Orchids from around the world
Beavercreek Popcorn Festival
.JPG)
2008 MTV VMA show
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > January > 29 > Entry
Taft’s case for HS standards
By a stroke of good fortune Friday, Gov. Bob Taft was in Dayton for an event and I got a chance to talk with him and his top aide for education, the very sharp Susan Bodary (who, by the way, is a Kettering resident).
My colleague, Mark Fisher, and I joined editors to ask Taft questions for about an hour about his state-of-the-state address and his proposal to raise the state’s graduation standards.
Right now, about one of four Ohio kids are taking the “core curriculum” which Taft proposes requiring for all students by 2011. This is a considerably more challenging course of study than what is required today, demanding three years each of math and science and two years of foreign language.
Plus, it specifically requires tougher courses like Algebra II, chemistry, physics and biology and thus tilts the required high school course of study more toward math and science than it has ever been.
I don’t think there are too many people who would argue that it would be a bad thing for our kids to learn more math and science or take more challenging classes. The question I’ve heard most from teachers and parents since Taft made his proposals is whether all kids need this curriculum. Perhaps they are not math or science oriented or already have a specific non-scientific career path they are following?
Our editor, Jeff Bruce pointed to Algebra II, for example. Jeff’s a successful guy in his chosen field and he argued he has never needed the ciphering skills he learned in Algebra II.
But, Taft argued, Jeff does use the critical thinking skills that many believe algebra engenders. And Bodary argued that Algebra II is a gateway course that is a reliable predictor of student success. She said students who just take Algebra II, whether they get an A or a lower grade, are three times more likely to persist in college to any degree.
That argument really made me think. First, I have to wonder whether there is not a “chicken or egg” problem with that statistic. Does Algebra II really make kids that much more prepared for college? Or are kids who sign up for an Algebra II doing so because they already are interested in advanced math and science and therefore walk in the door as a better bet to graduate college? I’d also like to see the statistics for other courses. When I took AP history in high school, the kids in my class were all pretty good bets to graduate college. Maybe this stat works for other advanced courses too?
Even so, I frequently argue to young students that math is more important than they think. I use far more math, and more sophisticated math, in my daily job as a newspaper writer than I ever would have imagined. So perhaps requiring more math is a good idea?
But then comes the practical problem of Taft’s proposal, which was nicely summed up by a question to the governor from Mark Fisher. If we push a bunch of kids into advanced math and science who are both uninterested in the course and unprepared for the rigor, what will happen? Some teachers we’ve talked to say either:
- Lots of kids will flunk, endangering their ability to graduate and perhaps leading more kids to drop out or not go on to a decent college who otherwise would have been fine.
- A new track of courses will be born. Instead of the challenging physics classes Taft and Bodary imagine kids taking, some will instead get a simplified “physics in daily life” type of course.
- Or even if all kids are sent to the same quality math and science courses the advanced kids take, teachers will adjust by “lowering the bar” and making the course content easier for less prepared students to grasp or making a passing grade easier to get.
Then there is this problem — who are we going to get to teach all these new, challenging courses? Great math and science teachers already are in short supply. This could especially be a problem in rural school districts and perhaps also inner cities.
Bodary said there are solutions. All districts, for instance, already teach Algebra I, so perhaps some teachers could simply get extra training so they could also teach Algebra II. Or perhaps districts that need help could partner with a local college or some courses could be taught via satellite.
Those solutions will work for some districts, but I’m not sure those ideas are enough given the potential scope of the problem.
One other very interesting point Bodary and Taft made that I hadn’t heard before now and that Taft certainly didn’t mention in his speech was that they’ve also included an “opt out” provision that says any parent can exempt their child from this curriculum if they choose.
Bodary said the goal is to make the harder course of study standard and to make those who wish not to take it have to opt out instead of the opposite, which is the way it is now. So this would allow a way out for kids who, for instance, are certain they are not going to attend college or who, perhaps, already know they want to be an artist rather than a scientist.
We still have a long way to go before the legislature would actually enact any of Taft’s proposals and they’ll be lots of disucussion. It should be interesting to watch.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Comments
By Thespis Journal
January 30, 2006 9:06 PM | Link to this
It seems that Governor Taft didn’t do his homework when he proposed another bright idea for students and schools in Ohio. By his own admission, he has no idea at all what his proposal might cost. Additionally, the Governor has no suggestion for properly staffing his own proposal. Surely, all responsible citizens in Ohio must be asking at this point, on what planet does Governor Taft live? The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled Ohio’s abysmal system of funding public education unconstitutional four times. Districts all over Ohio are in financial collapse, yet Governor Taft proposes a major overhaul of the high school curriculum without considering the costs, or without any concept at all of staffing his so-called rigorous core curriculum. The Governor’s statements on this matter reveal an appalling lack of practically, and total vacancy of knowledge surrounding the academic profile of many of Ohio’s students. The proposal is also ridden with archaic, yet socially acceptable prejudices regarding the visual and performing arts, technology education, and several universally recognized fundamental curricular areas. Governor Taft’s proposal represents the typical politician’s response to all of the problems facing public education in Ohio: it is a big-brother mandate constructed with the one-size-fits-all approach that has little or nothing to do with the goal of providing a well-rounded quality education curriculum for all of Ohio’s students. When we hear all of this hot air emanating forth in Columbus we know how to respond-look out! http://thespisjournal.blogspot.com/2006/01/another-big-brother-plan-for-ohios.htmlBy Mary
January 30, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
This discussion seems to relate to the “tracking” of students in school - separating students by abilites, career paths, etc. Personally, I think tracking (especially voluntary tracking) has to be done to some degree and somehow for the education system to work effectively for students and society. However, pockets of educational philosophies have said “tracking” is bad - it is elitist, hurts kids feelings,everybody should be educated for college, etc. This approach against tracking seemed to originate particulary with the middle school movement, but I think they have backed off. Meanwhile, schools go gangbusters “tracking” by athletic ability with varsity sports teams. At least with the “opt out” on Taft’s curriculum, parents and students have some choices in what their opportunities and desires are for education. Opting out of the college track should not be interpreted as less ambitious, less smart, etc. It simply might not be “their way” for their career or life choices.