I realize that I have been on a reform kick of late, but the topic seems to be dominating a lot of educational thinking of late. There has been much discussion about the national efforts to reform our nation’s high schools and an equal amount of discussion about how that reform is really not taking shape at all. Much of what is being bantered about is not new. To me it seems rather redundant to shout that our high schools are failing, argue about what needs to be done, and then propose the very same solutions that have been used for as long as I can remember.

W. Norton Grubb and Jeannie Oakes, two professors from California, argue that the “push to enhance rigor and standards behind the high school diploma is seriously flawed.” (See Education Week, October 10, 2007 for the full story). Their arguments suggest that these gains come at the expense of other goals in high school reform such as equity, curricular relevance, and student interest. I guess, as do the professors, that one needs to define rigor in order to determine whether or not the pursuit of it is worthwhile. Unfortunately, the barely one-dimensional pundits quickly define rigor as test scores. The monotony of these types of arguments is deafening. Unfortunately, the two professors are taking somewhat of a flogging with regard to their thinking.

One of my favorite studies is “Answers in the Toolbox.” Written in 1999, it finds an important and perhaps the most salient point, that being this: the best predictor of a student finishing a bachelors degree in the allotted four years has more to do with the degree to which the student challenged themselves while in high school and less to do with the student’s grade point average.

As a former high school principal in charge of insuring that all children learn, I remember being constantly faced with a dilemma. We as a staff would work tirelessly to promote rigorous courses to our students, only to find them dropping back to less rigorous courses the minute the course was perceived by the student to be too difficult (loosely translated: more effort than they wanted to put forth or the point at which they needed to exert more effort than usual). Inevitably, the student would convince their parent(s) of the problem and a note would appear approving the change in course level. The essential question for us then, became this: How do we promote rigor and keep our students in the courses?

The answer, as we found out, was quite simple: Help their parents and families understand why rigor and challenge are important. I will be the first one to admit that this is a rather Herculean task, given the emphasis on grade point averages and the desires of many parents to see their children become successful professional athletes. However, when we educate parents and families as to what is truly important, they begin to understand the motives for placing their children in courses that are more rigorous. Building relationships with parents that foster good communication, will help us when the issue is critical, that being, the day a child comes home and asks for “a note” to get out of a class.

I do agree however, that we must get our colleges and Universities to understand this concept. Their reliance on test scores and grade point averages do not serve them well. I would hope at some point, universities will look to the percentage of students who actually graduate in four years, and those who never graduate. Universities don’t give degrees; students get them…or not.

I believe that those at the forefront of high school reform seem to be myopic with regard to what rigor really is. Challenging the thought processes of students in the classroom and using higher order thinking skills are a few examples of rigor. Of course, having a high expectation of students is the first step to promoting challenging classroom environments.

With all of the rhetoric being flung around from Bill Gates to Oprah Winfrey, no one is discussing the important role that parents and families must take if our high school students are to be successful. Who do you think can best influence student interest? Curricular relevance? I am somewhat astonished that after all of the attempts to reform high schools, we still swim around and around in the same shallow pool of test scores, test scores, and more test scores.

Longitudinal knowledge has never been one of education’s strong points. Did we forget that after Ronald Regan’s “A Nation at Risk” report, we ran to add graduation credits? More math! More science! That was 1983. Here we are in 2007, talking about the same issues and trying to apply the same thinking as we did almost a quarter century ago.

Promoting rigor, relevance, and relationships are key issues to high school reform. Parents and families must play a significant role in promoting high expectations and rigor in the classroom. Educators must build successful relationships with parents and families to build their educational capital. The future of education depends on it.