The Argument for Open Access in High School

Viswa was a former member and president of the Millburn board of education. He continues to be interested in public education, with STEM and K-12 education in particular.

In many high schools—and even in middle schools—entry to certain courses is restricted by “gating rules”. These may take the form of minimum grades, qualifying exams, standardized test scores, or teacher recommendations. The intent behind such rules is often noble: to protect students from overextending themselves and losing confidence. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But beneath that good intention lie several flaws.

The Problem with Preventing Failure by Preventing Risk

First, gating policies attempt to prevent failure by preventing students from trying at all. They implicitly teach that risk-taking is dangerous, not rewarding. This message, delivered during the formative years of adolescence, discourages intellectual courage—the very trait that education should cultivate.

The Misalignment of Incentives

A deeper issue is the misalignment of incentives. In most decisions, those who make the choice also bear the consequences. Here, however, administrators and teachers decide who may enroll, but it is the students who bear the cost of exclusion. Worse, the negative consequences of denying access are nearly invisible. When a student is turned away, we rarely see what opportunities were lost or how their academic path might have changed. The result: the decision-makers’ incentives and the students’ outcomes are misaligned.

A Thought Experiment

Consider a thought experiment. Suppose we have 100 students to divide between a standard and an advanced course. Whatever the criteria—grades, tests, or teacher judgment—we set a threshold. Now, imagine a group of ten students, each with a 50% chance of succeeding in the advanced class. If all ten are admitted, we’d expect about five to succeed on average. But probability theory tells us that in any given year, that number could vary between three and seven.

When only three succeed, administrators and teachers must support the seven who struggle or transfer them to other courses—creating significant extra work and stress. When seven succeed, however, there’s no crisis, no meeting, no parent complaint—just quiet success. Because the negative outcomes are loud and memorable while the positives are silent, people recall the failures more vividly. This is availability bias at work.

How Availability Bias Shapes School Policy

This bias causes educators to overestimate the likelihood of failure. To avoid future turmoil, they raise the bar: increasing the threshold to admit only students with a 75% or 90% or even 99% predicted chance of success. Even at 90%, as many as two students could fail. It’s only at 99% that one can get closer to certainty! The higher the threshold, the fewer students fail—but also, the fewer ever get the chance to stretch themselves.

The Cost to Students

This risk-averse approach carries a hidden cost. At the 50% threshold, five out of ten would succeed, and as many as seven might thrive in a given year. Raising the threshold to ensure near-perfect success locks those potential seven out entirely. We forget that predicting human performance—especially that of teenagers in a period of rapid emotional and intellectual growth—is a perilous exercise. Between placement decisions in spring and the start of classes in fall, students change in ways no algorithm or test can capture.

A Better Approach

So what can educators do instead? Open access doesn’t mean abandoning standards; it means shifting who makes the final choice and how.

1. Use thresholds as guidance, not gates. Let teachers and counselors use these indicators to advise students rather than restrict them. Explain the risks honestly. Then let the student and family decide. Ownership of that choice is itself a powerful learning experience.
2. Provide a grace period. Allow students to drop the course within the first few weeks without penalty. This safety net reduces anxiety and teaches students to take calculated risks—a valuable life skill in itself.
3. Transition gradually. If a school currently uses strict gating, it may need to loosen rules slowly. Over time, families and students will adjust to a culture that accepts occasional failure as a normal part of learning.

The Role of Parents

Some worry that parents will push too hard. But parents, by and large, have their children’s long-term interests at heart. With transparent information and shared responsibility, they become allies in fostering resilience, not obstacles to it.

The Case for Open Access

Open access is not a call for chaos. It is a call for trust—in students’ capacity to grow, in families’ ability to make thoughtful choices, and in educators’ willingness to support risk-taking. When schools stop trying to pre-empt every failure, they open the door to a far greater success: cultivating young people who are confident enough to try.

-Reddy Viswabharath

Submitted directly by the author; content reflects their own views, originally published on Spotlight In Fog

Voluntary contributions are critical to independent, fact based reporting. If you appreciate our work please consider a financial contribution.

Read More Community Voices

Subscribe to NJ21st For Free

Our Commitment to Ethical Journalism