Texas considers dropping Algebra II mandate

[Hunter]

 

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.  

 

College admission, in the past, was simpler. But…I think finances was the gatekeeper, then. Now, there are other sneakier ways for the wealthy to hold on to their power, by keeping their kids in college and others out.

 

Without a class system, we have used access to higher education as a way to separate the classes. It's complicated. We have different groups with conflicting goals. There are those that want to increase upward mobility, and those that want to decrease it. So we are left with this mess, in the educational world, that has nothing to do with education.

 

We are country that doesn't walk our talk, and it makes for a mess in education and healthcare and human rights and all sorts of areas.

[hepatica]

I suspect the entire model of 4-year college is on the way out. As was pointed out up thread, we are in a quickly changing economy and we don't really even know what skills our kids will need. When I entered college in 1985 we were still typing our papers on electric typewriters. It really wasn't that long ago. In the face of such rapid change we cannot expect to provide our kids with a skill set that will last them for the whole of their working lives. 

 

In my little fantasy of a perfect world, I would love to see higher education spread out over a lifetime rather than concentrated into four years. I was lucky to attend a liberal arts college and I loved the core requirements. They opened up a world to me that I had never had access to. I grew up in public school in central VA. My mother did not attend college and my father was the first in his family to attend college. He went to a state university and became an engineer, motivated entirely by the desire not to be stuck in the coal mines like his father. The whole idea of the "great conversation" was foreign to him. College opened up my world. That said, I would love to have a chance to do it again, now in my late 40s. I would get so much more out of that education.

 

I saw this to be true when I taught at a branch campus of a state university. The older, returning students were so much more engaged than the younger students. They had so much more life experience to bring to the discussion. I think it would be great if employers could get out of the business of providing health insurance and focus those resources on continuing education. Philosophy professors could take auto mechanics and computer programing, Goldman Sachs employees could take seminars on global poverty, physicists could take art appreciation or philosophy of religion; factory workers could retool without stigma when their skills become obsolete…. Just a little fantasy.

[Elisabet1]

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.  

I completely agree with this. I am weak in reading. But I was top in math. I made the highest PSAT scores and SAT scores when I took them, in my district, because there was not the heavy focus on lit back then as now. Under today's standards, I would have been left to feel awful. Here, our local district, to get in to GT at all, you have to score high in every single area. So scoring high in math does not earn you a spot in GT math. I actually a great writer and was often winning competitions in writing and math. I repeatedly placed #1 in various math competitions. But if I had to do Brit Lit the way the kids do it today in the public schools, I would not have gone on to pursue what I was good at because I would have thought poorly of myself overall, due to 1 weakness.

 

Those who really excell at one thing often do not excell at the other. I think we will produce less and less scientists and anything else when everyone has to have brit lit and everyone has to have foreign language and everyone has to have physics and everyone has to have higher level math. No one will be that good at anything while they all spread themselves so thin across every subject that the public schools can come up with.

[MotherOfBoys]

I'm all for dual enrolling a high school student in a community college and making the high school cover ALL the expenses. I don't think high schools should be required to teach anything unless they can do it on the high end of well. I hate watered down classes. There needs to be a standard across the courses before a standard can be placed on the diploma. Not that I'm saying different diplomas should be issued. AND kids need to fail if they don't show competency in the standards of that course.

[Walking-Iris]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/education/raising-the-ged-bar-stirs-concern-for-students.html?_r=0

 

This is something sort of off topic but on at the same time.

 

My dh has found himself in the precarious position of having to brush up on his advanced algebra skills because he will soon be finding himself having up to 6-8 weeks at the most teaching a population of adult students who have 3rd-8th grade reading/math levels all the advanced algebra they need to pass a GED test. (Luckily he has had a ton of math in college as a business major and it's coming back to him.)

 

Of course, no one seems to think it's fair. And I have serious issues with Common Core because of it. It will just make it that much harder for these adults to get the skills and the piece of paper they need to find employment or to be able to enroll in the local community college. 

 

And it's discouraging to a group of adults who already face quite a bit of discouragement in their lives.

 

As far as Texas, I don't think it's fair to put teens onto arbitrary tracks. "This one is vocational, this one is community college bound, this one is STEM, this one is college, this one is xyz." 

 

I feel that they may think their heart is right in providing flexibility, but I also honestly feel teens need to be expected to learn as much as possible. When I graduated high school, you needed 4 math credits. Algebra 1 and 2 and Geometry. The fourth could be some other math offered. That was the flexibility. Advanced math (calc, trig, stats, AP course) for those who could and consumer type maths for those who couldn't. Most Seniors were either in an advanced math or Algebra 2 since Freshman either took the consumer type maths or algebra 1. 

 

But it was expected that regardless of if a child wanted to go to college or not, those Algebra courses and Geometry would be there to give them that option. To give them that chance.

 

It can only set a child back when and if they do want to go to college to have to take any remedial type courses because they don't have the prerequisite from high school, or can't score high enough on a SAT/ACT because again they didn't have the class in high school.

 

And to my knowledge most college remedial courses won't transfer. 

 

And then again the GED is expecting it---fair or not. So if any student wanted to go that route instead of high school diploma, they're still going to need to know or learn that math.

 

 

 

[8filltheheart]

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. 

First, CCs have never required alg 2 as a pre-req.   But, I do believe that you are going to see a lowering of academic standards amg certain state higher ed institutions b/c of the implication of all of the funding amgst these programs. 

 

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness in College and Career (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)—cannot address the mathematics requirements of selective public or private colleges or universities because, as we have already noted, major topics in trigonometry and precalculus are not in Common Core’s standards and the tests cannot address topics that are not in the standards. Nevertheless, the language in the Race to the Top agreement indicates that states must place new students admitted by their major public colleges and universities into credit-bearing mathematics (and English) courses if these students have passed a Common Core-based “college readiness†test

 

What that really means is what I think Hunter was suggesting.   There will be an even stronger shift in the quality of higher ed.   The top will become more selective and the bottom will become even less so.

 

FWIW, filters have always existed and will continue.   Really top math students with really low English scores are filtered out to the top math and science universities.   Simple reality.   If you don't have scores that start with a 7 or close to it, the likelihood of being accepted at a top school even if the score is completely unrelated to your field is probably 1%  (guess, but it is probably even lower!)

 

Top liberal arts schools filter the same way....still wanting to see high levels of math.

 

Top schools want the top.  Period.   They can afford to be selective and seek the top well-rounded students.

 

Skewed students are going to be where they have always been......seeking outside the top. 

I suspect the entire model of 4-year college is on the way out.

 

I do not agree at all.   There are professions where there is no way around the college model.  I sure as heck don't want my bridges built by someone who did all of their engineering projects virtually. 

 

I think what you will see is the shift toward education as a means of employment and a stronger push toward vocational training for ps kids.    I think government education is going to be like what we saw in Brazil when we lived there.   Government schools were for workers.   Private schools were for white collar jobs.   Education split the paths of people.  

 

While I think our schools definitely need reform and that vocational training should be a positive path for students choosing to go that direction, I'm not sure that this is at all a good way to go about it.   Reducing what is required to graduate is not the same thing as offering multiple paths to graduation.

[8filltheheart]

I'm all for dual enrolling a high school student in a community college and making the high school cover ALL the expenses. I don't think high schools should be required to teach anything unless they can do it on the high end of well. I hate watered down classes. There needs to be a standard across the courses before a standard can be placed on the diploma. Not that I'm saying different diplomas should be issued. AND kids need to fail if they don't show competency in the standards of that course.

 

Which means that CC become the equivalent of high school.   FWIW, just because it has the word college in it does not mean they teach to the high end of well.   Many CCs are watered down.   (some people do live in areas with good CCs.   Ours have never been.)

[hepatica]

 

I do not agree at all.   There are professions where there is no way around the college model.  I sure as heck don't want my bridges built by someone who did all of their engineering projects virtually. 

 

 

 

I don't disagree. I am not suggesting an end to the actual classroom, or to residential college, just an end to the idea that everyone goes for 4 (or more) years, gets their education and then they are done.  Right now, the 4 year liberal arts college is not a financially sustainable model anyway. College tuition is too high, and while more and more people are expected to get a bachelors degree, fewer and fewer will be able to afford it. Something will eventually change. Just like most economists couldn't see the housing bubble while they were inside it, I think higher ed is in a similar bubble right now.

[hepatica]

Which means that CC become the equivalent of high school.   FWIW, just because it has the word college in it does not mean they teach to the high end of well.   Many CCs are watered down.   (some people do live in areas with good CCs.   Ours have never been.)

 

Unfortunately, too many students now are spending enormous amounts of money remediating in the first two years of college what they didn't learn in high school.   I would think most college math professors would rather see students who can actually do Algebra II than students who have "passed" higher level math and can't really do Algebra. The AP course has become necessary in part because a passing grade in a high school math class means nothing to a college. Nobody really knows what has been taught.

[Kevin'sMom]

I think we only need to look around us to see the need for math. Everything designed and manufactured, every scientific advance we appreciate and use, including every medication and medical technology, the computer keyboard, the mouse...simple or advanced, it all required math. The doors that are closed because we don't learn/teach/require math, will be closed forever. What if that 95% knew math? What then? To teach math, we need to know math. Math has to be learned sequentially, which makes it a discipline worth the time...it helps with reasoning, with logic, with organization.

 

As you can tell, I am rather passionate about this.

[8filltheheart]

I don't disagree. I am not suggesting an end to the actual classroom, or to residential college, just an end to the idea that everyone goes for 4 (or more) years, gets their education and then they are done.  Right now, the 4 year liberal arts college is not a financially sustainable model anyway. College tuition is too high, and while more and more people are expected to get a bachelors degree, fewer and fewer will be able to afford it. Something will eventually change. Just like most economists couldn't see the housing bubble while they were inside it, I think higher ed is in a similar bubble right now.

 

The only part I agree with is the idea that EVERYONE goes for 4 yrs.  I think that started b/c a high school diploma wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and employers needed a way to find employees capable of doing the work they needed to have done.   Requiring a college diploma simply acted as a filter.

 

The cost of higher ed....that is a different matter.  Yes, I do agree that something is going to have to happen to alter the cost of attendance.   But I do not think for a minute that it means that the college education model is going to go away.  

[MotherOfBoys]

Which means that CC become the equivalent of high school.   FWIW, just because it has the word college in it does not mean they teach to the high end of well.   Many CCs are watered down.   (some people do live in areas with good CCs.   Ours have never been.)

 

Tax dollars will always go to public schools in some form. CCs are paid directly from the students pocket and there are plenty of CCs to choose from with a variety of specialties. The student/parent/highschool can pick the CC. Let the free market work. They all want the best return for their dollar. CCs can also choose to say no, your student can't handle our class, choose someone else.

[katilac]

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

 

They aren't necessarily "following" Common Core in this, in the sense that Common Core is hardly the first or only group to have the idea. It would be foolish indeed to do everything the opposite of CC just because you oppose CC as a whole. 

 

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.

 

 

I don't think the best of courses can fix that kind of stupid :tongue_smilie:  

[8filltheheart]

Tax dollars will always go to public schools in some form. CCs are paid directly from the students pocket and there are plenty of CCs to choose from with a variety of specialties. The student/parent/highschool can pick the CC. Let the free market work. They all want the best return for their dollar. CCs can also choose to say no, your student can't handle our class, choose someone else.

 

I don't think you understand how CCs function.   CCs are local and the students that attend there are from that area.   There are few programs that are regional specialities within CCs and those are typically Allied Health programs and trade programs (like welding).   The vast majority of CCs offer general ed classes or adult training type courses.

 

CCs are not meant to be selective.   The premise behind a CC is to open access to educational opportunities.

[wapiti]

Tax dollars will always go to public schools in some form. CCs are paid directly from the students pocket and there are plenty of CCs to choose from with a variety of specialties. The student/parent/highschool can pick the CC. Let the free market work. They all want the best return for their dollar. CCs can also choose to say no, your student can't handle our class, choose someone else.

 

This is an interesting thought.  I'm all for economic efficiency but there may be a couple of inefficiencies with this scenario:  first, the wasted resources spent at the PS that ought to be able to cover these classes at no extra cost (what in the world are they teaching for those last two years of high school if they can't even teach math?).  Second, there's an opportunity cost for the time it takes post-high-school to get up to speed in math before the student can move forward with actual college-level math.  Part of me wants to say, ok fine, if that's how it's going to be, then let the students out at 16 instead of 18 so they can move on.  Still, it's the disadvantaged students who would suffer more from this policy of cutting higher math from the jr/sr high school day, as the advantaged students are more likely to find a way to get these courses done.

[8filltheheart]

This is an interesting thought.  I'm all for economic efficiency but there may be a couple of inefficiencies with this scenario:  first, the wasted money spent at the PS that ought to be able to cover these classes at no extra cost (what in the world are they teaching for those last two years of high school if they can't even teach math?).  Second, there's an opportunity cost for the time it takes post-high-school to get up to speed in math before the student can move forward with actual college-level math.  Part of me wants to say, ok fine, if that's how it's going to be, then let the students out at 16 instead of 18 so they can move on.  Still, it's the disadvantaged students who would suffer more from this policy of cutting higher math from the jr/sr high school day, as the advantaged students are more likely to find a way to get these courses done.

 

And pay for them.    I am so not for this idea.   I think it all goes back to what is the purpose of K12 education in the first place?   Students who can fund outside classes and pay for college courses will.   Those that can't won't.   Students who have parents that believe certain levels of academics should be achieved by their kids will push for them to receive it.   Those who don't have anyone advocating for them or guiding them, probably won't.   

 

For example, if I had kids attending ps and the school was only offering classes through geometry or alg 2, guess what my kids would be doing outside of the school?   They would be taking higher level maths.  Period.   But, my dh and I are both college graduates and have very clear expectations of what we believe is a minimum level of education.     That is not the reality for a lot of kids.   Many parents are simply disengaged with the educational process in general.

 

I don't see how this actually accomplishes anything.

[katilac]

Tax dollars will always go to public schools in some form. CCs are paid directly from the students pocket and there are plenty of CCs to choose from with a variety of specialties. The student/parent/highschool can pick the CC. Let the free market work. They all want the best return for their dollar. CCs can also choose to say no, your student can't handle our class, choose someone else.

 

Incorrect. There are plenty of CCs to choose from with a variety of specialties in some areas. Not in mine, and not in many others. We have exactly one to 'choose' from. 

There's something else going on here, I'm sure political, but I don't know what it is.  It makes no sense to me that one coalition of Texas businesses is lobbying to remove one math class from the requirements to receive one kind of diploma.  They claim that the have plenty of jobs that don't require Algebra II (directly or indirectly). But the companies are free to hire kids today with the non-Algebra II diploma, or no high school diploma at all, for that matter.  They also claim that removing this one required class will free of lots of time for high schools to offer more vocational classes that would be more immediately useful for their industries.  I'm very skeptical of this claim.  I'm curious what an example of such a class is, that couldn't be taken by a student whose schedule is so filled with Algebra II.

 

While I think that more opportunities for more vocational education may be a good thing, I'd be worried about High Schools focusing on the short term needs of nearby corporations.  All of us of a certain age know how volatile the oil industry in Texas is, it may be booming now, but in a few years students may regret not having a more general purpose education.

[Walking-Iris]

There's something else going on here, I'm sure political, but I don't know what it is.  It makes no sense to me that one coalition of Texas businesses is lobbying to remove one math class from the requirements to receive one kind of diploma.  They claim that the have plenty of jobs that don't require Algebra II (directly or indirectly). But the companies are free to hire kids today with the non-Algebra II diploma, or no high school diploma at all, for that matter.  They also claim that removing this one required class will free of lots of time for high schools to offer more vocational classes that would be more immediately useful for their industries.  I'm very skeptical of this claim.  I'm curious what an example of such a class is, that couldn't be taken by a student whose schedule is so filled with Algebra II.

 

While I think that more opportunities for more vocational education may be a good thing, I'd be worried about High Schools focusing on the short term needs of nearby corporations.  All of us of a certain age know how volatile the oil industry in Texas is, it may be booming now, but in a few years students may regret not having a more general purpose education.

 

Exactly. Our schools are still running on an Industrial Revolution model. I have never liked the idea of children being considered  "resources" or "future employees" or any other sort of thing that demeans humans as just cogs in some economic machine. 

[Hunter]

I hate how high the drop out rate rose in the local schools when the standards were raised. And the sneaky ways that adults found to get rid of the kids that weren't going to score highly on tests or pass advanced math classes.

 

Not one of my youngest sons' elementary school friends graduated from high-school. Not one. Only about 1/2 of my older sons' friends got a diploma, but they were a year ahead of the cut off for needing to pass the tests.

 

These children were not even allowed in the building. No dropped advanced classes is as bad as kids not even being allowed to attend, or being told they might as well drop out. I was speaking to deaf ears when I tried to convince one child to go back to school even if he didn't get a diploma. He kept telling me the school told him he shouldn't come, and that there was no point. No point? How is there not a point to spending 2 more years in school?

 

If dropping Algebra 2 means more kids are allowed to stay in school, then I'm all for it. I do know what it was like to have a kid in PS that wasn't being challenged or offered opportunities to learn, but I was more upset about what I saw happening to his friends, and so was he.

 

He asked me, "Mom, what is going to happen them?"

 

All I could say was, "I don't know."

[OneStepAtATime]

I hate how high the drop out rate rose in the local schools when the standards were raised. And the sneaky ways that adults found to get rid of the kids that weren't going to score highly on tests or pass advanced math classes.

 

Not one of my youngest sons' elementary school friends graduated from high-school. Not one. Only about 1/2 of my older sons' friends got a diploma, but they were a year ahead of the cut off for needing to pass the tests.

 

These children were not even allowed in the building. No dropped advanced classes is as bad as kids not even being allowed to attend, or being told they might as well drop out. I was speaking to deaf ears when I tried to convince one child to go back to school even if he didn't get a diploma. He kept telling me the school told him he shouldn't come, and that there was no point. No point? How is there not a point to spending 2 more years in school?

 

If dropping Algebra 2 means more kids are allowed to stay in school, then I'm all for it. I do know what it was like to have a kid in PS that wasn't being challenged or offered opportunities to learn, but I was more upset about what I saw happening to his friends, and so was he.

 

He asked me, "Mom, what is going to happen them?"

 

All I could say was, "I don't know."

They weren't allowed to continue with high school because the school felt they would never get through one lousy math class?  Seriously?  I have so many expletives floating around in my head right now...should I go foreign or domestic?  (since the words are only in my head, hopefully they won't offend anyone else).

 

Ability to be a productive member of society is not strictly predicated on whether you can perform well across the board in every subject.  MOST of us have some area of weakness.  That mind-set is going to cripple our country.  If you go through and look at all the inventors and artists and scientists and mathematicians and authors, etc. throughout history,  MANY of them did not do well in one or more areas of school.  Yet they were VERY capable of doing amazing things.    

 

If I hadn't had an understanding and really supportive teacher, I would not have passed Algebra II.  

With the scenario Hunter is talking about, I would then have been told to drop out of high school.  I would not have received my high school diploma.  I would not have gone on to a respected University and earned my college diploma.  I very likely would not have gone on to a very successful career in my field of choice.  How would that have benefited our society?

[Ellie]

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.

 

I didn't say anything about taking algebra as a dual-enrolled student. It was our experience in California that getting an AA through the community college first was a valid and money-saving way of getting a BS/BA and further, and in California, classes taken in high school are pretty much irrelevant at the community college level. In fact, transfer students are guaranteed to be admitted to the CalState or UC system; transfer students never have to even show a high school transcript.

 

I say this as the mother of a 14yo community college student, who took time off from her AA and went to cosmetology school, who went back and completed her AA, then transferred to San Jose State where she graduated with a BA in English Literature, having worked her way through college as a hair stylist. She later took the LSAT and got a decent score, but decided she likes doing hair, a career which has brought her enough financial stability to buy a house in Seattle.

 

So I can't get worked up over not having to take Algebra II in high school.

 

It also seems silly to require all students to take algebra II in order to graduate.

 

[OneStepAtATime]

 

In my little fantasy of a perfect world, I would love to see higher education spread out over a lifetime rather than concentrated into four years. I was lucky to attend a liberal arts college and I loved the core requirements. They opened up a world to me that I had never had access to. I grew up in public school in central VA. My mother did not attend college and my father was the first in his family to attend college. He went to a state university and became an engineer, motivated entirely by the desire not to be stuck in the coal mines like his father. The whole idea of the "great conversation" was foreign to him. College opened up my world. That said, I would love to have a chance to do it again, now in my late 40s. I would get so much more out of that education.

 

I saw this to be true when I taught at a branch campus of a state university. The older, returning students were so much more engaged than the younger students. They had so much more life experience to bring to the discussion.

I believe there is some validity to this statement.  I have returned to college twice since graduating.  The first time I went back was to take courses for teacher certification as a back-up to my then current field of employment, since I felt that it was not conducive to starting a family (loved, loved, loved my job but the hours were awful).  I was more focused, better able to have meaningful discussions in class and just generally was a better student overall, even though I had done really well in college right out of high school.  It was nice to continue my education after some practical, real world life experiences.

 

My second return to college was strictly to allay some educational demons.  Specifically, math.  I knew I had not understood anything in Algebra II in high school and although I had made an A in Algebra I, I had had to take the course over a two year period, going really, really slowly.  It had left me feeling like a total failure with math.  I realized that I needed to get past that feeling.  I was pregnant with our first child and knew I might not have another opportunity for  while.  I knew I was not ready for Algebra II, but I took Algebra 1 again to at least solidify those concepts (along with a couple of other classes just to expand my horizons).  I really enjoyed the math class.  It was a lot of work, but really fun.  And so many of the problems made more sense this time around.  For instance, with regard to mortgages and amortization tables.  the book had an error in the way the problem was set up.  I caught it and pointed it out to the teacher because I had a mortgage and knew how they worked.  I had had to learn in my real life.  The teacher, who had never owned a house, had not caught the error because he had never had to practically apply his book knowledge in this area.  He changed the problem and I was able to give a mini lesson to the class on mortgages.  Win win.

[kiana]

They weren't allowed to continue with high school because the school felt they would never get through one lousy math class?  Seriously?  I have so many expletives floating around in my head right now...should I go foreign or domestic?  (since the words are only in my head, hopefully they won't offend anyone else).

 

 

Yep.

 

Because kids who deliberately drop out go in one category, and kids who try and fail go in another category. It's much less detrimental to the school to have students drop out than to fail to graduate.

 

Schools have gotten in trouble in other places for basically forcing students into 'homeschooling' in order to get them off their graduation records.

[OneStepAtATime]

Yep.

 

Because kids who deliberately drop out go in one category, and kids who try and fail go in another category. It's much less detrimental to the school to have students drop out than to fail to graduate.

 

Schools have gotten in trouble in other places for basically forcing students into 'homeschooling' in order to get them off their graduation records.

They fail to adequately prepare them for higher math, then make that math a requirement for receiving a high school diploma,  then dump them when they think it is too late to help repair the damage...that makes me sick to my stomach.  It's pathetic.

[MarkT]

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

 

Are there any Common Core aligned states that do not require Algebra 2 for regular HS graduation?

AZ does:

 

  www.azed.gov/hsgraduation/

 

They do have an exception clause.

 

 Not sure if PARCC testing requires Algebra 2.

 

 

 

 

[8filltheheart]

Are there any Common Core aligned states that do not require Algebra 2 for regular HS graduation?.

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

 

According to pages 6-8 of that document, there are multiple states that don't require alg 2. This conversation came up a few months ago when the standard high school math sequence was being discussed. It was surprising to me just what some states do have as requirements.

 

http://mathcurriculumcenter.org/states.php

That link has state links and adoption of CCSS info.

[Arcadia]

Saw the update in the news today (bolded mine)

"That legislation, which is poised to transform classrooms for the state's 5 million-plus public school students, also cut the number of standardized tests high schoolers must pass to from 15 to five. It is designed to give students more flexibility to focus on career and vocational training that can prepare them for high-paying jobs in Texas that don't necessarily require a college degree.

The board voted 13-2 on Thursday to create two high-level math courses that could be alternatives to algebra II: statistics and algebraic reasoning. Both will be developed by local school districts under the guidance of the Texas Education Agency, and are designed to be as tough as algebra II courses.

Board members still must cast a final vote Friday to formally implement the new graduation standards, which are set to take effect next fall. But that should be largely ceremonial since the major sticking points over dialing-back the algebra II mandate have now been resolved."

[MarkT]

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

 

According to pages 6-8 of that document, there are multiple states that don't require alg 2. This conversation came up a few months ago when the standard high school math sequence was being discussed. It was surprising to me just what some states do have as requirements.

 

 

that document is out of date 2007 - before CC adoption - an updated version would be interesting

 

[MarkT]

 

[8filltheheart]

that document is out of date 2007 - before CC adoption - an updated version would be interesting

 

??? The link you cut from this quote was included in my op to provide CC info. If you are curious enough, you can follow the link to each state's info. But, yes, there are CC states that don't require alg 2, CA being one of them. CA only requires 2 maths, one being alg 1, for a diploma.

 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrmath.asp

[MarkT]

??? The link you cut from this quote was included in my op to provide CC info. If you are curious enough, you can follow the link to each state's info. But, yes, there are CC states that don't require alg 2, CA being one of them. CA only requires 2 maths, one being alg 1, for a diploma.

 

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/hsgrmath.asp

 

I included a link above in another post that says that those states are not truly aligned. The Wash Post article quotes that Common Core wants four years of math for high school to be college ready.  Which is great for STEM majors but does not fit all.  So a gifted writer that struggles with math can't be "college ready" without passing Algebra 2?

 

 

 

 

(I have a horrible time adding links with Internet Explorer I probably should switch)

[8filltheheart]

I included a link above in another post that says that those states are not truly aligned. The Wash Post article quotes that Common Core wants four years of math for high school to be college ready. Which is great for STEM majors but does not fit all. So a gifted writer that struggles with math can't be "college ready" without passing Algebra 2?

 

Does high school diploma equal college ready in all circumstances? Many states have leveled diplomas--- general achievement, standard, advanced, etc and each has different requirements.

 

I think you are discussing 2 different topics. Is alg 2 required to graduate and is alg 2 required for college bound graduates. Yes, I agree that CC is defining college ready as alg 2, but again as I wrote initially, that is not the same thing as requiring it of all graduates. I think the pt is that not all students are being defined as college bound.

[OneStepAtATime]

Does high school diploma equal college ready in all circumstances? Many states have leveled diplomas--- general achievement, standard, advanced, etc and each has different requirements.

 

I think you are discussing 2 different topics. Is alg 2 required to graduate and is alg 2 required for college bound graduates. Yes, I agree that CC is defining college ready as alg 2, but again as I wrote initially, that is not the same thing as requiring it of all graduates. I think the pt is that not all students are being defined as college bound.

8FilTheHeart brings up an interesting point so lets examine that for a minute.  Why is this two different topics?  When my parents were going to school, the assumption was that if you stuck it out and got your high school diploma, you had the minimum education needed to get a decent job, or go on to vocational school, or go on to college.  If you were seeking a degree from an Ivy League or its equivalent then you might need additional courses at the high school level, but you would have the minimum needed to get into your average college.

 

When I was going to school, my advisor, and my teachers, had the same expectation in most aspects.   If I completed high school, I would have the minimum needed to go on to vocational school or most colleges.  What had changed was that there might be fewer job opportunities straight out of high school without going on to vocational school or college.

 

Now, there is this weird kind of (to my mind) unfortunate (edited to improve word choice) attitude developing that high school diploma shouldn't necessarily equate with "good enough" for college.  When did this change?  And why is it that we assume someone who cannot pass Algebra II just isn't college material, if they wish to follow that path?  Or if, because a student is having to take extra time to pass Algebra I and Geometry and may not make it to Algebra II in the 4 year time frame they are not college material?  Why?  Can't they take more time to pass that class?

 

Which brings up another hot button for me.  When I was in school, if you struggled in a subject, and you really wanted a high school diploma, you kept trying to pass those classes.  You didn't get encouraged by the school to quit at the end of 10th grade, without your diploma, or just flunk out if you failed to complete all your degree requirements in a 4 year period.  I had a friend that took 6 years to graduate high school.  Was he stupid?  No.  He was bright and articulate.  But in today's day and age he would probably have gotten a diagnosis of dyslexia and dysgraphia (although those terms have now changed again, that is essentially the issues he was having).  The school did not give up on him (even though they did not know why he struggled) and he was not encouraged to give up on himself.  Eventually, he DID graduate and he went on to college.

 

Our society is filled with individuals.  People who have different strengths and weaknesses.  We are not manufactured and we are not created with cookie cutters.  Why is it an assumption now that ALL students HAVE to go on to Algebra II (or some of the higher level English classes) to be "good enough" for college?

 

If students can make it that far, and complete higher level maths and writing in a four year time frame, GREAT!  That is wonderful.  If they can't, that doesn't mean they are incapable of college level work or achieving great things in college and beyond if they choose that path.  If this really has to be a requirement, then give them the extra time to pass the classes.  

 

And if children begin to struggle at the elementary or middle school level with math, english, etc.  don't just keep passing them on hoping the next year they will get it.  Give them the detailed instruction and slower pace and scaffolding needed to master the material.  Finland does this with great success.  They have no drop out rate.

 

If we are going to offer different degrees at the high school level, fine, but make it about individual strengths, not who is "good enough" for college.  The human race is made up of a wide diversity of amazing people with very different talents and abilities.  Lets recognize and celebrate that, not destroy or ignore it.

[regentrude]

Now, there is this weird kind of (to my mind) elitist attitude developing that high school diploma shouldn't necessarily equate with "good enough" for college. 

 

I do not think this is an "elitist" attitude, but quite the contrary. It simply reflects that the level of high school work has been declining. All my older colleagues have observed a noticeable decline in math skills among our college students over the course of their careers. (And they also remember some form of tracking and differentiated instruction from their own high school days.)

So, this is actually the opposite of elitist: because high school got dumbed down more and more, a simple high school diploma does not have the student prepared with enough education to succeed at college. (College is following suit by dumbing down as well in order to accommodate the underprepared students.Looking at old exams confirms this.)

 

It does not cease to boggle my mind how the recipe for increasing "achievement" in this country seems to be to simply lower the bar.

[kiana]

I know a fair few people who got high school diplomas in the late 60s and early 70s without even having to take algebra. They took courses like General Math and Consumer Math and Business Math. I'm sure they could have gone to CC, but they couldn't have necessarily gone to college ready to major in anything.

 

I do think that we should lean further away from the 'oh horrid, too old! you can't get a diploma, only a GED!' My grandfather used to teach night school and when he taught it, it was not restricted by age and you could still get a high school diploma at 30.

 

But I still think we ought to have a qualification to replace the old 8th grade graduation, now meaningless, that says 'this person is functionally literate and numerate but not yet prepared for college'.

[OneStepAtATime]

Elitist was, perhaps, a poor choice of words.  I retract that word choice willingly.  But I do not agree with the assumption that ALL students have to complete Algebra II to be college level material. I struggled terribly to get through that math course and retained nothing.  It was a collosal waste of my time.  But does that mean I should not have chosen to go on to college?  That I was not capable of doing well at the college level, since I wished to follow that path?  Nope.  Not at all.  I did great at a well respected University and had a very successful career.  

 

 Irregardless of that, if the high school level work is being "dumbed down" is that because we have gotten away from a really solid education in the elementary and middle school levels?  It seems a lot of colleges are saying that even the kids that pass the classes in high school are not prepared for college level work.  And so apparently, to handle that scenario, colleges are dumbing down the material at the college level, too.  But high school level teachers (at least the ones I know) are saying the kids coming into high school aren't prepared for high school level material.  And middle school teachers seem pretty darn frustrated, too.  So is ALL material across the board being dumbed down?  Why? Where is the disconnect?  Because telling high school students "We're sorry, you just didn't get a good enough education to make it to your high school level diploma, and by the way way, if you DO get your diploma it is not very meaningful" seems like a poor way to go.

 

Edited to add that it seems that making graduation requirements more stringent isn't actually addressing the problem of why so many kids are not prepared for even passing high school level material with mastery.  If kids are being encouraged to quit high school so that school systems are not being penalized for poor test scores, and a high school level diploma no longer means that you at least have mastery of high school level material, then where is the real issue?  And how does it get addressed effectively?  You can try to make requirements even more stringent, like saying all students should pass Calculus now.  That doesn't mean it actually addressed the larger issue, and may very well cut some really talented and capable people out of the possibility of some great careers.  KWIM?

 

 

[regentrude]

 Irregardless of that, if the high school level work is being "dumbed down" is that because we have gotten away from a really solid education in the elementary and middle school levels?  It seems a lot of colleges are saying that even the kids that pass the classes in high school are not prepared for college level work.  And so apparently, to handle that scenario, colleges are dumbing down the material at the college level, too.  But high school level teachers (at least the ones I know) are saying the kids coming into high school aren't prepared for high school level material.  And middle school teachers seem pretty darn frustrated, too.  So is ALL material across the board being dumbed down?  Why? Where is the disconnect? 

 

Elementary education is probably OK. When my kids were in elementary school, I had the impressions that expectations were quite high (maybe even too high for some less mature students) and learning progressed at an admirable pace. I have spoken to several people, and consensus seemed to be that, at least locally, 4th grade is the pinnacle of the public school education. (Which raises the other issue of too much being demanded from too young kids, which is in stark disconnect with too little being demanded from the slightly older ones)

The real problem is the abysmal learning in middle school. There is virtually no progress in math, and the curriculum does not even plan for any progress. Considering that at the end of 4th grade, arithmetic with positive integers has been finished, it should take one more year to teach negative integers and fractions and then be ready for algebra in 6th/7th grade. Instead, there are 3-4 years wasted spinning the wheels and going over the same stuff over and over and over again. Middle school is a parking lot, and I have heard in discussions on these boards, that that is intentional because the philosophy seems to be that preteens are incapable of academic progress and that we just have to keep them out of harm's way and occupied with busy work until their brains switch back on in high school.

Elsewhere in the world, 5th grade marks the point when the demands increase and the academics become more challenging. Here, learning stagnates. The middle school years are the wasted years, and even increasing demands in high school will not make up for the wasted time and potential during the middle grades.

Add to that the low level of teacher proficiency, and you have a pretty good explanation for the disconnect.

 

When we were planning to spend a semester abroad while DD was in 6th grade, I had translated that country's 6th grade math curriculum and talked to the head of our local school's math department to see which topics would be covered before our departure. They told me all this material would not be covered until Junior high, and that I should get a tutor. So, where, at the end of 4th grade, I would have pegged our students' level slightly above that of 4th graders back home,  by the beginning of 6th grade, they were more than a full year behind their same age peers in math.

Thus I began homeschooling.

 

It is not just math. I do not see where the middle grades are used productively. They don't learn foreign languages either.

And the consequence is setting graduation standards at a level that elsewhere in the world is reached at the end of 9th grade. How can we be proud of this?

[Jane in NC]

Elitist was, perhaps, a poor choice of words.  I retract that word choice willingly.  But I do not agree with the assumption that ALL students have to complete Algebra II to be college level material. I struggled terribly to get through that math course and retained nothing.  It was a collosal waste of my time.  But does that mean I should not have chosen to go on to college?  That I was not capable of doing well at the college level, since I wished to follow that path?  Nope.  Not at all.  I did great at a well respected University and had a very successful career.  

 

(Gently.)  I think you have got a little mathematical chip on your shoulder.  Clearly there was disconnect between the instruction in mathematics you received and your ability to understand or retain it.  But I am not following the logic of why your personal experience should invalidate today's required coursework.

 

I attended high school at a time when Algebra I and Geometry were required for graduation, but college bound students (i.e. four year colleges and universities) were required to take Algebra II/Trig (the equivalent of today's Precalc course which did not exist in my day). My high school was probably a bit of an anomaly.  I attended a private all girls school where most girls were college bound; the other track was secretarial. 

 

The argument that today's coursework is watered down resonates with me because I have compared the text books I used with modern ones.  Further, I have seen repeated comments that geometric proofs are no longer being taught--hence geometry as a course should be eliminated--because proofs are not relevant.

 

Is Shakespeare relevant?  Is understanding the Magna Carta relevant? Are Newton's Laws relevant?

 

At what point do we draw our lines in the sand?

 

Educational systems in the United States have decided that foreign language is irrelevant.  It astounds me to read of undereducated people in developing nations who can speak four or five languages but here in the US we seem to think one is all that can be managed.  I have heard parents say that having two years of foreign language instruction (same language) is discriminatory because their kids cannot process another language.  Two years! This produces someone who is far from proficient.

 

I am feeling a little curmudgeonly this morning, so forgive me if I am being too draconian in my comments.  Perhaps it is because Mathematics is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, yet one that the average guy on the street associates with accounting and not abstract reasoning.

 

I'm not ready to dump Algebra II.  Sorry.

 

 

[Butter]

The articles about dropping the A2 STAAR have not truly given all the information.  There are a LOT of people pro dropping the A2 STAAR.  They are NOT pro dropping A2 all together.  To graduate from high school in Texas you used to have to take 15 standardized tests (TAKS - they changed the name to STAAR).  Currently the number is 5.  English I and II, biology, Algebra I, and Algebra II.  This will drop the number to 4, taking away the A2 STAAR test.  For kids who do not take Algebra I until 9th grade (and that includes my daughter because even though she took it at home, she has to take it again in public school because of that STAAR test at the end of the year - if A1 was not a STAAR test requirement she could have gone into geometry in 9th grade - seems a bit ridiculous that course requirements are dictated not by what you have already taken but what standardized test you need to pass), A2 won't happen until 11th grade.  There are kids in my daughter's A1 class that are already in 11th grade which means they will *never* get to A2 in high school.  Getting rid of the A2 STAAR means these kids can still get a proper high school diploma.

 

Also, Texas has different types of high school diplomas.  There is the distinguished diploma that most kids heading to college get.  It requires 4 years each of English, Math, Science, and Social Studies (as well as other things like 3 years of the same foreign language, a year of PE, a semester of health, etc.).  Other diplomas are available for kids who that would be a bit too ambitious for whatever reason.  Those require fewer credits.  All kids graduating have to pass the STAAR exams.  I daresay those kids getting the distinguished diploma will still take A2 (my daughter will).  They just don't have to take a standardized test when they finish the course.

 

I heard with my own ears our superintendent say that if the state didn't require standardized tests, he wouldn't make the students take a single one because he does not believe they tell you anything about what a kid has actually learned.  I think a lot of homeschooling parents can agree with his opinion.  I've heard homeschoolers cite too many standardized tests as a reason to homeschool after all.

 

So, yeah, this is not about doing away with Algebra II at all, but rather doing away with another standardized test.  I grew up in MD and although I was homeschooled before I graduated high school, I would not have been "required" to take Algebra II by these standards because we had no end of course standardized test in that subject.  Most everyone took it anyway because it was just what you did (back then A2 was usually taken in 9th or 10th grade because it came right after A1 instead of having geometry in between them).

[Joker]

A little off topic, but do most middle schools really not offer any foreign language? I have two in middle school and they have Spanish all three years (6th-8th).

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

(Gently.)  I think you have got a little mathematical chip on your shoulder.  Clearly there was disconnect between the instruction in mathematics you received and your ability to understand or retain it.  But I am not following the logic of why your personal experience should invalidate today's required coursework.

 

I attended high school at a time when Algebra I and Geometry were required for graduation, but college bound students (i.e. four year colleges and universities) were required to take Algebra II/Trig (the equivalent of today's Precalc course which did not exist in my day). My high school was probably a bit of an anomaly.  I attended a private all girls school where most girls were college bound; the other track was secretarial. 

 

The argument that today's coursework is watered down resonates with me because I have compared the text books I used with modern ones.  Further, I have seen repeated comments that geometric proofs are no longer being taught--hence geometry as a course should be eliminated--because proofs are not relevant.

 

Is Shakespeare relevant?  Is understanding the Magna Carta relevant? Are Newton's Laws relevant?

 

At what point do we draw our lines in the sand?

 

Educational systems in the United States have decided that foreign language is irrelevant.  It astounds me to read of undereducated people in developing nations who can speak four or five languages but here in the US we seem to think one is all that can be managed.  I have heard parents say that having two years of foreign language instruction (same language) is discriminatory because their kids cannot process another language.  Two years! This produces someone who is far from proficient.

 

I am feeling a little curmudgeonly this morning, so forgive me if I am being too draconian in my comments.  Perhaps it is because Mathematics is a subject that is near and dear to my heart, yet one that the average guy on the street associates with accounting and not abstract reasoning.

 

I'm not ready to dump Algebra II.  Sorry.

Actually, you make very valid points.  As you may have read from previous posts of mine earlier in this thread, I am not certain dropping ANY high school requirement, including Algebra II, is a good idea.  I do not want a watered down education.  I have very mixed feelings about dropping Algebra II (as I have previously stated several times on this thread).   I have a lot of relatives that teach in the public school system and some that teach at the University level.  My comments and concerns do not just stem from my own experience with math in high school.  

 

I speak of my concerns because I know first hand that there are a lot of people that might not perform well in one area that have amazing talents in other areas.  I don't want those talents squandered or crushed.  My husband did not do well in school.  He barely graduated high school.  But he is truly a brilliant man and a very successful engineer.  He is highly respected in his field.  Should he have been denied a high school diploma because he learns differently than the fairly narrow way information is presented in school?  I don't think so.  The system failed to provide him with an education in a way he could thrive.  He muddled through anyway, and thrived once he could control how he learned, but in today's climate, he probably would have been encouraged to drop out so his test scores wouldn't jeopardize school funding.  Would that have benefited either him or our society?

 

I disagree with the one size fits all mentality.  Just because a child struggles in one area does not mean they are not college level material, or shouldn't even get a high school diploma.  I have many friends and I know many children that might have an area of weakness that have real gifts in other areas.  I do not believe they should be encouraged to drop out of high school or be denied the possibility of college just because of one area of weakness.  Ideally, they should have had support and assistance in the earlier levels so they could make it through all the high school level courses and master the material.  But for some, even that might not help.  They are intelligent, hardworking students, but struggle in one area,.  College may be exactly where they need to go to shine.

 

No one knows what the future holds.  We need flexible, open minded thinkers.  The world will look very different in 30 years time.  We need to recognize that different people have different abilities and gifts.  Just because a child has one area of weakness, don't then turn around and prevent them from pursuing their dreams with the gifts they DO have.  Don't tell them not to even try to achieve a high school diploma.  Why not give students who are struggling in subjects like Albegra II additional time to graduate?  Or have different options for individualized learning plans for each child?  Plans that push them to achieve the best that they can, but recognize that it may not be the same achievement in all areas?

 

I would love for ALL kids to be fluent in at least one other foreign language by the time they graduate.  Just taking a couple of years to get a mark on a transcript seems fairly pointless to me.  Why can't it be learned to mastery here if foreign languages are learned to mastery in many other countries? It would be great if EVERY child successfully made it at least through Algebra II and even Trigonometry or even Calculus with mastery level understanding.  That would be wonderful!  A true understanding of Global History would be wonderful!  A real grasp of economics would be fantastic!  These are definitely goals to strive for.  And I do NOT want our education watered down.  

 

But I also recognized that a one size fits all mentality may cause us to squander great resources.  There are a lot of kids out there right now that have an area of weakness that are not being helped effectively.  They are being told they are lazy or stupid or incapable when in actual fact they just needed more time, or a different way to approach the subject, or a better teacher, or may have learning deficits that mean they may never perform well in one area but could be AMAZING in another area.  I do not just speak from my own experience in school.  I see this over and over and over.  Read the experiences of people who post at the Dyslexic Advantage website.  Read posts at the Learning Challenges board.  Read books about brain development and our expanding understanding of intelligence.  There are many, many ways to define intelligence and capability.  We are a diverse people.  Why can't we recognize that?

 

I do not know what the answer is.  I really don't.  I do not want our educational system watered down.  But we are failing a lot of kids.  I am not happy about the current system at all.

[regentrude]

The kids that are getting the short stick are the students who need beyond basic. There is no funding for their courses unless they are in a very large high school or a techy area. I'd like to see a county -wide high school for them rather than tell them to go to CC at 14 with recovered drug addicts.  So, I expect the US will continue to import doctors, engineers, etc.

 

This, exactly.

 

[Arcadia]

A little off topic, but do most middle schools really not offer any foreign language? I have two in middle school and they have Spanish all three years (6th-8th).

 

A 2012 thread about it :)  My school district only offers foreign language for high school.  Their online school offers from kindergarten (the condition was that the child had to be reading above grade level).   

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/418715-when-does-your-school-district-start-offering-foreign-languages-a-second/

[8filltheheart]

Actually, I wish that the educational system was structured to meet the needs of students vs. forcing everyone to be some arbitrary middle level poorly defined something.

 

FWIW, I have also never seen a school system forcing kids to drop out.   Also, kids with disabilities have the legal right to be served by the school system until age 21.

 

[regentrude]

Actually, I wish that the educational system was structured to meet the needs of students vs. forcing everyone to be some arbitrary middle level poorly defined something.

 

But it would be "elitist" to acknowledge that students have different abilities.

The best way not to leave anybody behind is to march at the beat of the slowest drummer and to do everything possible not to let anybody get ahead.

 

[wapiti]

I speak of my concerns because I know first hand that there are a lot of people that might not perform well in one area that have amazing talents in other areas.  I don't want those talents squandered or crushed.  My husband did not do well in school.  He barely graduated high school.  But he is truly a brilliant man and a very successful engineer.  He is highly respected in his field.  Should he have been denied a high school diploma because he learns differently than the fairly narrow way information is presented in school?  I don't think so.  The system failed to provide him with an education in a way he could thrive.  He muddled through anyway, and thrived once he could control how he learned, but in today's climate, he probably would have been encouraged to drop out so his test scores wouldn't jeopardize school funding.  Would that have benefited either him or our society?

 

I'm afraid that there are a whole bunch of different factors that are getting mixed together, and I'd like to separate them if possible :tongue_smilie:.

 

First, there's a huge difference between "not performing well" and failing alg 2; no one needs an A in alg 2 unless they're applying to a selective college.  Failing alg 2 being a barrier to college speaks more to the college's requirements than the PS requirements.  Second, the understanding of how best to teach kids continues to evolve.   I'd especially point to the lack of math education among some elementary teachers and the pathetic choice of math programs by some school districts.  Disagreements on how best to teach the typical students aren't called "the Math Wars" for nothing  ;).  Third, the identification of learning issues and how best to teach when they are present is also evolving (as I know you're well aware, unfortunately).  If the teaching is ineffective, for whatever reason, what does that mean for the alg 2 requirement?  I would say that the right answer is about changing the teaching, not about changing the requirement.

 

Generally, it is my understanding that students who are given an appropriate math education (whatever that might mean for the individual) over the course of K-12 should be able to pass alg 2 unless there is a particular learning issue of some sort.  I'm not about to hunt them down, but I wonder if there are stats on how many typical students fail alg 2 in the states where it is required, though that still wouldn't tell us anything about the quality of the K-12 math education or whether the stats were the result of a watering-down or other monkeying around with how such stats were gathered.

 

If there is a diagnosed learning issue present, doesn't that change the requirements right there, in many states?  (My caveat to that is that a student with certain types of learning issues, that go with a certain type of processing style, might thrive with "real" mathematics but they might not have the opportunity to be exposed to that until at least sometime in high school if not later and thus they might miss out on a real life strength if allowed to stop math prematurely.  FWIW, the sort of experience your dh had is reflected in a bit of discussion in Silverman's Upside Down Brilliance, which laments that such talents can go undiscovered in a traditional school setting.  Your concern, rightly so, speaks to the costs, both personal and to society, of failing to identify and appropriately educate the twice-exceptional. So I guess, again, my thoughts go to the fault being with the teaching rather than the requirement, though obviously there are some particular special needs/learning disability situations in which the requirement is and should be changed.)

[8filltheheart]

But it would be "elitist" to acknowledge that students have different abilities.

The best way not to leave anybody behind is to march at the beat of the slowest drummer and to do everything possible not to let anybody get ahead.

You mean like this

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/nyc-school-cuts-popular-gifted-program-over-lack-d/

 

In a follow-up letter sent to parents Monday, Miss McDonald wrote: “At PS 193, we believe that all children can learn and achieve high standards. We also know that we want all children at PS 193 to have equal access to high quality, challenging curriculum, and to have ample opportunities to master complex material and build academic and personal self-confidence. We also want our classes to reflect the diversity of our community. We believe we can have both: classrooms characterized by rigor and diversity.â€

 

Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/nyc-school-cuts-popular-gifted-program-over-lack-d/#ixzz2s0ByVZQz

 

Every day I am more and more thankful for stumbling into homeschooling.

[regentrude]

You mean like this

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/nyc-school-cuts-popular-gifted-program-over-lack-d/

 

 

 

aaargh.

 

 

 

Every day I am more and more thankful for stumbling into homeschooling.

 

I am, too. I don't get this country. Seriously.

[hepatica]

You mean like this

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/nyc-school-cuts-popular-gifted-program-over-lack-d/

 

Every day I am more and more thankful for stumbling into homeschooling.

 

I don't know enough about this cut specifically, but I would be careful about making assumptions here. The vast majority of students in TAG programs are not really gifted, just bright and well prepared (you can read that as privileged if you want). I think it's fair to say that the public schools do not adequately serve the needs of lots of students. I would also expect that there are lots of bright and even gifted students in underprivileged communities who have a lot of ground to make up. I do not begrudge them the scarce resources of the public schools (even while I do think the schools could operate in ways that would better serve them). I often think the public schools are in a sort of triage situation trying to figure out where the money is needed the most. I think parents of gifted children ought to homeschool if they can. There is no question the schools won't really be able to meet the needs of their children, and frankly, public education was never really designed to do so. I really think the upper and upper middle classes ought to stop demanding that the public schools take money away from kids who have never had a chance. This may not be a popular opinion (don't scream to hard at me), but many parents of children in TAG programs could make other choices if they were willing to make the sacrifice.