman's views are controversial. It is one of the reasons it's comparatively easy to find studies where people have tried to disprove his research and ended up having to agree with it (and then continue to try to find a different way to dispute the results).

I have trouble understanding why more programs like the one in Michigan aren't developed. It's been a proven $ saver for the community and a success for its students.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I'm trying to speak to the topic here.

boomerang wrote:

According to the item, kids that are 17 years old who don't have nearly enough credits to graduate are steered towards the GED programs. The argument for eliminating these programs say that the availability of the GED induces kids to drop out of school and that if they do they fare no better than kids who simply drop out.

not all GED programs.

A specific group of GED programs.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

But Boomer lives in one of the 12 states with in-school GED programs for 16 and 17 year olds who are still attending school. That's why that article appeared in her paper--questioning the value of those GED programs.

Quote:

According to the item, kids that are 17 years old who don't have nearly enough credits to graduate are steered towards the GED programs.

.

The controversy is really not about GED exams for adult drop-outs. The school district has no control over those exams--they can't eliminate them. They can only decide whether to retain the GED track for those students still attending school in the local districts.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Something like the YABC program in NYC also seems a better way of trying to help kids finish school rather than pushing them into an in-school GED program track.

Quote:

Young Adult Borough Centers are evening academic programs designed to meet the needs of high school students who might be considering dropping out because they are behind or because they have adult responsibilities that make attending school in the daytime difficult. Students graduate with a diploma from their home school after they have earned all of their credits and passed all of the required exams while attending the YABC. Students who are registered in a YABC program remain assigned, for all accountability measures, to their sending school. Attendance is strictly monitored and documented by the YABC program.

YABCs also have the added support of Learning to Work, which offers additional academic and student support, post-secondary and career exploration, work preparation, and skills development. These elements of Learning to Work are designed to enhance and complement the academic component of YABCs. Many YABCs also include the LTW internship component, in which students can gain valuable work experience and earn money at the same time.

Eligibility
To be eligible, students should be at least 17.5 years old (*Students must have completed the school year in which they turn 17. The school year begins July 1st), be in the fifth year of high school, and have earned 17 or more credits
http://schools.nyc.gov/ChoicesEnrollment/AlternativesHS/YoungAdult/default.htm

The Transfer Schools program, also in NYC, seems another good option rather than pushing still attending students into a GED track program.

Quote:

If you have at least one year of high school and very few credits, a Transfer School could be a good option to help you earn your high school diploma.

Transfer Schools are small, academically rigorous, full-time high schools designed to re-engage students who are behind in high school or have dropped out.

Many Transfer Schools have the added support of Learning to Work (LTW), which offers additional academic and student support, college and career exploration, work preparation, skills development, and internships.

The essential elements of Transfer Schools include:

•A personalized learning environment
•Rigorous academic standards, student-centered instruction
•Support to meet students' academic and developmental goals
•Connections to college and career readiness

Eligibility
Transfer Schools accept students who have been enrolled in high school for at least one year and choose to make a change. Each Transfer School determines admissions criteria individually
http://schools.nyc.gov/ChoicesEnrollment/AlternativesHS/TransferHS/default.htm

These programs address real life problems these kids have and they also are trying to help them obtain regular high school diplomas. That's a better, and more comprehensive, approach to trying to prevent drop-outs by better addressiing the students' needs--in many areas.

0 Replies

Should the General Education Diploma (GED) be eliminated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know