Texas considers dropping Algebra II mandate

[Dmmetler]

http://news.msn.com/us/trend-starting-texas-drops-algebra-ii-mandate#tscptmf

 

I'm torn-on one hand, I think the "Every child, every day, college bound" (which the Memphis city schools paid a huge sum of money to plaster across the city a few years back) has done real damage for students who's talents do not lie in a college path, and who could benefit from courses that would better prepare them for their goal. On the other hand, I hate to see doors closed to kids-both in the sense of a student who chooses a track that doesn't require Algebra 2 is likely to be really limited in post-high school options (including a lot of vocational programs), and I could see capable students with learning challenges or with poor preparation pushed into that lower track when they would actually be able to succeed in the higher track with appropriate support.   I can easily see a student at a weak high school ending up locked out of a path that can get them to college at all if their school doesn't even offer classes beyond Algebra I/Geometry due to "lack of demand"-and where Texas goes, so often does the rest of the USA because they're such a big market. 

 

Either way, my DD is capable of Algebra 2 and has career goals that require college and grad school, so she'll be taking Algebra 2. Period.

 

 

 

[almondbutterandjelly]

That's interesting.  I have mixed feelings.  In one way, it could be huge relief.  My dd really struggles with math, and I think she has a real math disability, but since I have been homeschooling her for several years one-on-one, she is at grade level, and they won't diagnose unless she falls way behind grade level.  But she certainly struggles much more than I ever did with math.  She won't be going into a career that requires much of it, almost certainly.

 

However, I don't want to limit her options.  She will very likely go to our local community college first, which lets everybody in.  But sometimes I dream of affording a four-year university start to finish. 

 

Very mixed feelings.

[EKS]

Community colleges offer Algebra II.  A student who only does Algebra I and geometry can get the math s/he needs at a CC and then transfer to a four year school.

[8filltheheart]

It does not surprise me at all b/c it is the perspective of the key developers of common core.   

 

“Mastery of Algebra II is widely thought to be a prerequisite for success in college and careers. Our research shows that that is not so… Based on our data, one cannot make the case that high school graduates must be proficient in Algebra II to be ready for college and careers. The high school mathematics curriculum is now centered on the teaching of a sequence of courses leading to calculus that includes Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and Calculus. However, fewer than five percent of American workers and an even smaller percentage of community college students will ever need to master the courses in this sequence in their college or in the workplace… they should not be required courses in our high schools. To require these courses in high school is to deny to many students the opportunity to graduate high school because they have not mastered a sequence of mathematics courses they will never need. In the face of these findings, the policy of requiring a passing score on an Algebra II exam for high school graduation simply cannot be justified.† Here is a link to the video: http://www.ncee.org/...and-work-ready/ 

 

 

And Zimba:

 

Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky want the term “college ready†to mean something beyond Algebra II. They want to call students college ready only if they go beyond Algebra II to take trigonometry, precalculus, or calculus. At the risk of giving more oxygen to what strikes me as being fundamentally a dispute about language, what Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky think of as “college ready†is what I might call “STEM ready.†I think it makes sense to most people that college readiness and STEM readiness are two different things. The mathematical demands that students face in college will vary dramatically depending on whether they are pursuing a STEM major or not.

 

[EKS]

I had mastery of prealgebra when I graduated from high school.  I went to a state university and ended up majoring in biochemistry.  It can be done.

[OneStepAtATime]

I have mixed feelings, too.  I am concerned at the message this is sending and  I do not want any doors shut for any child, inadvertently or otherwise.  

 

However, I have a child that may never make it to Algebra II.  I don't know at this point.  She is very bright but has learning issues that make standard academics challenging.  She wants to go on to college, but her path will almost certainly be very different from your average student (as her father's was; also very bright with learning issues).  The Algebra II requirement has been concerning me (we live in Texas) and I really don't see it as necessary for her life.

 

I also know that I HAD to have Algebra II AND Trigonometry to graduate from my high school and because I had to take Algebra 1 over a two year period during High School, I had to cram both Algebra II and Trig into one year my senior year.  I nearly failed the class and would not have graduated on time.  My math teacher recognized that I was a good student and trying very hard to pass that class but it moved too fast for me to process the math.  She paired me with a very bright 10th grader who sat next to me every day and helped me at least get through.  I learned absolutely nothing, I just managed to pass tests and move on.  It was a complete waste of time and a tremendous amount of stress.  I went through a 4 year private University with very high academics and did great.  I never needed the math in that class again.  If I hadn't been killing myself over that class, and spending a tremendous amount of hours after class trying to get through it, I could have been working harder on other areas of interest that would have helped me a lot more with the career I was pursuing.

[OneStepAtATime]

At the risk of sounding really stupid, I'm not even sure what the hell Algebra 2 is.

Chuckle... I took it, but I have no clue.  I don't remember a thing about the actual math, just the really nice 10th grader and the really understanding math teacher (although I don't even remember if the teacher was male or female...guess I was under too much stress for it to register).

[kiana]

Good.

 

Yeah, it's a bit limiting if students don't take it. I think mandating that math through precalc needs to be *offered*, by DE if nothing else, is reasonable.

 

But I don't think we should be making students leave without a credential just because they can't do higher algebra.

 

Plus, it'll let us make the courses more rigorous for students who *are* planning on going to college.

[creekland]

For once, I find myself agreeing with the common core.  :svengo:

 

There are many students who simply do not need Algebra II or higher.  There are also many who simply can not comprehend Algebra II.  Considering how important a high school diploma is for finding a reasonably decent job, it's important that they have a viable path to get one.

 

Students heading to STEM and highly selective colleges will still get there.  THEY will even do better when they're in classes with peers who can comprehend the material rather than getting slowed down by a teacher trying to help all pass it.

 

Good job TX!  And may other states soon follow!

 

(BUT yes, mandate that all schools OFFER up through Pre-Calc just in case some feel the need to cut higher level classes.)

[AngieW in Texas]

I think dropping the Algebra 2 requirement to graduate from high school is a very good idea, but I also think it should be mandated that all schools offer math up to Precalculus.

 

It is absolutely true that many students never need anything beyond Algebra I and Geometry. The statistic above said that less than 5% need math at the Algebra II level and above and I think that is probably pretty accurate.

[Joker]

It does not surprise me at all b/c it is the perspective of the key developers of common core.   

 

Isn't Texas one of the few states that haven't adopted Common Core, though? Why would they follow them in this?

[Hunter]

About 100 years ago Charles McMurry wrote that a student only needs to learn enough math to leaven the lump. That has stuck with me, and helped me plan better for individual students. A curriculum should be in balance. I don't believe it makes for a better education to marshall such a large percentage of resources to a subject that is in excess of the other subjects taken. Especially if the other subjects have to be reduced to accomplish the math.

[Ellie]

Not taking math past algebra (or even algebra) in high school does not mean never taking it. That's what community college is for.

[regentrude]

My biggest concern is that schools will simply stop offering courses that are not required. It is already sad to see how little is offered in many schools in terms of math and science. The school system is geared towards the low performing students already. Strong students do not receive a free public school education according to their needs and abilities  (and no, simply saying they can go to community college for these courses is not appropriate; these students, too, should be entitled to a free education.)

 

Plus, it'll let us make the courses more rigorous for students who *are* planning on going to college.

 

I highly doubt that dumbing down the standards will increase the opportunities for strong students to take higher level classes; more likely, schools will reduce the class offerings even further.

UsualIy things that are not required, like arts and music, are the first programs to go.

 

It would be preferable to have two different kinds of high school diplomas: a non-college track one (which students should be allowed to earn as early as 10th grade, and which might get by without algebra 2 requirement), and a college track one. And for the latter, all schools should be required to offer higher math and science.

 

 

[Joker]

I'm in Florida and I'm pretty sure Algebra II is no longer required here for graduation either. Maybe it wasn't a big news story but I've been researching and it looks like we're the same. I don't see where it's really lowered too many standards though as our zoned high school still offers math through AP Statistics and AP Calculus.

[OneStepAtATime]

 

UsualIy things that are not required, like arts and music, are the first programs to go.

 

Which I have issues with on so many levels, but that is for another thread.  But you are right, the courses that are not required for graduation are the first to go, and for those that need or want the higher level math in High School, it would be very unfortunate if they were not able to take those courses.  But I also see benefit to not requiring it, as long as it is still offered.

 

 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

 

 

I do have a bit of a concern with some of the posts on this thread and the assumptions of many in general and would like to clarify something.  Why is there an assumption that any child that chooses not to go to Algebra II or struggles terribly in math and may not make it to Algebra II is not college material?  I took it only because I was forced to, I barely passed, I wasted a ton of resources trying to pass that class, I literally learned nothing, yet I went on to University, did great, and never needed ANYTHING from that course.

 

My mother's highest math was Geometry.  She never took math in college.  She has her Master's Degree.  She didn't need Algebra II for ANYTHING she was taking in college.  She did great in her career.  It would have been a shame if someone had told her she shouldn't go on to college because math was a poor subject for her or she was told she couldn't take the courses that actually would help her prepare for her intended degree because someone felt she HAD to take Algebra II, whether she needed it or not.

 

I am just really confused as to why there is an assumption that kids who don't go on to take math at this level should be tracked into not going to college.  If they don't want or need to, fine, but if they do, why should this math be required for them to get there if they won't need it for their degree?  And if they aren't certain what they want to do, or change their minds once they get into college, can't they always take it in college?

 

 

[wapiti]

And if they aren't certain what they want to do, or change their minds once they get into college, can't they always take it in college?

 

There are two issues that I see:  (1) money - this would needlessly shift the costs of these courses from the PS system to the college student, and (2) academic barriers to entry for disadvantaged students (students at the high schools most likely to avoid offering non-required courses) who may be interested in applying to admissions-competitive colleges.

 

I agree with the idea of offering more than one type of high school diploma.

[ondreeuh]

About 100 years ago Charles McMurry wrote that a student only needs to learn enough math to leaven the lump. That has stuck with me, and helped me plan better for individual students. A curriculum should be in balance. I don't believe it makes for a better education to marshall such a large percentage of resources to a subject that is in excess of the other subjects taken. Especially if the other subjects have to be reduced to accomplish the math.

 

Yes. Math routinely took me 1-2 hours a night for homework, and it takes my dd 2+ hours. That is a BIG chunk of time to spend on something that is not a foundational skill for the future.

 

Our school district in Alaska requires:

 

1 credit Algebra, either:

-Algebra 1

-Cognitive Tutor Algebra

-Introduction to Algebra (Prealgebra, I think)

 

1 credit Geometry, either:

-Geometry

-Informal Geometry

 

1 credit Math Elective

 

I have a son who struggles in math. It takes a lot of special work to keep him on grade level. I can foresee how difficult Alg. 2 will be for him, and it seems like such a shame to make him go through that when he likely won't have "need" it. My tentative plan is to keep doing Prealgebra until he takes Algebra 1 in 9th grade, or even do an easy Algebra 1 in 8th and a harder one in 9th. Geometry in 10th, and then Alg. for Finance or Intermediate Algebra.

 

The local HS is an IB school and has lots of advanced math classes. It's not "dumbed down" at all.

[vonfirmath]

Isn't Texas one of the few states that haven't adopted Common Core, though? Why would they follow them in this?

 

They may not be following Common Core, but come to the conclusion themselves.  This year (or last year? STAAR is pretty new. I just went to a class about it and I have some new respect for why teachers do the things they do.) they started yet another set of  even harder tests, some of which must be passed to graduate. And that has probably led them to look at whether they really want to push kids out on the street degree-less for not being able to complete this class. It can't be "finessed" anymore with an easier class that is called Algebra II.

 

As for the "If its not required, that means schools won't offer it"  So far, I know quite a few Texas High Schools offer Calculus (Even both Calculus AB and BC) despite it not being required for current graduation standards.

[OneStepAtATime]

There are two issues that I see:  (1) money - this would needlessly shift the costs of these courses from the PS system to the college student, and (2) academic barriers to entry for disadvantaged students (students at the high schools most likely to avoid offering non-required courses) who may be interested in applying to admissions-competitive colleges.

 

I agree with the idea of offering more than one type of high school diploma.

I, too, am fearful that not requiring Algebra II or higher maths will mean that many schools will drop those courses.  That would be very, very unfortunate and I would hope with all my heart this doesn't happen (but very much fear that it will).  Which is why I have mixed feelings about this change.

 

However, I also VEHEMENTLY disagree with two types of high school diplomas if those two types of high school diplomas mean that the kids that do not or cannot take Algebra II are not considered college material and will receive a diploma that indicates that or tracks them on that path if they don't want to be there.  I know dozens and dozens of people who did fine in college and either did not take Algebra II or were like me and barely made it through Algebra II (and retained nothing so what was the point?).  And my mother is a fine example of someone who could not have functioned in that class, but was very much college material and did great at the college level.

 

My DD is smart and gifted in some areas.  Math is not one of them.  I don't want her being told that she just couldn't possibly go on to college and succeed because she may not get through Algebra II. 

 

If the higher maths will still be available for students who want or need them, then I am all for dropping this requirement.

 

We all have different strengths and weakness.  There just shouldn't be a one size fits all mentality in education.  Diversity is one of our strengths as human beings.  Why squelch it?

[wapiti]

This is sort of depressing, if this requirement reduction can be interpreted as a throwing up of hands after a generation (or two) of weak math education from elementary on up.  I worry that there are so many students who blame themselves when they may have never, or hardly, been exposed to "real" mathematics; I'm prepared to lay a lot of blame at the feet of math-uneducated educators/administrators, along the lines of the Math Wars.

 

We all have different strengths and weakness.  There just shouldn't be a one size fits all mentality in education.  Diversity is one of our strengths as human beings.  Why squelch it?

 

You're absolutely right about this.  Someone very creative should think of a way :).  When I was thinking of different types of diplomas, for example, I was thinking of ones with greater and lesser requirements, not necessarily a college vs non-college dichotomy.  A student not taking alg 2 won't be competitive for a selective college at this point in time regardless, but there are so many other types of colleges, community colleges, etc.

[ondreeuh]

 

 

 

I do have a bit of a concern with some of the posts on this thread and the assumptions of many in general and would like to clarify something.  Why is there an assumption that any child that chooses not to go to Algebra II or struggles terribly in math and may not make it to Algebra II is not college material?  I took it only because I was forced to, I barely passed, I wasted a ton of resources trying to pass that class, I literally learned nothing, yet I went on to University, did great, and never needed ANYTHING from that course.

 

My mother's highest math was Geometry.  She never took math in college.  She has her Master's Degree.  She didn't need Algebra II for ANYTHING she was taking in college.  She did great in her career.  It would have been a shame if someone had told her she shouldn't go on to college because math was a poor subject for her or she was told she couldn't take the courses that actually would help her prepare for her intended degree because someone felt she HAD to take Algebra II, whether she needed it or not.

 

I am just really confused as to why there is an assumption that kids who don't go on to take math at this level should be tracked into not going to college.  If they don't want or need to, fine, but if they do, why should this math be required for them to get there if they won't need it for their degree?  And if they aren't certain what they want to do, or change their minds once they get into college, can't they always take it in college?

 

 

 

Yes! I took algebra in 7th when almost NO ONE did in my district. They actually didn't know what to do with me in 6th - even though I was sent to the junior high, I wasn't in pre-algebra for some reason. I did some weird visual math class and then jumped straight into Algebra the next year. I was in the same math as my sister who was 2 years older. I stopped taking math after pre-calc in 10th grade. Basically I was burning out from spending so much time on math and wanted to do languages instead, and no one cared if I did or didn't. For various reasons I didn't take math again until my junior year in college, when I took a stats class that was required for my BS degree. I am an excellent student, graduated summa cum laude, and love logic and math puzzles ... but I can't say I've ever USED any math beyond geometry, which I took in 8th grade!

 

[katilac]

My biggest concern is that schools will simply stop offering courses that are not required.  <snip>

 

I highly doubt that dumbing down the standards will increase the opportunities for strong students to take higher level classes; more likely, schools will reduce the class offerings even further. <snip>

 

I'm not actually worried about this. The Algebra 2 requirement is quite new in most areas, and yet it (and higher maths) have always been routinely offered in the overwhelming majority of school districts. My sibs graduated in the 1970s, I graduated in the 1980s, algebra 2 was not required, and all the schools in our economically disadvantaged district offered math above and beyond that. 

 

As far as music and art go, my observation has been that they have been cut at the primary level - which stinks, but has nothing to do with required high school courses. In high school, they have always been electives, and I haven't seen the offerings affected by changing graduation requirements. Music in particular is forever and always affected by the budget, but that's an ongoing problem and not related to graduation requirements. 

 

On the bright side, I think that distance learning can be a great advantage for high achieving students in schools that don't offer many challenging classes. Most, if not all, of the states now offer virtual charter schools. It seems like it would be easy enough to channel these students there for specific classes. Perhaps not ideal, but certainly better than nothing, and many students do virtual school for all of their classes. 

 

My state actually has some kind of regulation that requires certain accommodations be made so that students can take upper level classes that their schools may not offer (mostly providing equipment, space, & oversight for virtual classes, I think). That's a good start, I think. 

[Bootsie]

I am not sure that too much would change by dropping the algebra II requirement.  Teaching at a university in Texas (where all of the students have had algebra II), I can say that just because students have taken (and passed) algebra II doesn't mean they know fairly basic algebra from algebra I.  I would prefer that courses really mean something rather than making all students take courses and then water them down to get a high pass rate.

[creekland]

 

 

 

I do have a bit of a concern with some of the posts on this thread and the assumptions of many in general and would like to clarify something.  Why is there an assumption that any child that chooses not to go to Algebra II or struggles terribly in math and may not make it to Algebra II is not college material?  I took it only because I was forced to, I barely passed, I wasted a ton of resources trying to pass that class, I literally learned nothing, yet I went on to University, did great, and never needed ANYTHING from that course.

 

My mother's highest math was Geometry.  She never took math in college.  She has her Master's Degree.  She didn't need Algebra II for ANYTHING she was taking in college.  She did great in her career.  It would have been a shame if someone had told her she shouldn't go on to college because math was a poor subject for her or she was told she couldn't take the courses that actually would help her prepare for her intended degree because someone felt she HAD to take Algebra II, whether she needed it or not.

 

I am just really confused as to why there is an assumption that kids who don't go on to take math at this level should be tracked into not going to college.  If they don't want or need to, fine, but if they do, why should this math be required for them to get there if they won't need it for their degree?  And if they aren't certain what they want to do, or change their minds once they get into college, can't they always take it in college?

 

 

 

Other than community colleges, which colleges don't require Alg 2 to have been taken as a course as a baseline for admission?

 

I'm in FULL agreement that there are many talented people out there who simply don't have a good grasp of abstract math and I agree that abstract math at that level is not needed for many jobs, but I think the majority of the college bound are still going to need Alg 2 merely for admissions.  I could be wrong, so the question above is a genuine one.

 

Once in college, I wonder how many majors don't have a math requirement.  I know middle son goes to a college where a student doesn't need any more math than what they came in with if their major doesn't require it, but there aren't a lot of schools like his.  (And his school requires Alg 2 for admission, but it's a highly selective school, so that comes as no surprise.)

[8filltheheart]

Isn't Texas one of the few states that haven't adopted Common Core, though? Why would they follow them in this?

I looked. You are correct. No idea then other than the employer pressure stated in the article.

 

Fwiw, I skimmed some of the other posts in this thread. This is similar to a recent discussion. Here are 2 links from that thread that showing how many math credits states require

 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535222.pdf

http://changetheequation.org/sites/default/files/MathGraduationRequirements_table.pdf

 

And a chart

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/figures/images/figure-cod-1.gif

[Jaybee]

Interesting. My high school math courses took me through Analysis and Trigonometry as a senior, a course which only four of us took, was supposedly taught through independent study, and in which class I didn't really learn anything. I loved geometry, and the reasoning skills I learned in it were beneficial, but I don't think I have ever again used the mathematical applications of it. In my business degree, I only had to take one college algebra course. It was mostly review. So I'm not sure I even used--in college coursework--anything beyond Algebra 1. Nor have I since. Probably not even much of that. I have a master's degree in a humanities field and I loved my studies. I am glad no doors were closed for me due to what I took in a college prep track. But I would have never chosen a STEM field because that is not where my gifts or interests lie, and wish I hadn't take that last math class. I will plan for my two still at home to go as far as possible in math, primarily because they are more engineering types. But if I had a child who wasn't, Algebra 2 might very well be the highest level in high school, done solely to keep doors open.

 

(Which brings up a little bit of a side-topic bother for me. I understand why people encourage STEM majors due to jobs being available in those areas. But I don't understand what seems to be a push in that area overall. Many of us would absolutely hate to be in a STEM area; we'd hate the studies, we'd hate the job, and the world would be a sadder and poorer place for what we could have brought into it through our right-brained leanings. :) mini-rant over)

 

P.S. I seem to be very distracted and I am not sure any of this even makes sense. :p That has nothing to do with Algebra 2, however. 

[Jane in NC]

The Algebra II/Trig course that I took in high school (back in the Dark Ages) was equivalent to the modern Precalculus course.  Back then, Alg II was not required but the Algebra I and Geometry courses that were covered more material at a greater depth.  (See antique Dolciani texts.)

 

Course labels are not cluing me into the content that is no longer required.

[OneStepAtATime]

Other than community colleges, which colleges don't require Alg 2 to have been taken as a course as a baseline for admission?

 

I'm in FULL agreement that there are many talented people out there who simply don't have a good grasp of abstract math and I agree that abstract math at that level is not needed for many jobs, but I think the majority of the college bound are still going to need Alg 2 merely for admissions.  I could be wrong, so the question above is a genuine one.

 

Once in college, I wonder how many majors don't have a math requirement.  I know middle son goes to a college where a student doesn't need any more math than what they came in with if their major doesn't require it, but there aren't a lot of schools like his.  (And his school requires Alg 2 for admission, but it's a highly selective school, so that comes as no surprise.)

 

 

Interesting. My high school math courses took me through Analysis and Trigonometry as a senior, a course which only four of us took, was supposedly taught through independent study, and in which class I didn't really learn anything. I loved geometry, and the reasoning skills I learned in it were beneficial, but I don't think I have ever again used the mathematical applications of it. In my business degree, I only had to take one college algebra course. It was mostly review. So I'm not sure I even used--in college coursework--anything beyond Algebra 1. Nor have I since. Probably not even much of that. I have a master's degree in a humanities field and I loved my studies. I am glad no doors were closed for me due to what I took in a college prep track. But I would have never chosen a STEM field because that is not where my gifts or interests lie, and wish I hadn't take that last math class. I will plan for my two still at home to go as far as possible in math, primarily because they are more engineering types. But if I had a child who wasn't, Algebra 2 might very well be the highest level in high school, done solely to keep doors open.

 

(Which brings up a little bit of a side-topic bother for me. I understand why people encourage STEM majors due to jobs being available in those areas. But I don't understand what seems to be a push in that area overall. Many of us would absolutely hate to be in a STEM area; we'd hate the studies, we'd hate the job, and the world would be a sadder and poorer place for what we could have brought into it through our right-brained leanings. :) mini-rant over)

 

P.S. I seem to be very distracted and I am not sure any of this even makes sense. :p That has nothing to do with Algebra 2, however. 

Actually all of the above goes right along with what I was trying to convey earlier, but did not extrapolate out far enough.  Why is Algebra II a requirement to get into a College or University?  I know it wasn't always that way.  When my mother was going into college, she was able to apply to quite a few highly regarded Universities (no, she was not going Ivy League, but these were all well respected schools) and she only had math through High School level Geometry.  She had great grades and was accepted.  The one she chose to go to did not require her to take additional math because of the degree path she chose.  Almost exactly 20 years later I attended that same University.  I honestly don't know if Algebra II was required or not at that point. It was irrelevant because I had to take it and Trig to graduate from my high school.  It IS a requirement to attend there now.  Why the change?

 

As I mentioned a few hours ago, I don't understand why there is such a push to make everything one size fits all.  We are a diverse and multi-faceted civilization.  As human beings, one of our strengths is our diversity.  If the entire planet were fantastic mathemeticians and there were no writers or inventors (and no, you do not have to have Algebra II to be able to invent something), or poets or painters, or a whole host of other things, where would we be?

 

I took Algebra II and Trig in high school because it was required.  I learned nothing.  Was I incapable of handling University level classes?  No, I did quite well and loved my years there.  When did Algebra II become so important for getting into a University?  And if it really is almost universally required of the vast majority of Universities (I don't know, I haven't seen any statistics), then obviously, so that kids are not denied this option if they wish to go down this path, High Schools should require it.  But WHY?  Why is this a determining factor in admission for all students?

 

And truly I agree with PP, that just because our children are passing high school level material doesn't guarantee that they actually understand it.  So what was the point?  So it looks pretty on a transcript?  So the University can think it looks pretty, too?

 

What about mandatory consumer math so that kids know how to budget, and how to handle a mortgage and save money and stay out of debt?  How many people head out into the real world and have no clue how to do these things?  How many of my own friends and family, and even myself, were not taught these skills at home OR at school and ended up struggling for a very long time financially?  Statistically, how many people have massive consumer debt now?  And yet, oh good, they passed Algebra II.

 

Sorry.  I am tired and cranky.  Getting off the soap box now to go drink tea and hang out with my kiddos....:)

[hepatica]

My biggest concern is that schools will simply stop offering courses that are not required. It is already sad to see how little is offered in many schools in terms of math and science. The school system is geared towards the low performing students already. Strong students do not receive a free public school education according to their needs and abilities  (and no, simply saying they can go to community college for these courses is not appropriate; these students, too, should be entitled to a free education.)

 

 

 

 

I suppose this is one way to look at it, but many students do not receive a free public education according to their needs and abilities. Math seems to be the area where many public schools offer the most rigor. Students at many public schools can take up to calculus. I see the offerings in other areas - history, literature, geography, music, arts, vocational skills, computer science etc - to be much weaker than the standard offerings in math. 

 

It is also not clear to me why we identify students who are strong in math and/or language arts as the "strong" students. Schools really only pay lip service to the idea of different kinds of intelligences. Many students go outside the school system to enhance their education. I have a dd who spends six hours a day in pursuit of a performing arts career. I would in no way expect to find that kind of education in the school system. Nor do students who excel in music find a free education adequate to their needs and abilities in the public school system. I guess I would see students who are strong in math as luckier than most, and I see no reason why STEM students should not expect to have to pursue their academic passions in an extracurricular fashion just as music and arts students do.

 

Ultimately, I think this raises the larger question of the purpose of public school, and that's a much bigger debate. But, I don't think the requirement of Alg II is a hill to die on. Seems to me it would be much better to focus on much more rigorous primary mathematics. Many of the students who struggle in high school math do so because their elementary math education was so weak. Higher level math is easily available for those who decide they want it. Students who get a strong foundation in arithmetic and algebra have the freedom to continue with math if they later decide it is necessary. So if the resources that go into getting kids through precalculus and calculus could go into training and developing stronger elementary mathematics teachers then I think that would be a good thing. 

[OneStepAtATime]

I suppose this is one way to look at it, but many students do not receive a free public education according to their needs and abilities. Math seems to be the area where many public schools offer the most rigor. Students at many public schools can take up to calculus. I see the offerings in other areas - history, literature, geography, music, arts, vocational skills, computer science etc - to be much weaker than the standard offerings in math. 

 

It is also not clear to me why we identify students who are strong in math and/or language arts as the "strong" students. Schools really only pay lip service to the idea of different kinds of intelligences. Many students go outside the school system to enhance their education. I have a dd who spends six hours a day in pursuit of a performing arts career. I would in no way expect to find that kind of education in the school system. Nor do students who excel in music find a free education adequate to their needs and abilities in the public school system. I guess I would see students who are strong in math as luckier than most, and I see no reason why STEM students should not expect to have to pursue their academic passions in an extracurricular fashion just as music and arts students do.

 

Wow, interesting point.  I had not thought of it in these terms....need to ponder this a bit.

 

 

 

Ultimately, I think this raises the larger question of the purpose of public school, and that's a much bigger debate. But, I don't think the requirement of Alg II is a hill to die on. Seems to me it would be much better to focus on much more rigorous primary mathematics. Many of the students who struggle in high school math do so because their elementary math education was so weak. Higher level math is easily available for those who decide they want it. Students who get a strong foundation in arithmetic and algebra have the freedom to continue with math if they later decide it is necessary. So if the resources that go into getting kids through precalculus and calculus could go into training and developing stronger elementary mathematics teachers then I think that would be a good thing.  

 

I separated the bottom part out because I agree with this wholeheartedly and wanted to emphasize it.  I am appalled and saddened that the structure of our school system is SO assembly line industrial education,.  If even as much as 50% of the class is not understanding material at the elementary level, as long as they can sort of pass tests, they are moved on (and my kids' brick and mortar actually sent out a memo to parents to that effect).  And the next year a lot of students are further behind, and the next and the next.  Even if they are passing the classes, they are losing ground on understanding and being able to function efficiently in elementary level material.  By the time they get to middle school and high school, higher level math and writing is being bogged down by a lack of mastery of elementary level math and language arts.

 

And the kids that are whizzing through the material are forced to wait, too.  They cannot keep moving forward at the pace that is best for them.

 

I have read many times that schools are catering to the lowest common denominator in education.  They are not. Most schools I have any contact with or have read about are catering to a few in the middle.  Those that need extra time and maybe some additional instruction to learn material are not being given that extra time or specialized instruction.  Those that "get" the material immediately and do not need that extra time or specialized instruction are also not being supported and given the chance to excel.  And the window is narrowing.  

[8filltheheart]

Actually all of the above goes right along with what I was trying to convey earlier, but did not extrapolate out far enough. Why is Algebra II a requirement to get into a College or University?

I think this question is at the core of what does college degree mean? STEM majors could equally ask why should they need to meet core humanities requirements. Why literature, history, foreign lang requirements if all you are going to do is computer program or be an engineer? (Same goes for a 2 yr foreign lang for high school. 2 yrs doesn't get you to a high enough level of profiency to be worth anything for communicating, and if you don't use it., you will be left with my name is______or I can speak________ with a bunch of random memories of conjugating verbs. ;) )

 

Here is UChicago's reasoning: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/brochure_core.pdf

 

I think the issues being discussed show just how far we are as a society from having a uniform vision of what an educated populace means.

[8filltheheart]

I guess I would see students who are strong in math as luckier than most, and I see no reason why STEM students should not expect to have to pursue their academic passions in an extracurricular fashion just as music and arts students do.

 

I'm guessing that you don't realize that many strong STEM students do? The mathematical education most schools provide are not meeting the needs of top math students any more than the local Ys gymnastic class meets the needs of gymnastic athletes.

[hepatica]

I think this question is at the core of what does college degree mean? STEM majors could equally ask why should they need to meet core humanities requirements. Why literature, history, foreign lang requirements if all you are going to do is computer program or be an engineer? (Same goes for a 2 yr foreign lang for high school. 2 yrs doesn't get you to a high enough level of profiency to be worth anything for communicating, and if you don't use it., you will be left with my name is______or I can speak________ with a bunch of random memories of conjugating verbs. ;) )

 

Here is UChicago's reasoning: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/brochure_core.pdf

 

I think the issues being discussed show just how far we are as a society from having a uniform vision of what an educated populace means.

 

Absolutely!!   I think school reform is really in crisis because we really don't have any idea what we want education to do. It is going to be one of the major topics of eduction reform in the next 25 years. Homeschoolers are a bit of a vanguard here because we are already asking these questions.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think this question is at the core of what does college degree mean? STEM majors could equally ask why should they need to meet core humanities requirements. Why literature, history, foreign lang requirements if all you are going to do is computer program or be an engineer? (Same goes for a 2 yr foreign lang for high school. 2 yrs doesn't get you to a high enough level of profiency to be worth anything for communicating, and if you don't use it., you will be left with my name is______or I can speak________ with a bunch of random memories of conjugating verbs. ;) )

 

Here is UChicago's reasoning: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/brochure_core.pdf

 

I think the issues being discussed show just how far we are as a society from having a uniform vision of what an educated populace means.

Interesting article.  Thanks for sharing.  Here is my contention.  There are many, many people who are extremely bright who are not strong in some area.  Should they avoid that area altogether?  No.  Absolutely not.  Give them the individualized instruction and assistance to hopefully shore up those weaknesses.  And yes, giving children a wide range of experiences gives them a more well rounded perspective and may open them to new experiences they might not otherwise have pursued.  

 

But if they cannot pass a higher level High School language arts or math course with any understanding of the material, and are being forced to take that course just so it looks good on a transcript, then maybe we need to rethink our priorities.  

[hepatica]

 

Here is UChicago's reasoning: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/brochure_core.pdf

 

I think the issues being discussed show just how far we are as a society from having a uniform vision of what an educated populace means.

 

I, personally, think this fabulous, and it is the kind of education that I am trying to prepare my children for. But, I think this very laudable ideal of participation in a global/historical conversation is butting up agains the ridiculous cost of education. It would be great if all our students could have this kind of education. But how much is it worth. College has always had dual purposes. For advantaged and wealthy students it is a way to expand their horizons, provide global and historical perspective and engage their minds. For many less advantage students it is a way to get a decent job and try to make it in this crazy, changing economy. But, how much is this liberal arts vision worth. How much debt are students expect to incur to be participants in this global/historical conversation. If having this fantastic perspective leaves you with $100,000 of student loan debt, is it still as valuable. 

 

I am really struggling with these issues as my oldest child reaches high school age.

[Jaybee]

On a lighter note, I just remembered something that shows how at least some core courses might not be a bad idea. I was pregnant and living in a country where a PhD linguistics student was my language tutor. Actually, she had everything for her PhD but the degree document. I joked one day that my baby would be (name of people of that country), because he would be born there. Never thought anything more about it. After he was born, she looked at him in real shock and said, "But he's white! I thought you said he would be (name of people of that country)!" I was so floored I have no idea what I said to that. A little study of basic genetics would not have been remiss.

 

 

Edited because I kept typing ph.d. for PhD. I knew it didn't look right, but was having a brain lapse. I told you I was distracted and not making much sense.  :tongue_smilie:

[OneStepAtATime]

On a lighter note, I just remembered something that shows how at least some core courses might not be a bad idea. I was pregnant and living in a country where a ph.d. linguistics student was my language tutor. Actually, she had everything for her ph.d. but the degree document. I joked one day that my baby would be (name of people of that country), because he would be born there. Never thought anything more about it. After he was born, she looked at him in real shock and said, "But he's white! I thought you said he would be (name of people of that country)!" I was so floored I have no idea what I said to that. A little study of basic genetics would not have been remiss.

:lol:   I would have no idea how to respond to that either...

 

But I don't think anyone here was saying that core courses shouldn't be required...I just wish our educational system was set up to be more diversified and open minded about requirements and implementation of those requirements in higher level courses for graduation and admission needs.

[regentrude]

I think this question is at the core of what does college degree mean? STEM majors could equally ask why should they need to meet core humanities requirements. Why literature, history, foreign lang requirements if all you are going to do is computer program or be an engineer? (Same goes for a 2 yr foreign lang for high school. 2 yrs doesn't get you to a high enough level of profiency to be worth anything for communicating, and if you don't use it., you will be left with my name is______or I can speak________ with a bunch of random memories of conjugating verbs. ;) )

 

Here is UChicago's reasoning: https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/pdfs/brochure_core.pdf

 

I think the issues being discussed show just how far we are as a society from having a uniform vision of what an educated populace means.

 

And not just what a college degree means, but also what the purpose of high school should be.

Some people advocate that this purpose is just to get enough specialized education in a narrow  field to enable a student to find a job in a specialized narrow field. Everything that does not have a direct application in this field is considered not necessary and an undue burden.

Others want a college prep high school education to be a broad and  to prepare graduate for any field, with specialization coming at college level and not before. They want well rounded, educated citizens who know more than just the very basics needed in their own narrow field.

I personally am in the latter camp. I would prefer young people to have choices, and to be educated beyond the requirements of one narrow field of specialization, because I see value I education in itself, and not merely as a means to a job. (There is also a reverse aspect: students who never took higher math are extremely unlikely to choose a field that would require math and fulfill the requirements later; many fields are automatically excluded from their vision and effectively eliminated from their possible choices. )

 

Btw, I find it rather ironic that as society as a whole we have identified fields where we would need more people in the workforce, but everything that is done in the field of education diminishes the chances of actually getting students to be ready for this type of education. Advocating that STEM students should pursue their higher math outside of school, just like artists and musicians, ignores the reality that this country desperately needs more STEM educated people for its economy. Putting the responsibility on the families to make sure their kids get the necessary education outside of school because schools cater to the lowest common denominator is a bizarre response.

 

Lest anybody accuse me of being partial to STEM education: I am not. I also would like any high school student to study history and literature and  pursue a rigorous foreign language education to fluency - and will encounter as many people who cry that these should not be requirements. It begs the question to me what on Earth do students learn in school for twelve years, if they emerge neither with a solid math foundation nor with foreign language proficiency nor with a thorough understanding of world history. Granted, none of these skills may be directly required for many people's jobs, but I find it more fun to live surrounded by educated people, and society of a whole would benefit from people who can interpret scientific data in the media, understand complex writing, understand the historic background of developments in world politics.

 

The call for "less education" as a target baffles me greatly - instead of striving to improve the education so that more students receive the math instruction by qualified teachers that leaves them with an understanding. I fail to believe that all these students who struggle with math have a disability. Seeing what passes for math education in elementary and what little qualifies a person to teach math in public school it is more likely that a large portion of these students simply has insufficient grounding. Giving in and requiring less seems a cop out; asking more of math teachers and improving standards for teacher education would be a more productive solution.

[OneStepAtATime]

 

Lest anybody accuse me of being partial to STEM education: I am not. I also would like any high school student to study history and literature and  pursue a rigorous foreign language education to fluency - and will encounter as many people who cry that these should not be requirements.

 

It begs the question to me what on Earth do students learn in school for twelve years, if they emerge neither with a solid math foundation nor with foreign language proficiency nor with a thorough understanding of world history. Granted, none of these skills may be directly required for many people's jobs, but I find it more fun to live surrounded by educated people, and society of a whole would benefit from people who can interpret scientific data in the media, understand complex writing, understand the historic background of developments in world politics.

 

I agree with the above wholeheartedly.  Regentrude, you make a valid point above.  

 

But for those who will never master one particular area, should they be denied the opportunity to continue on to a higher education if they wish to go that route?  I learned nothing, literally nothing, in Algebra II.  It was a tremendous waste of my time and resources.  Thankfully, I was able to go on to college anyway, and did extremely well. 

 

My mother is awful at math.  She made it through high school geometry and went on to do extremely well in college.  She would almost certainly not have passed Algebra II.  She highly values education and every child living up to their potential.   She loves learning and worked really hard in school.  

 

My dad was awful in language arts.  Spelling and writing were atrocious.  He made it through high school but thankfully requirements for language arts weren't extremely rigid.  He was terrific in science and math.  He also did great in college, had an extremely successful career and cherished education at all levels.  

 

Should they both have been refused the opportunity to go on to higher education because of one area of weakness?

 

 

The call for "less education" as a target baffles me greatly - instead of striving to improve the education so that more students receive the math instruction by qualified teachers that leaves them with an understanding. I fail to believe that all these students who struggle with math have a disability. Seeing what passes for math education in elementary and what little qualifies a person to teach math in public school it is more likely that a large portion of these students simply has insufficient grounding. Giving in and requiring less seems a cop out; asking more of math teachers and improving standards for teacher education would be a more productive solution.

 

And I do believe that the above is a huge problem and probably at the core of many of the issues we see in education.  I KNOW that the teachers that were teaching my kids were frequently not qualified to be teaching the material or managing the classrooms they were in charge of.  And that wasn't just for math but for other subjects too....And that was at Elementary level, which is where a LOT of our real issues actually lie, IMHO.  There were a few that were great at it and my kids thrived with those teachers.  So did the other students in their classrooms.  But there were a LOT who just didn't have a strong enough grasp of the material, or a strong enough grasp of how to teach the material to a very diverse population of students to actually help the kids learn and master anything before being shoved forward.  And there were a lot of kids with real gifts in certain areas who were not being supported, either, because of the structure of the classroom and the lack of knowledge and skills of the teacher.  

 

Oh and just because a person is great in a subject doesn't mean they can teach it, so requiring more classes in their field before they are allowed to teach a subject does not guarantee they would be a good teacher.  I have no idea how it would be implemented, but it seems that teachers should be given not only a solid understanding of the subjects they are to teach, but also significant training in how to teach to a diverse ability range.  Instruction really doesn't have to be one size fits all.  I have seen amazing teachers that were able to adapt to each student, even with larger classes.

 

And I have a lot of family members who are teachers.  I am not trashing teachers.  I am unhappy with the lack of training and support and education of those who wish to become teachers, and the assumption by many looking into that career that it is an easy job track.  Teaching is not easy.  But the profession is seen in many circles as a default job if you can't find anything else, or a job you get because you get summer vacation, or people assume that teaching elementary level material must be an easy job because it is elementary level material.  And those who genuinely feel a calling to teach are frequently not given the training and experience and support before and during their early years to truly thrive as a teacher.  Many quit that might be great at it.

 

[Jane in NC]

Following up on Regentrude's comments:

 

Within our lifetimes, we have all witnessed the evolution of most jobs because of technology and the international marketplace.  I cannot imagine pushing a high school student into a vocational position without a broad foundation. Today's cash machine repairman may not have a job tomorrow as people move to debit cards.  My mother was a comptometer operator.  The computer made her job obsolete.

 

I am of the opinion that a foundation in the liberal arts as well as math and science gives one an adaptable mind.  But then I don't see job training as the point of education.

[Lanny]

This thread and the article the OP linked to were very interesting to me, because DD is a TTUISD student. TTUISD operates under TEA regulations.  There are good reasons for doing this and bad reasons for doing this. This is a link to the TEA web site about graduation requirements and House Bill 5: 

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/graduation.aspx

 

IMHO, motivated students will continue to take Algebra 2, if their schools continue to make the course available. Hopefully, all Texas Public Schools will continue to make Algebra 2 available. 

 

Watering down the requirements may or may not be a good idea, because as the article the OP linked to mentions, the percentage of Texas Public High School students who graduated on time is at an all time high.

[Elisabet1]

They need to drop the algebra 2 requirement. Many kids would do better with, and even NEED, technical training, consumer math, and so on. It is horrible that we spend so much money on school for our kids, and the only thing they are trained for when they graduate, the entire USA of children, is either for more school, or to play football. There are people on welfare who would have loved to have gone to hair cutting school, or learn to be an x-ray technician, etc. There are people who drop out when they could have stayed and learned a skill. Instead, we say Brit Lit or bust. I have always felt that is incredibly narrow minded, and actually quite destructive to our economy. What does this entire country need with 100% of the kids being prepped for college? So that eventually, those who flip burgers at McDonalds and fix cars and mow yards are the ones with doctorates?

 

Also, this country has the highest drop out rate in the world. This is likely because every single child is told to go to college or they are a failure. That is doing a major disservice.

 

And generally, children who chose to not take algebra 2 are not ones who would have done well in college anyway. Our tax dollars should go to training children for something other than college when they graduate. Plus, school is getting incredibly watered down under the excuse that every single child out there MUST take every single class that everyone else takes, those headed to college and those who probably will not make it through that class must all be in the same exact class.

[OneStepAtATime]

They need to drop the algebra 2 requirement. Many kids would do better with, and even NEED, technical training, consumer math, and so on. It is horrible that we spend so much money on school for our kids, and the only thing they are trained for when they graduate, the entire USA of children, is either for more school, or to play football. There are people on welfare who would have loved to have gone to hair cutting school, or learn to be an x-ray technician, etc. There are people who drop out when they could have stayed and learned a skill. Instead, we say Brit Lit or bust. I have always felt that is incredibly narrow minded, and actually quite destructive to our economy. What does this entire country need with 100% of the kids being prepped for college? So that eventually, those who flip burgers at McDonalds and fix cars and mow yards are the ones with doctorates?

 

Also, this country has the highest drop out rate in the world. This is likely because every single child is told to go to college or they are a failure. That is doing a major disservice.

 

And generally, children who chose to not take algebra 2 are not ones who would have done well in college anyway. Our tax dollars should go to training children for something other than college when they graduate. Plus, school is getting incredibly watered down under the excuse that every single child out there MUST take every single class that everyone else takes, those headed to college and those who probably will not make it through that class must all be in the same exact class.

I really need to get ready for church but I keep running back to this thread.  Ugh!   :laugh:

 

I do agree that it is really an unfortunate change that if you don't go on to college, you have no value, and that all education should be gearing our kids to go to college and get a degree.  In DH's family, all 4 of his siblings have degrees.  Most of them are struggling financially.  DH never finished his degree and nearly didn't graduate High School.  He is brilliant but he learns very differently than the way things are taught in standard schools.  What saved him from dropping out was a brilliant couple that recognized not every child learns the way the school teaches subjects and needed another option for a subject that could incorporate multiple disciplines with a very hands-on approach, while also giving them great training in a particular field.  They started a Broadcast Television course that incorporated a lot of disciplines in a way that made sense to a lot of kids, including DH.  He thrived and has remained in that field with tremendous success his whole adult life.

 

However, I do not, really, really do not agree with the continued assumption that if a person has a weakness in one area (like Algebra II) that they are not college material.  I do not want college closed to anyone who has a genuine desire to follow that path just because they struggle in one area.  

[8filltheheart]

And not just what a college degree means, but also what the purpose of high school should be.

 

The call for "less education" as a target baffles me greatly -

 

Giving in and requiring less seems a cop out; .

I agree with all of your post, but these 3 pts especially. How the starting pt of educational reform was to make the US more competitive internationally, especially in math (since our lang scores are higher than ou math scores) has lead to the actual lowering of math standards, I don't understand.

 

But, reality being more honest than theory, it will mean even more real discrepancies amg the college bound and actual admissions and who has a degree from where.

[MarkT]

For once, I find myself agreeing with the common core.  :svengo:

 

Good job TX!  And may other states soon follow!

 

(BUT yes, mandate that all schools OFFER up through Pre-Calc just in case some feel the need to cut higher level classes.)

 

I agree with your post but Common Core wants everybody to take Algebra 2. Texas is not Common Core aligned.

 

By later High School years students need to be in a "track" that will help them be successful in life (hopefully with something that they have some passion for). Algebra 2 is not necessary for all. 

 

[8filltheheart]

I agree with your post but Common Core wants everybody to take Algebra 2. Texas is not Common Core aligned.

 

By later High School years students need to be in a "track" that will help them be successful in life (hopefully with something that they have some passion for). Algebra 2 is not necessary for all.

 

Actually CC does not want everyone to take alg 2. CC defines college ready/bound as alg 2. That is a huge distinction.

[Dmmetler]

One thing that scares me is that the person who sent me the article link is a friend from grad school-who currently teaches math at a college in Iowa and who went to TTU with me. When she entered grad school, she had never taken trigonometry because her rural TX high school didn't offer it-they were required to have two levels of math beyond Algebra 1, so that was what they offered. If they'd only been required to offer Algebra 1, that's all they would have offered. And a course offered vs a course actually available, as opposed to cancelled because of lack of demand, are two different things.

 

And offering a class via dual enrollment often means offering a class only if parents can pay for it. Even if a state waives tuition, that doesn't cover books and often doesn't cover fees that can be as much as tuition. My friend's family wouldn't have been able to afford for her to do that. TTUISD is a great program-but it's not a free program, even for TX residents.
 

I guess that's what concerns me most. I don't want to see talented students pushed out of a STEM path if that's honestly where they wish to be, and leveling at the college or community college level is an expense that not all students can afford. And even for non-STEM paths, Algebra can be a gateway.  I agree that a hairdresser probably would be better off with a consumer math course, or a financial math course, or something of the sort-unless she plans to own and operate her own  salon and to get a business degree as part of reaching that goal, in which case a pre-calculus course would allow her to go into college and take business calculus without having to pay for extra leveling classes-and there's really no reason why she shouldn't be able to take vocational classes towards her cosmetology license while also taking academic courses that would let her enter college as a degree seeking freshman.

 

 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

One thing that scares me is that the person who sent me the article link is a friend from grad school-who currently teaches math at a college in Iowa and who went to TTU with me. When she entered grad school, she had never taken trigonometry because her rural TX high school didn't offer it-they were required to have two levels of math beyond Algebra 1, so that was what they offered. If they'd only been required to offer Algebra 1, that's all they would have offered. And a course offered vs a course actually available, as opposed to cancelled because of lack of demand, are two different things.

 

And offering a class via dual enrollment often means offering a class only if parents can pay for it. Even if a state waives tuition, that doesn't cover books and often doesn't cover fees that can be as much as tuition. My friend's family wouldn't have been able to afford for her to do that. TTUISD is a great program-but it's not a free program, even for TX residents.

 

I guess that's what concerns me most. I don't want to see talented students pushed out of a STEM path if that's honestly where they wish to be, and leveling at the college or community college level is an expense that not all students can afford. And even for non-STEM paths, Algebra can be a gateway.  I agree that a hairdresser probably would be better off with a consumer math course, or a financial math course, or something of the sort-unless she plans to own and operate her own  salon and to get a business degree as part of reaching that goal, in which case a pre-calculus course would allow her to go into college and take business calculus without having to pay for extra leveling classes-and there's really no reason why she shouldn't be able to take vocational classes towards her cosmetology license while also taking academic courses that would let her enter college as a degree seeking freshman.

Very valid concerns.

 

 I see this as a broader issue, though, and don't really understand why Algebra II is the focus.  I don't want to see talented students pushed out of ANY path, not just STEM, because of poor academic offerings and inadequate preparation in elementary, middle school and high school.  I also don't want to see any student who has interest and the ability to go to college denied that path because of one area of weakness.  And I don't want any child with real gifts, whatever those gifts might be, being told they have no value because they are unable to perform well in every subject.  And I don't want any child who has real gifts and talents and a desire to pursue a STEM career, or any other career, to be held back and unable to achieve higher goals because the education being offered them in high school did not challenge them enough or prepare them enough for the career they really want to pursue.