Texas considers dropping Algebra II mandate

[regentrude]

 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.

 

The bolded: Why???

It does not have to cost a penny more to take the twelve 6th grade classes our local school has and group the kids into different levels. The twelve classes share six 6th grade math teachers; they could easily offer 3 or 4 different levels of math course. The school would use the same rooms and the same teachers and it would not cost a penny more.

 

It would not cost anything to group by ability. How is teaching 6th graders algebra more expensive than teaching them a repeat run-through arithmetic?

 

But it is politically not wanted.

 

[hepatica]

The bolded: Why???

It does not have to cost a penny more to take the twelve 6th grade classes our local school has and group the kids into different levels. The twelve classes share six 6th grade math teachers; they could easily offer 3 or 4 different levels of math course. The school would use the same rooms and the same teachers and it would not cost a penny more.

 

It would not cost anything to group by ability. How is teaching 6th graders algebra more expensive than teaching them a repeat run-through arithmetic?

 

But it is politically not wanted.

 

 

Whether it is political, financial or whatever, I don't think it is going to happen. For school systems where the average is algebra in 9th grade, algebra in 6th is extraordinary. I honestly think children who are doing extraordinary things really aren't going to be served in the public schools (not just in math, but in other areas as well). It's not really a normative position, just reality. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Actually, I do think, if our educational system were restructured, and teachers starting at the elementary level and going all the way up were given a lot more specialized training in differentiated learning, better training in truly understanding AND how to actually teach math, better training in how to understand and actually teach language arts, etc. and are taught how to facilitate learning, not just force feeding info in that is then expected to be regurgitated out based on some preset formula, then we would have quite a few resources available for kids at all levels.  2e kids, gifted kids across the board, kids that have learning issues that are NOT 2e, average kids, etc.  We squander tremendous resources all the time.  And the teachers frequently have little choice now in how and what they teach.

[regentrude]

Whether it is political, financial or whatever, I don't think it is going to happen. For school systems where the average is algebra in 9th grade, algebra in 6th is extraordinary. I honestly think children who are doing extraordinary things really aren't going to be served in the public schools (not just in math, but in other areas as well). It's not really a normative position, just reality. 

 

But then 7th grade. It is just one example. There will always be some extraordinarily gifted students who will not be challenged, but the current educational system does not even attempt to challenge the bright ones or to offer any meaningful differentiation.

And it has nothing to do with money, because differentiation would be free, at least for schools that have several classes at the same grade level.

 

Thomas Jefferson talked about one role of public education as identifying and educating gifted students:

 

By this means twenty of the best geniusses will be raked from the rubbish annually, and be instructed, at the public expence, so far as the grammar schools ...   The ultimate result of the whole scheme of education would be the teaching all children of the state reading, writing, and common arithmetic: turning out ten annually of superior genius, well taught in Greek, Latin, geography, and the higher branches of arithmetic: turning out ten others annually, of still superior parts, who, to those branches of learning, shall have added such of the sciences as their genius shall have led them to

 

and he speaks specifically of the role of this for children from poor families:

 

 

 

-By that part of our plan which prescribes the selection of the youths of genius from among the classes of the poor, we hope to avail the state of those talents which nature has sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, but which perish without use, if not sought for and cultivated.

 

Right now, educated and/or wealthy families may find ways around ps, and the kids may turn out OK and reach at least some oftheir potential. Who is really screwed are gifted students from backgrounds where the parents can either not recognize the gift or would be unable to do anything with it. This is where ps completely drops the ball.

[8filltheheart]

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.

I completely disagree that ps need to be in a triage situation.   Ps funding is incredibly high with huge amts of bureaucracy and poorly made decisions on how to use resources.   Get rid of the technology in lower grades, which is a huge expense, place kids in classrooms not based on age, but on actual ability.   Don't make moving from class level to class level an arbitrary Aug-June decision, but let students advance from level to level based on.....gasp.....real achievement.

 

And, fwiw, I am 100% not in agreement that TAG programs mean that the kids are from families of privilege and that parents should have to make a sacrifice for their kids to be educated at their level.    Why should funding be provided for education be restricted from children that perform at higher level than their peers?  

[hepatica]

But then 7th grade. It is just one example. There will always be some extraordinarily gifted students who will not be challenged, but the current educational system does not even attempt to challenge the bright ones or to offer any meaningful differentiation.

And it has nothing to do with money, because differentiation would be free, at least for schools that have several classes at the same grade level.

 

Thomas Jefferson talked about one role of public education as identifying identify the geniuses:

 

Yes, but schools are notoriously bad at identifying genius (sorry TJ). Truly gifted students often end up in special ed. They are square pegs in round holes.

 

I do think the schools differentiate for bright students. There are differentiated reading groups, AP courses, accelerated math, etc…. Our local middle school offers algebra in 7th grade (unfortunately they just park these kids for 8th grade because they don't offer geometry until High School). But, I guess what I am saying is it's all in the middling range. I agree that there are ways to make it better, but these are huge, bureaucratic institutions. I just think parents of gifted kids would be better off doing it themselves than spending time and energy battling a very slow moving machine. I guess I don't really disagree with you. I just think if you want something extraordinary you have to look outside the ordinary.

[wapiti]

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.

 

That's just it - there are gifted kids in underprivileged communities, and maybe more than anyone realizes.  Whether it really ought to cost more to educate gifted kids than average kids is, at the very least, controversial.  At any rate, IMO, the TAG programs are important for the underprivileged kids most of all.

 

For example, I know someone very bright who came from a very underprivileged background.  His immigrant mother only had a second-grade education herself but believed in the value of education and she made him prepare for and take the test for Hunter College High School.  He attended and has gone on to tremendous career success.  Surely the family culture of valuing education played a role.  However, without that gifted high school option, who knows what might have happened - it was a critical stepping stone out of the bad neighborhood, not only to receive an appropriate education but to experience having intellectual peers.

[hepatica]

I completely disagree that ps need to be in a triage situation.   Ps funding is incredibly high with huge amts of bureaucracy and poorly made decisions on how to use resources.   Get rid of the technology in lower grades, which is a huge expense, place kids in classrooms not based on age, but on actual ability.   Don't make moving from class level to class level an arbitrary Aug-June decision, but let students advance from level to level based on.....gasp.....real achievement.

 

And, fwiw, I am 100% not in agreement that TAG programs mean that the kids are from families of privilege and that parents should have to make a sacrifice for their kids to be educated at their level.    Why should funding be provided for education be restricted from children that perform at higher level than their peers?  

 I totally respect your opinion, I guess we just disagree. The huge increase in children with special needs has really taxed the school systems. I just think that in many cases, of course not all, the parents of high performing children are in a better position to take on some of the burden of education themselves. I am just trying to be generous in my judgement of the public schools. I completely agree that they could educate differently, but it is difficult to make changes in large institutions. I don't really see the school districts around us wasting money so much as I see them trying to meet the demands of state testing and court desegregation orders and  serve a large and diverse population. Schools are expected to do so much more than just educate. We are only talking here about the best way to educate. But, as I see it, most school districts don't have the luxury of focusing on academics alone. 

 

So we homeschool….

[regentrude]

I do think the schools differentiate for bright students. There are differentiated reading groups, AP courses, accelerated math, etc…. Our local middle school offers algebra in 7th grade (unfortunately they just park these kids for 8th grade because they don't offer geometry until High School). But, I guess what I am saying is it's all in the middling range.

 

not our district. Prealgebra for advanced the graders is all. Our local high school offers no science AP except for chemistry, and not a single foreign language AP course. And this is a university town.

 

 

 

I agree that there are ways to make it better, but these are huge, bureaucratic institutions. I just think parents of gifted kids would be better off doing it themselves than spending time and energy battling a very slow moving machine. I guess I don't really disagree with you. I just think if you want something extraordinary you have to look outside the ordinary.

 

I do not want anything extraordinary.

I readily agree that even a good school would not have been a fit for my DD who was taking college courses at 13 and tutoring engineering students in calc based physics at the university when she was 15 - that I would not ask of a school.

 

But I ask is that the schools offer what is considered standard in other 1st world countries, for large portions of their students. I would be quite content if schools here could offer (to those capable ) the kind of instruction that is offered to the 50% of students in my home country who get tracked into college prep schools. I do not think this should be too much to ask of a country that considers itself to play a leading role in the world.

[hepatica]

That's just it - there are gifted kids in underprivileged communities, and maybe more than anyone realizes.  Whether it really ought to cost more to educate gifted kids than average kids is, at the very least, controversial.  At any rate, IMO, the TAG programs are important for the underprivileged kids most of all.

 

For example, I know someone very bright who came from a very underprivileged background.  His immigrant mother only had a second-grade education herself but believed in the value of education and she made him prepare for and take the test for Hunter College High School.  He attended and has gone on to tremendous career success.  Surely the family culture of valuing education played a role.  However, without that gifted high school option, who knows what might have happened - it was a critical stepping stone out of the bad neighborhood, not only to receive an appropriate education but to experience having intellectual peers.

 

Completely agree here!! These are the students that are really harmed. But, right now, in NYC for example, these are not really the students that are getting the lion's share of TAG resources. I'd love to see identifying these students be the focus of TAG programs.

[hepatica]

 

 

 

 

But I ask is that the schools offer what is considered standard in other 1st world countries, for large portions of their students. I would be quite content if schools here could offer (to those capable ) the kind of instruction that is offered to the 50% of students in my home country who get tracked into college prep schools. I do not think this should be too much to ask of a country that considers itself to play a leading role in the world.

 

We do offer it here, just not in the public schools and not for half the population. I guess that's a question of social justice. 

[regentrude]

We do offer it here, just not in the public schools and not for half the population. I guess that's a question of social justice. 

 

I would not even call it social justice - "privileged" families do not necessarily have any access to such education either.

Where I live, the closest private school with higher academic standards is 100 miles away. As are the closest ps districts better than ours. And yes, some families take it upon themselves to open a second residence and commute 100 miles between their place of employment and the kids' school. But even for most "privileged" families, this is not a viable option.

 

It is simply a question of poor use of the available resources and low standards. It would not be any more expensive and could easily be made accessible in many underprivileged communities- which makes me doubly angry.

[hepatica]

 

And, fwiw, I am 100% not in agreement that TAG programs mean that the kids are from families of privilege and that parents should have to make a sacrifice for their kids to be educated at their level.    Why should funding be provided for education be restricted from children that perform at higher level than their peers?  

 

Aww, can't I even get 1% :)

 

I think I had a few more qualifiers than your paraphrase. 

[8filltheheart]

Completely agree here!! These are the students that are really harmed. But, right now, in NYC for example, these are not really the students that are getting the lion's share of TAG resources. I'd love to see identifying these students be the focus of TAG programs.

  

We do offer it here, just not in the public schools and not for half the population. I guess that's a question of social justice.

 

What is the purpose of government education. Is the purpose social justice or academics? Is it to only provide appropriate education to those less well off financially?

 

I have lived in a country where education was very split into government education and private education. I don't think you really want to see that bc what it meant is that the government school quality was significantly lower than private school and that lead to serious class division in access to higher ed and employment.

 

If you drive high performing students out of schools and financially stable families out, the quality of ed in ps will go down.

[OneStepAtATime]

I completely disagree that ps need to be in a triage situation.   Ps funding is incredibly high with huge amts of bureaucracy and poorly made decisions on how to use resources.   Get rid of the technology in lower grades, which is a huge expense, place kids in classrooms not based on age, but on actual ability.   Don't make moving from class level to class level an arbitrary Aug-June decision, but let students advance from level to level based on.....gasp.....real achievement.

 

Yes.  I agree with this.  

 

But as the parent of a 2e child, and the parent of another child that is highly intelligent who also has learning issues, I can guarantee that under that structure, without proper training, the gifts would never be acknowledged and tapped.  Teachers have to be trained to recognize the needs of individual children and how to address that within the classroom.  Gifted, 2e, average, and struggling non 2e learners, can all be supported better if the training for teachers and administrators addressed differentiated learning directly.  There are school systems in other countries that are able to do this successfully.  

 

My DD, who is an intelligent dyslexic, was forced to learn reading through whole language recognition.  The school didn't know another way.  The teachers were not trained to try different approaches.  I was told she might not ever read at grade level.  When I pulled her out and started teaching her through an OG based system (something that could definitely be implemented in schools for those who learn reading better with this method) she went from barely reading at a 2nd or 3rd grade level to reading 500 page books at 7th grade level or higher in 8 months.  Where would she be now if the school had had the training to recognize she needed to learn reading with a different method?  And she wasn't the only child.  There were several struggling with reading, which affected their ability to function in many different areas.  Some had to repeat grades and are still struggling.  And the school is wasting resources trying to help them with an ineffective method for their learning style.  These are frequently gifted kids or at least very intelligent children who will end up struggling throughout school, with tons of resources being thrown at them that may or may not be effective.  It is wasteful and does not serve our society as a whole or the individual children.

 

And yes, gifted kids that learn very well by traditional methods taught in school are not being served well in many instances either.  My nephew is very gifted.  By 10th grade he had taken all the coursed he could take and was bored.  He was marking time and miserable.  He ended up going to Community College early, then transferring to a University. (and for a PP, no not all community colleges are made up of former drug addicts).  He is doing great at the University level.  Would it have been nice if the school could have provided a more rigorous academic workload?  Yes.  But with our current structure and mindset there aren't enough resources.  Do I think there could be?  YES!  Absolutely.  

 

I think it is sad that parents that are fighting for a better education for gifted students and parents fighting for a better education for 2e kids and parents fighting for a better education for their kids with learning issues that are not gifted and even parents of average kids are not working towards the same goal.  Wouldn't it be better if we all were working to help all kids meet their educational needs so that they can thrive and go as far as they are capable of going? There are tons of resources out there.  Schools, with proper training and a more global perspective don't have to take away resources from one set of kids to support another set.  And it doesn't have to mean that all kids are stuck on the same path, irregardless of ability.  

[8filltheheart]

Yes. I agree with this.

 

But as the parent of a 2e child, and the parent of another child that is highly intelligent who also has learning issues, I can guarantee that under that structure, without proper training, the gifts would never be acknowledged and tapped. Teachers have to be trained to recognize the needs of individual children and how to address that within the classroom. Gifted, 2e, average, and struggling non 2e learners, can all be supported better if the training for teachers and administrators addressed differentiated learning directly. There are school systems in other countries that are able to do this successfully.

 

My DD, who is an intelligent dyslexic, was forced to learn reading through whole language recognition. The school didn't know another way. The teachers were not trained to try different approaches. I was told she might not ever read at grade level. When I pulled her out and started teaching her through an OG based system (something that could definitely be implemented in schools for those who learn reading better with this method) she went from barely reading at a 2nd or 3rd grade level to reading 500 page books at 7th grade level or higher in 8 months. Where would she be now if the school had had the training to recognize she needed to learn reading with a different method? And she wasn't the only child. There were several struggling with reading, which affected their ability to function in many different areas. Some had to repeat grades and are still struggling. And the school is wasting resources trying to help them with an ineffective method for their learning style. These are frequently gifted kids or at least very intelligent children who will end up struggling throughout school, with tons of resources being thrown at them that may or may not be effective. It is wasteful and does not serve our society as a whole or the individual children.

 

And yes, gifted kids that learn very well by traditional methods taught in school are not being served well in many instances either. My nephew is very gifted. By 10th grade he had taken all the coursed he could take and was bored. He was marking time and miserable. He ended up going to Community College early, then transferring to a University. (and for a PP, no not all community colleges are made up of former drug addicts). He is doing great at the University level. Would it have been nice if the school could have provided a more rigorous academic workload? Yes. But with our current structure and mindset there aren't enough resources. Do I think there could be? YES! Absolutely.

 

I think it is sad that parents that are fighting for a better education for gifted students and parents fighting for a better education for 2e kids and parents fighting for a better education for their kids with learning issues that are not gifted and even parents of average kids are not working towards the same goal. Wouldn't it be better if we all were working to help all kids meet their educational needs so that they can thrive and go as far as they are capable of going? There are tons of resources out there. Schools, with proper training and a more global perspective don't have to take away resources from one set of kids to support another set. And it doesn't have to mean that all kids are stuck on the same path, irregardless of ability.

I'm not sure why you directed this toward me. Goodness, I have 2 dyslexics, one most definitely 2E (though I learned a lot from his older brother, so my oldest is probably 2E as well) and an adult child that is disabled by his Asperger's. I am fully aware of what it takes to educate children that struggle.

 

I agree teachers need better training, but nothing about teaching kids by ability would hamper that. It means that my child that was doing alg by age 10 could take alg while still reading on a very basic level. Move around per subject to teachers that are highly trained in that field.....all reading taught by reading specialists, all math by qualified math teachers.

[OneStepAtATime]

I'm not sure why you directed this toward me. Goodness, I have 2 dyslexics, one most definitely 2E (though I learned a lot from his older brother, so my oldest is probably 2E as well) and an adult child that is disabled by his Asperger's. I am fully aware of what it takes to educate children that struggle.

 

I agree teachers need better training, but nothing about teaching kids by ability would hamper that. It means that my child that was doing alg by age 10 could take alg while still reading on a very basic level. Move around per subject to teachers that are highly trained in that field.....all reading taught by reading specialists, all math by qualified math teachers.

Actually, I was just saying that your idea has great merit.  But without the training it probably would not be very effective.  I love your idea.  Perhaps I was not expressing myself very well.  I was supporting your idea but carrying the idea further.  I apologize if my words felt like some sort of attack.  

[OneStepAtATime]

I agree teachers need better training, but nothing about teaching kids by ability would hamper that. It means that my child that was doing alg by age 10 could take alg while still reading on a very basic level. Move around per subject to teachers that are highly trained in that field.....all reading taught by reading specialists, all math by qualified math teachers.

And really the above is what I really, really feel would be the best way to go.  Differentiated learning facilitated by trained individuals.  You worded it better than I tried to and with a lot less space... :)

[Lanny]

This is a link to an update (30 January 2014) on this story.  The part of this that has me torn, is that in 2012 or 2013, Texas had 88% of their high school students graduating on time, with much tougher requirements. Now, they are lowering the requirements. I wonder what that will do to the on time graduation rate.  I know the legislature ordered the Board of Education to do this, because student, parents and teachers were asking them to do this, but, I do not know whether or not this is the "best" approach.  Texas has been the leader in tightening education standards, and now, they are reducing those standards. That said, it will be much less stressful, for DD to take 5 (?) EOC ("End of Course") examinations, when she is in High School, and not 15 (?) examinations. So, the new law will make it easier for DD. Anything very controversial has 2 sides to it and this issue is no exception. Here's the link:

http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/algebra-II-high-school-state-board-of-education/9x7wWRZYbkaflhWdISGeUw.cspx?rss=2345

 

[OneStepAtATime]

This is a link to an update (30 January 2014) on this story.  The part of this that has me torn, is that in 2012 or 2013, Texas had 88% of their high school students graduating on time, with much tougher requirements. Now, they are lowering the requirements. I wonder what that will do to the on time graduation rate.  I know the legislature ordered the Board of Education to do this, because student, parents and teachers were asking them to do this, but, I do not know whether or not this is the "best" approach.  Texas has been the leader in tightening education standards, and now, they are reducing those standards. That said, it will be much less stressful, for DD to take 5 (?) EOC ("End of Course") examinations, when she is in High School, and not 15 (?) examinations. So, the new law will make it easier for DD. Anything very controversial has 2 sides to it and this issue is no exception. Here's the link:

http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/algebra-II-high-school-state-board-of-education/9x7wWRZYbkaflhWdISGeUw.cspx?rss=2345

After other people were posting that some school districts are encouraging students to drop out early so they don't mess up test scores and federal funding based on those test scores, I read a couple of articles stating that some school districts "misfile" students under having transferred out of district instead of them showing up as not graduating on time or not passing standardized tests with higher scores.  That had me concerned that the increased graduation statistics in Texas might not be accurate.

 

But I agree that lowering the standards in general is not how this should be dealt with.  As has been discussed, though, maybe a more individually structured learning environment, starting at the elementary level, with highly trained teachers who are knowledgeable in the subjects they teach would make passing higher level courses to graduate high school a non-issue and people wouldn't feel obligated to lower the standards.

[MarkT]

 

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.

 

Yes and luckily in AZ we have school choice and my son is now going to a charter for 7th and 8th grade. His 6th grade math in the regular PS was unchallenging and they spent most of the year drilling for the state test at the end of the year.  The charter does some of that too because that is how they grade the schools in AZ.

 

I hate "teaching to the test". Please educate my child.

 

[shawthorne44]

I am a bit on the fence about this. 

 

On one hand I think Math is a common way that people internalize logic. 

Also, I used to work in a tiny but international industry (and I travelled), among the superior engineers that I worked with the Scots were a weirdly large percentage.  Once, while talking to many of them I told them that and I asked if they knew the reason.  They thought and discussed a bit and came up with that they'd all had a rigorous math education when they were young. (They might have gone to schools superior then the norm for the area)  Even the engineers in this industry didn't truly need math.  I remember being tickled pink when I found a use for the Quadratic equation.  I even told my co-workers.  But I still think that the problem-solving skills have been essential to me. 

 

On the other hand, I don't even remember if I took Algebra 2.  I had been on the average track, and I didn't like any of the electives.  So I took both Geometry and Algebra the same year, which put me on the smart track.  But, I don't remember any math before that.  It was just "The Next" math.  Switching tracks, I remember being shocked that kids actually did their homework, and I buckled down. 

 

I guess if they brought back tracking, I would be OK with getting rid of the Algebra requirement. But, I suspect it will just mean more people in remedial math classes in college. 

 

[creekland]

I'm still on the side saying Alg 2 should not be a requirement of all high school grads.  In the ps where I work, the lower level kids simply do not have the capacity to understand the abstract concepts in it.  Most struggle with Alg 1 and often need more time to pass it.  Since they "have" to pass it (and Geom, and Alg 2), the classes get dumbed down and those who really could use a more in depth version (STEM or otherwise) get short changed as we do not have Honors options for any of those classes (that belief that all classes with the same title ought to have the same content).  One really does get the senior taking the class for the second time and needing to get the credit to pass and the 10th grade aspiring engineer in the same class.  The senior needs to pass...so the course is designed accordingly.

 

And for whoever mentioned math classes not interfering with other more appropriate classes?  That senior probably needed twice as long to pass Alg 1 and potentially Geom too.  Those time slots could have been spent in wood shop, small engines, languages, extra history courses, music, or pretty much anything else attractive to them - even a consumer math course (which would likely be FAR more useful).  How does it help them to sit through abstract math classes so much?  How does it help their peers?

 

Whether the class should be required of all college students should be left up to the college being considered.  I expect most will keep it, but for some majors/specialties, I could understand if they made exceptions.

 

What I'd really like to see is something similar to my high school growing up.  Kids were tracked from 3rd grade on in math, 4th grade on in reading, and 5th grade on in science.  NY (at that time) offered two degrees - Regents and non-Regents.  Regents were for college bound kids and had year end tests in pretty much all major classes from math to French.  Scores were on the transcript for all colleges to see and compare.  Non-regents provided a high school diploma for future employers who didn't need college bound levels of academics.

 

Now, NY has eliminated the non-Regents option, dumbed down the Regents tests and made things worse for both types of students.  Kids with learning disabilities like my nephew can't get any sort of high school diploma, but many employers require one.  He's become a decent diesel mechanic, but many jobs are closed to him without that high school diploma.  It's not right, but it's true.  On the other side, kids who are heading to college aren't as prepared as they used to be because the classes have been dumbed down.  It's sad.

 

IMO, one should never have a square (or round) hole that ALL students have to squeeze through.  Different paths for different kids with the desire of getting them all to be successful in their niche benefits all of us.

 

Kudos to TX if they indeed follow through!  (AND YES, mandate that higher level math classes still be offered if that is a concern.)

[stripe]

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).

I have read Regentrude's critique of American schools on several different threads in the past and I tend to strongly agree with her.

 

I have yet to meet many high school graduates -- and I *definitely* include myself here -- who, on the basis of what they learned in high school language courses, could actually have a brief exchange with anyone in their language of study. I was taught other languages from elementary school. Even as a small child, I felt what I was being taught was woefully lacking. I was given long lists of nouns (body parts, fruits, etc) in Spanish and I remember asking my mother why we never learned any verbs!

 

Contrast this with high school students from other parts of the world who can speak pretty good English with very slight accents. I see them interviewed by journalists all the time.

 

I think mathematical "fluency" mimics linguistic fluency in many cases: it sounds vaguely familiar, and there is a sense that you heard about this once before, but you are incapable of bringing anything relevant to mind. Look at your local college or university's professors and students. See how many of them are from other countries. Sure, it's great that so many people have come here from around the world. But, where are the American kids? Very, very absent.

[creekland]

I have read Regentrude's critique of American schools on several different threads in the past and I tend to strongly agree with her.

 

I have yet to meet many high school graduates -- and I *definitely* include myself here -- who, on the basis of what they learned in high school language courses, could actually have a brief exchange with anyone in their language of study. I was taught other languages from elementary school. Even as a small child, I felt what I was being taught was woefully lacking. I was given long lists of nouns (body parts, fruits, etc) in Spanish and I remember asking my mother why we never learned any verbs!

 

Contrast this with high school students from other parts of the world who can speak pretty good English with very slight accents. I see them interviewed by journalists all the time.

 

I think mathematical "fluency" mimics linguistic fluency in many cases: it sounds vaguely familiar, and there is a sense that you heard about this once before, but you are incapable of bringing anything relevant to mind. Look at your local college or university's professors and students. See how many of them are from other countries. Sure, it's great that so many people have come here from around the world. But, where are the American kids? Very, very absent.

 

I think this will again depend upon the school.

 

Where I went we all started French (or Latin) in 7th grade.  By 10th grade I was able to compete in Impromptu Speaking at a state competition in FL and finished 4th (the private school I went to that year had us doing competitions - the public school I went to for the rest of my schooling did not).  We also read a version of Les Miserables - in French.  I remember learning a LOT of archaic words, but granted, probably don't remember many now.  Having lived away from anywhere that I can actually use French for 30 years or so has greatly reduced my spoken/hearing ability, but reading isn't too bad - still not as good, but not too bad.

 

Where I work, languages start in 9th grade and only for those who choose to take them.  Even seniors in French/Spanish 4 have a very limited ability in the language.  Few even do 4 years worth.

 

I'd like to see languages start in elementary school... kids tend to learn languages far more easily.

 

But until there's a demand to actually use the languages in the US, it's going to be tough for anyone to keep their ability up even if they learn some.

 

[Library Momma]

I grew up in a bubble thinking that all school experiences were like mine.  Where I grew up and where my kids go to school today (different town) things are so different than what I read on these boards.  We are a basic school system in the state - quite far from being the wealthiest or most elite, but the schools offer so many opportunities.  Differentiation starts in Kindergaten with separate reading groups and separate work for students on different math levels.  there are also numerous enrichment programs offered for advanced students and students that need assistance or have IEPs are mainstreamed as appropriate and have a variety of services available.  

Actual class differentiation begins in 6th grade and the students are essentially "tracked"  A students can be in advanced math but remedial English at the same time.  The actual "Gifted program" begins then (no longer called enrichment) but it is only a few of the top students per grade.  There are a few 2E kids included if they qualify.

 

By the time students get to High School there are quite a few avenues not just high and low.  At this point many make the decicion to attend one of the many vocational schools the state offers.  There are also magnet schools but few suburban kids attend as the education level does not match the average suburban  ps.  They are basically comprised of urban students looking to escape their local urban ps.  The exception are the performing arts schools which draw from a variety of towns and people seem to be less concerned about a rigorous education.  Students who are struggling at the PS often go the vocational route even if they do not have a career choice.  The academics are less rigorous and I don't see having high level math requirements necessary here.  Many graduate ready to move on to an apprenticeship or career and are not looking at college.

 

Back in the PS by 9th grade students are staring to decide which AP tests they will take early and which they will defer for Junior or Senior year. By Senior year the top track is taking Calculus because they know that is what the selective colleges require. For this class they receive credit for from the local state college which many (but not all )will be accepted by the college of their choice.  Most students do go on to college and there is a very small drop out rate.  Algebra here is usually 8th grade with advanced kids starting it in 6th or 7th.  4 years later by Senior year most have at least reached Trig or Pre-Calc.  The few students in the remedial classes by Senior year are usually also students getting assistance and accommodations.

 

Yes there is a priority placed on academics in the community and it can get quite competitive, but I think it is a better attitude than having no regard for education at all.  I know this experience isn't limited to my community or state.  Why do we always have to look to other countries to model what we want when it does exist in our own country?  Also, why tell students what level they need to achieve in school when they may be better served going a vocational or alternative route?

[OneStepAtATime]

I have read Regentrude's critique of American schools on several different threads in the past and I tend to strongly agree with her.

 

I have yet to meet many high school graduates -- and I *definitely* include myself here -- who, on the basis of what they learned in high school language courses, could actually have a brief exchange with anyone in their language of study. I was taught other languages from elementary school. Even as a small child, I felt what I was being taught was woefully lacking. I was given long lists of nouns (body parts, fruits, etc) in Spanish and I remember asking my mother why we never learned any verbs!

 

Contrast this with high school students from other parts of the world who can speak pretty good English with very slight accents. I see them interviewed by journalists all the time.

 

I think mathematical "fluency" mimics linguistic fluency in many cases: it sounds vaguely familiar, and there is a sense that you heard about this once before, but you are incapable of bringing anything relevant to mind. Look at your local college or university's professors and students. See how many of them are from other countries. Sure, it's great that so many people have come here from around the world. But, where are the American kids? Very, very absent.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  

 

The language thing, the way it is usually handled in the U.S., really seems like such a waste to me.  The school I went to in high school required only 2 years of a foreign language to graduate, but that doesn't really help AT ALL.  I have friends from other countries that had started in elementary and were fluent in English, and frequently a third language besides their native tongue by the time they were in high school.  My friend from Japan was speaking Japanese, English and French when she hit high school, and was studying Spanish during her high school years, while continuing study privately in the other languages.  My DD had a friend in kindergarten that was speaking English and French really well at 6 and was going to start learning a third language the next year.  

 

When DD was in 3rd- 5th grade, they DID require Spanish, but it was all rote memorization of nouns and verbs, out of context, no conversations, few sentences.  It really was not helpful.  I guess because our country is so huge, and we are not bordered on all sides by lots of different languages it just hasn't been a priority, but I would LOVE for this to be something kids are taught to mastery level.

[OneStepAtATime]

I grew up in a bubble thinking that all school experiences were like mine.  Where I grew up and where my kids go to school today (different town) things are so different than what I read on these boards.  We are a basic school system in the state - quite far from being the wealthiest or most elite, but the schools offer so many opportunities.  Differentiation starts in Kindergaten with separate reading groups and separate work for students on different math levels.  there are also numerous enrichment programs offered for advanced students and students that need assistance or have IEPs are mainstreamed as appropriate and have a variety of services available.  

Actual class differentiation begins in 6th grade and the students are essentially "tracked"  A students can be in advanced math but remedial English at the same time.  The actual "Gifted program" begins then (no longer called enrichment) but it is only a few of the top students per grade.  There are a few 2E kids included if they qualify.

 

By the time students get to High School there are quite a few avenues not just high and low.  At this point many make the decicion to attend one of the many vocational schools the state offers.  There are also magnet schools but few suburban kids attend as the education level does not match the average suburban  ps.  They are basically comprised of urban students looking to escape their local urban ps.  The exception are the performing arts schools which draw from a variety of towns and people seem to be less concerned about a rigorous education.  Students who are struggling at the PS often go the vocational route even if they do not have a career choice.  The academics are less rigorous and I don't see having high level math requirements necessary here.  Many graduate ready to move on to an apprenticeship or career and are not looking at college.

 

Back in the PS by 9th grade students are staring to decide which AP tests they will take early and which they will defer for Junior or Senior year. By Senior year the top track is taking Calculus because they know that is what the selective colleges require. For this class they receive credit for from the local state college which many (but not all )will be accepted by the college of their choice.  Most students do go on to college and there is a very small drop out rate.  Algebra here is usually 8th grade with advanced kids starting it in 6th or 7th.  4 years later by Senior year most have at least reached Trig or Pre-Calc.  The few students in the remedial classes by Senior year are usually also students getting assistance and accommodations.

 

Yes there is a priority placed on academics in the community and it can get quite competitive, but I think it is a better attitude than having no regard for education at all.  I know this experience isn't limited to my community or state.  Why do we always have to look to other countries to model what we want when it does exist in our own country?  Also, why tell students what level they need to achieve in school when they may be better served going a vocational or alternative route?

wow, where do you live?  Because you are right, it sounds like your experience is very different from a lot who post on TWTM (including me).  It is nice to see the scaffolding and support being provided in an individual fashion from kinder on.  I think a TON of ps kids would actually make it all the way to Algebra II or higher if they were given that kind of scaffolding and individualized instruction from early elementary onward...whether it is actually a needed math for all students or not.

[stripe]

I think this will again depend upon the school.

With all due respect, I attended what was considered a top public high school, at least in the state, where I studied another language for four years, and still couldn't talk in it. And I learned Latin in 6th and 7th grade too. ;)  I have seen local private schools where the kids are learning their parents' native language, and are still woefully incapable of speaking it. 

 

Contrast this with a former teacher of mine who moved to a certain European country, whose kids studied five languages or something in high school. Obviously they had an advantage in English, but still. I have had long chats in English with flight attendants on international flights, including, for example, a Mexican woman who'd moved to the Netherlands and was working for KLM. Yes, I have definitely met people whose English stinks or whose style is culturally bizarre, including tons of people while visiting my in-laws out of the country, but the fact remains, when I went to Paris, a girl I was with was yelled at and given a long speech about the nature of charity by the homeless guy she tried to give her extra metro tokens to on our last day there. Such things are a rarity in the US, where speaking another language is often considered culturally offensive.

[Library Momma]

wow, where do you live?  Because you are right, it sounds like your experience is very different from a lot who post on TWTM (including me).  It is nice to see the scaffolding and support being provided in an individual fashion from kinder on.  I think a TON of ps kids would actually make it all the way to Algebra II or higher if they were given that kind of scaffolding and individualized instruction from early elementary onward...whether it is actually a needed math for all students or not.

 

 

Connecticut

[OneStepAtATime]

Connecticut

...and it is really pretty there, too!  Now I have state envy.  :)

[creekland]

 

Yes there is a priority placed on academics in the community and it can get quite competitive, but I think it is a better attitude than having no regard for education at all.  I know this experience isn't limited to my community or state.  Why do we always have to look to other countries to model what we want when it does exist in our own country?  Also, why tell students what level they need to achieve in school when they may be better served going a vocational or alternative route?

 

I'm with you... and the area I'm in frustrates me as far as our public school is concerned (love it otherwise).  When I started working in the public school and saw the difference from what I grew up with I was stunned.  I asked questions and offered suggestions, but in general, it's the mindset that is completely different.

 

We do not have vo-tech schools.  We no longer offer AP (did when I started, but very few kids ever did well - meaning >2 - on the tests).  I was informed that "we do not have kids with the same capability as other areas," and "the few kids who are academically talented will do well no matter what they do in high school."  Quite frankly, that's bull!  There are equally academically talented kids here and they are getting shortchanged by not being challenged up to their potential.  Sure, they are getting 4.0+ GPAs, but the content of what they have learned is nowhere near what it could be.  One of these students flat out told me she had to self-teach EVERYTHING on the SAT II Math test as she felt she hadn't gotten any of the material in our classes.  She was dedicated enough to do that - and knew she should do it.  What about all the students/parents who just assume that if they are getting As all is well?

 

When I suggested offering Honors Level math classes I was flat out told there's no reason to do so.  Algebra is Algebra.  There is no way - or need - to have honors classes in it.

 

The teachers/admin have almost always grown up in this area, gone to college at local teacher colleges (state schools), and then return.  They have never SEEN what else can happen - therefore, it can't (at least, not here).

 

For two years before this year we had a College Counselor sponsored by a Teach for America type of deal (different group, but I never remember the name).  He was also stunned when he saw what was going on and tried to make some changes.  (We talked a lot as the two of us related well.)  He took the top kids and showed them many stats trying to get them to see what could be done.  He tried SAT prep classes - but it ended up being a remedial math class.  He was making a little bit of progress, but then the school district had to hire him themselves.  They couldn't fit his salary into the budget and appealed to the community.  They still didn't raise enough.  He's had to move on.  We're still stuck.

 

The only thing helping our school are the new Keystone tests.  Teaching to the test is normally bad, but in this case, it's moving our content more in depth - covering some things that simply need to be covered.  The transition is not going to be easy, but I'm hopeful it will be better.  Everyone in our school looks at those tests and talks about how HARD they are.  I've looked them over and feel the tests are a really good test of baseline knowledge - they should be easy for anyone knowing what they are doing.

 

[8filltheheart]

I grew up in a bubble thinking that all school experiences were like mine. Where I grew up and where my kids go to school today (different town) things are so different than what I read on these boards. We are a basic school system in the state - quite far from being the wealthiest or most elite, but the schools offer so many opportunities. Differentiation starts in Kindergaten with separate reading groups and separate work for students on different math levels. there are also numerous enrichment programs offered for advanced students and students that need assistance or have IEPs are mainstreamed as appropriate and have a variety of services available.

Actual class differentiation begins in 6th grade and the students are essentially "tracked" A students can be in advanced math but remedial English at the same time. The actual "Gifted program" begins then (no longer called enrichment) but it is only a few of the top students per grade. There are a few 2E kids included if they qualify.

 

By the time students get to High School there are quite a few avenues not just high and low. At this point many make the decicion to attend one of the many vocational schools the state offers. There are also magnet schools but few suburban kids attend as the education level does not match the average suburban ps. They are basically comprised of urban students looking to escape their local urban ps. The exception are the performing arts schools which draw from a variety of towns and people seem to be less concerned about a rigorous education. Students who are struggling at the PS often go the vocational route even if they do not have a career choice. The academics are less rigorous and I don't see having high level math requirements necessary here. Many graduate ready to move on to an apprenticeship or career and are not looking at college.

 

Back in the PS by 9th grade students are staring to decide which AP tests they will take early and which they will defer for Junior or Senior year. By Senior year the top track is taking Calculus because they know that is what the selective colleges require. For this class they receive credit for from the local state college which many (but not all )will be accepted by the college of their choice. Most students do go on to college and there is a very small drop out rate. Algebra here is usually 8th grade with advanced kids starting it in 6th or 7th. 4 years later by Senior year most have at least reached Trig or Pre-Calc. The few students in the remedial classes by Senior year are usually also students getting assistance and accommodations.

 

Yes there is a priority placed on academics in the community and it can get quite competitive, but I think it is a better attitude than having no regard for education at all. I know this experience isn't limited to my community or state. Why do we always have to look to other countries to model what we want when it does exist in our own country? Also, why tell students what level they need to achieve in school when they may be better served going a vocational or alternative route?

My view of ps these days is as an outsider looking in (thank goodness) but your description sounds exactly what ps was like when I went to ps back in the early 80s. There were very distinct tracks in existence. You has the vocational track, general ed track, the college prep track, and the AP track. Most kids in the bottom 2 took some variation of the 2. Most kids in the the upper 2 were consistently in one or the other, but some kids might be AP in one subject and mostly college prep courses or vice versa.

 

I think my ps education was really good. But what goes on today in the state where I went to ps is absolutely nothing the same. My niece and sil are/were both teachers there (sil quit), and it is most definitely what is described on this forum.

 

Re the bold......there are still students where that is not really appropriate. Some school systems do seem aware that there are kids that need more, but they seem more the rarity than the norm even though posters like SpyCar make it seem like those types of opportunities are universal.

 

Nothing convinces me that ps is a good place for non-completely avg across the board kids. Kids that don't match the arbitrary middle are not going to be well served under the current system. A couple of my kids would probably be fine in ps. The rest, definitely not.

[creekland]

With all due respect, I attended what was considered a top public high school, at least in the state, where I studied another language for four years, and still couldn't talk in it. And I learned Latin in 6th and 7th grade too. ;)  I have seen local private schools where the kids are learning their parents' native language, and are still woefully incapable of speaking it. 

 

Contrast this with a former teacher of mine who moved to a certain European country, whose kids studied five languages or something in high school. Obviously they had an advantage in English, but still. I have had long chats in English with flight attendants on international flights, including, for example, a Mexican woman who'd moved to the Netherlands and was working for KLM. Yes, I have definitely met people whose English stinks or whose style is culturally bizarre, including tons of people while visiting my in-laws out of the country, but the fact remains, when I went to Paris, a girl I was with was yelled at and given a long speech about the nature of charity by the homeless guy she tried to give her extra metro tokens to on our last day there. Such things are a rarity in the US, where speaking another language is often considered culturally offensive.

 

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you... I was just pointing out that it can happen.  I do believe it's rare.  We do have some schools in the area starting Spanish earlier.  Time will tell what happens.

 

Oh, and the school I grew up in had an advantage with French.  We were on the Canadian border - not quite the French Canadian border, but close.

 

No matter how much one learns in a language, if one can't use it, it's tough to keep any skills up.

[Butter]

wow, where do you live?  Because you are right, it sounds like your experience is very different from a lot who post on TWTM (including me).  It is nice to see the scaffolding and support being provided in an individual fashion from kinder on.  I think a TON of ps kids would actually make it all the way to Algebra II or higher if they were given that kind of scaffolding and individualized instruction from early elementary onward...whether it is actually a needed math for all students or not.

 

Her experience with their local school district sounds pretty much spot on with ours.  We are in Texas.  We are also in a district with several high schools on the top high schools in America list.  Our district routinely gets awards from the AP people (based on number of kids taking AP classes vs. the whole size of the district AND the number of those kids who take the test at the end of the class - which here is 100% because if you take an AP class you must take the AP exam - AND the number who get a 3, 4, or 5).  We have several classes taken in the high schools junior and senior years that earn high school credit AND college credit (free) at the same time.  We joke that our district doesn't really exist because the complaints you hear about public schools just aren't really happening here.  I've been so pleasantly pleased (we only pulled my little two back out because I'm really a homeschooler at heart and they asked to come back home and there were good reasons for it).  My kids routinely do *lapbooking* in school - including high school - for goodness sake!  The elementary principal says that the elementary school has to be challenging because middle school will be challenging and middle school has to be challenging because these kids will be going on to a high school that is one of the best in the nation and super hard (you need as many AP classes as possible and all A's to be in the top 10% of the class - many kids enter college with enough credits to be sophomores thanks to dual credit and AP classes).  The elementary principal told me that they get kids from other states - all over - and it takes a good year to get them caught up.  In elementary school!  She felt the only reason my second grader was ahead, not behind, was because we homeschooled in MD.  Maryland is one of the states at least a year behind.

 

So I can tell you that education is not being dumbed down here in this part of Texas (San Antonio, and, granted, it is one of the wealthiest ISDs in San Antonio - though a lot of our school taxes gets "shared" due to the Robin Hood law with the poorer districts - but it is very true that relative wealth does change things - I see that within our own district since my daughter is in a magnet at one of the poorer by comparison schools).  Dropping the Algebra II STAAR won't change that most kids will still take it here on their way to the highest teir diploma (many kids take Calculus as dual credit, actually).  But it will make it so that struggling junior in my daughter's Algebra I class will be able to get a high school diploma and won't be caught by not being able to take Algebra II and so not able to take that end of course STAAR.

 

As for foreign language, the highest diploma requires three years of the same foreign language.  I doubt my daughter will be fluent in French by the end of those three years.  Classroom foreign language 45 minutes a day just doesn't quite work in my experience (for most people - there are some just plain gifted at learning languages - I am not one of them).  She will likely be able to carry on a rudimentary conversation with someone who speaks French, particularly when you add in hand motions.  My oldest son will be taking Spanish starting next year in 7th grade.  He's opting for the "go slow" version where you take half of the 9th grade version in 7th and half in 8th (the middle schools also offer identical to the 9th grade version in 8th grade).  This will earn him 1 credit of high school foreign language by the time he is done with middle school.  Go slow getting into foreign language is perfect for him (I'm honestly surprised he really wanted to sign up for it) because he has a language-based learning disability.  My brother took 4 years of high school German (in Maryland), then a couple years of college German which he says was nothing like his high school German.  Then he spent two years in Germany and said that German was nothing like either high school or college German!  Of course he is fluent after living there.  His younger two daughters are in a German immersion program (in Alaska) and the older one - 3rd grader - is fluent and he says she could easily go to Germany and talk with people no problem.

[8filltheheart]

The elementary principal says that the elementary school has to be challenging because middle school will be challenging and middle school has to be challenging because these kids will be going on to a high school that is one of the best in the nation and super hard (you need as many AP classes as possible and all A's to be in the top 10% of the class - many kids enter college with enough credits to be sophomores thanks to dual credit and AP classes).

This just makes me even ire to be a homeschooler. :) It does not take a super challenging elementary and middle school to be ready for "super hard" high school work. It simply takes solid education.

 

Okie dokie then.......I will never be one that wants a ps education for my kids. Not good enough or to too much. LOL!!

[Clear Creek]

This is a link to an update (30 January 2014) on this story.  The part of this that has me torn, is that in 2012 or 2013, Texas had 88% of their high school students graduating on time, with much tougher requirements. Now, they are lowering the requirements. I wonder what that will do to the on time graduation rate.  I know the legislature ordered the Board of Education to do this, because student, parents and teachers were asking them to do this, but, I do not know whether or not this is the "best" approach.  Texas has been the leader in tightening education standards, and now, they are reducing those standards. That said, it will be much less stressful, for DD to take 5 (?) EOC ("End of Course") examinations, when she is in High School, and not 15 (?) examinations. So, the new law will make it easier for DD. Anything very controversial has 2 sides to it and this issue is no exception. Here's the link:

http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/algebra-II-high-school-state-board-of-education/9x7wWRZYbkaflhWdISGeUw.cspx?rss=2345

 

The graduation rates in Texas are a farce.  I don't know how other states work, but here in Texas students must complete the required number of credits in high school as well as pass the TAKS test.  Students who complete the credits but cannot pass the TAKS test do not get a diploma; they just get a certificate of completion.  The kicker is, they are included in the graduation rate - even though they do not have a high school diploma!  So that 88% is the percentage of students who completed 12th grade - *not* the percentage of students who earned a high school diploma.

[Butter]

This just makes me even ire to be a homeschooler. :) It does not take a super challenging elementary and middle school to be ready for "super hard" high school work. It simply takes solid education.

 

Okie dokie then.......I will never be one that wants a ps education for my kids. Not good enough or to too much. LOL!!

 

Ummm... That's *exactly* what she means... Challenging in most people's heads = Solid Education, particularly since so many public schools really have dumbed down over the years.  My experience with the public schools here is that they teach basics and teach them extremely well.  The three R's takes up most of the elementary day.  There isn't much "fluff and feathers" as my mom used to say.  It is solid and rigorous and quite a bit is differentiated to each child's abilities (the amount of work that takes for the teachers - who have 18-24 students - is incredible).  My experience with the public schools in MD where I grew up and we used to live is *so much* time is taken by extras (not specials - they actually have more time in those here - but stuff that simply is not useful and takes away from the 3Rs).  The education there is not challenging at all (read: solid).  My daughter's biology class in 9th grade here is equal to some of my classes in *nursing school* in college.  That's incredible to me.  What's even more incredible is they expect a lot here and actually teach to the top 1/3 of the class and the kids rise to it and do very well in attaining success.  Where we used to live, they taught to the lower middle kids and that's where everyone ended up (with the exception of the unusual few kids who will do well no matter what).

[wapiti]

I'm still on the side saying Alg 2 should not be a requirement of all high school grads.  In the ps where I work, the lower level kids simply do not have the capacity to understand the abstract concepts in it.  Most struggle with Alg 1 and often need more time to pass it.  Since they "have" to pass it (and Geom, and Alg 2), the classes get dumbed down and those who really could use a more in depth version (STEM or otherwise) get short changed as we do not have Honors options for any of those classes (that belief that all classes with the same title ought to have the same content).  One really does get the senior taking the class for the second time and needing to get the credit to pass and the 10th grade aspiring engineer in the same class.  The senior needs to pass...so the course is designed accordingly.

 

Outside of LDs, struggling to pass Alg 1 would point directly toward the pathetic quality of the math instruction - both secondary and elementary, but especially elementary - rather than the students' capacity to understand.

 

I think a TON of ps kids would actually make it all the way to Algebra II or higher if they were given that kind of scaffolding and individualized instruction from early elementary onward...whether it is actually a needed math for all students or not.

 

This.  It's frustrating to read about the differences among schools.

 

While I have no clue what programs are in use in the districts described in this thread, nonetheless I am inclined to lay a lot of the blame at the feet of fuzzy math and teachers who aren't sufficiently educated to work around the deficiencies in whatever programs they're using.

[Butter]

The graduation rates in Texas are a farce.  I don't know how other states work, but here in Texas students must complete the required number of credits in high school as well as pass the TAKS test.  Students who complete the credits but cannot pass the TAKS test do not get a diploma; they just get a certificate of completion.  The kicker is, they are included in the graduation rate - even though they do not have a high school diploma!  So that 88% is the percentage of students who completed 12th grade - *not* the percentage of students who earned a high school diploma.

 

And that is *precisely* why I am all for reducing the number of end of course exams (they have changed them from being called TAKS to STAAR) including the Algebra II exam.  More kids will get an acutal high school diploma rather than a certificate at the end of their 13 years of public education.  Some of the kids who only get a certificate actually passed the classes they had to, but failed the TAKS tests (seniors are still on the TAKS at this point I think since STAAR is being phased in), and then others never passed enough of the pre-reqs to get to required classes with end of course TAKS.  Technically, those getting a certificate *are* graduating as they have finished through 12th grade.  They just don't get the full diploma (there are at least two - one with 26 credits required and one with 22 credits required) all because of standardized testing.  Many of those who got the certificate could have gotten at least the minimum 22 credit diploma without the test requirements.

[regentrude]

  My daughter's biology class in 9th grade here is equal to some of my classes in *nursing school* in college.

 

Which can be interpreted as the college class being dumbed down to really just 9th grade material (as opposed to teaching advanced college level material in 9th grade)

 

The algebra based college physics class I teach would be regular level high school in my home country (mandatory for every college bound student, not a special class for advanced students or students with STEM focus) and is the perfect level for my own 9th graders.

This says more about the low college expectations (which are, of course, based on the low average level of the students' high school experience).

[MarkT]

 

Now, NY has eliminated the non-Regents option, dumbed down the Regents tests and made things worse for both types of students.  Kids with learning disabilities like my nephew can't get any sort of high school diploma, but many employers require one.  He's become a decent diesel mechanic, but many jobs are closed to him without that high school diploma.  It's not right, but it's true.  On the other side, kids who are heading to college aren't as prepared as they used to be because the classes have been dumbed down.  It's sad.

 

IMO, one should never have a square (or round) hole that ALL students have to squeeze through.  Different paths for different kids with the desire of getting them all to be successful in their niche benefits all of us.

 

Kudos to TX if they indeed follow through!  (AND YES, mandate that higher level math classes still be offered if that is a concern.)

 

Totally agree most of the people visiting WTM have above average children (is this Lake Wobegon) and use that perspective. I grew up in NYS when it had a superior education system. The "let's make the US mediocre" folks moved in and starting dumbing down stuff.  The regent exams are not totally broken now because they mostly grade the better students like the old days but use some kind of bonus point system for those who would have failed miserably in the past and now can squeak by.  In the old days, those students ended up going to the BOCES (voc-tech) and getting the non-regents diploma.  They learned a trade and were employable.  Today they would waste their money studying some 2nd rate major at a 3rd rate college because they were patted on the back along the way to feel good about themselves. 

 

 

[Clear Creek]

And that is *precisely* why I am all for reducing the number of end of course exams (they have changed them from being called TAKS to STAAR) including the Algebra II exam.  More kids will get an acutal high school diploma rather than a certificate at the end of their 13 years of public education.  Some of the kids who only get a certificate actually passed the classes they had to, but failed the TAKS tests (seniors are still on the TAKS at this point I think since STAAR is being phased in), and then others never passed enough of the pre-reqs to get to required classes with end of course TAKS.  Technically, those getting a certificate *are* graduating as they have finished through 12th grade.  They just don't get the full diploma (there are at least two - one with 26 credits required and one with 22 credits required) all because of standardized testing.  Many of those who got the certificate could have gotten at least the minimum 22 credit diploma without the test requirements.

 

Obviously I agree with you about reducing the number of end of course exams, or at least making them correlate a little more closely with what is being taught - every one of the young adults I know who received a certificate of completion (but not a diploma) passed all their classes. A certificate of completion will not get you into college, though, which is why I view it differently, and don't think it should be included in graduation rates.  People assume that a student that has graduated high school has a diploma.  Like I said, I don't know how other states do it - Texas gives their completion rate as their graduation rate, and since a number of those students do not have a diploma, I don't know how it is fair to compare it with other states, unless they do the same thing.

[OneStepAtATime]

Outside of LDs, struggling to pass Alg 1 would point directly toward the pathetic quality of the math instruction - both secondary and elementary, but especially elementary - rather than the students' capacity to understand.

 

 

This.  It's frustrating to read about the differences among schools.

 

While I have no clue what programs are in use in the districts described in this thread, nonetheless I am inclined to lay a lot of the blame at the feet of fuzzy math and teachers who aren't sufficiently educated to work around the deficiencies in whatever programs they're using.

Yes to this, in spades.

 

I really liked a lot of the teachers my kids had in elementary.  There were two that were truly abysmal.  The 3rd-5th grade math teacher was one of them.  She seemed to grasp math quite well.  But she was completely incompetent at teaching it.  In fact, one of the parents (PhD) whose children were in this woman's class and had always been strong in math, really believed that she was rapidly helping all of the students UNLEARN everything they had already learned.   Literally, the 4th week she started, there was a line out the door of the school of parents upset at the confusion and frustration and complete lack of understanding the kids were demonstrating with their homework.  Test scores and standardized test scores dropped quite a bit that year.  Over half the 3rd grade class and a significant number of the 4th graders and some of the 5th graders started going to private tutoring because parents were so fearful that their kids would not be prepared for middle school math.  Prior to the year she started, our school was considered quite rigorous in math and many kids were testing out of 6th grade math when they went on to middle school.  All of that changed when she stepped in.  Yet the school refused to either give her some training or let her go.

 

Teachers are the life-blood of a school.  They need to really know the material well, but they also really need to know how to facilitate learning.  And many don't.  

[MarkT]

The algebra based college physics class I teach would be regular level high school in my home country (mandatory for every college bound student, not a special class for advanced students or students with STEM focus) and is the perfect level for my own 9th graders.

 

 

Does your college also offer Calculus based Physics for the STEM majors?  We called the algebra based class "Physics for Poets".

 

[regentrude]

Does your college also offer Calculus based Physics for the STEM majors?  We called the algebra based class "Physics for Poets".

 

Of course it does - we're an engineering school. 1200 students take the calc based sequence each year, vs 50 who take the algebra based one which is designed for the life science majors. But still, elsewhere this would be a mandatory high school course.

[creekland]

Outside of LDs, struggling to pass Alg 1 would point directly toward the pathetic quality of the math instruction - both secondary and elementary, but especially elementary - rather than the students' capacity to understand.

There may be math disabilities involved, but among low level kids - those not headed to college at all - a failure to grasp abstract math is super common.

 

Then add in the part about missing math from the earlier grades and being passed along anyway. That affects both those who can't grasp abstract math and those who could if the foundation were there.

 

It's frustrating to read about the differences among schools.

It's even more frustrating having first hand knowledge of both types and being unable to do anything about it. It is, however, how I found homeschooling, so I guess there's a perk.

 

While I have no clue what programs are in use in the districts described in this thread, nonetheless I am inclined to lay a lot of the blame at the feet of fuzzy math and teachers who aren't sufficiently educated to work around the deficiencies in whatever programs they're using.

I started homeschooling the year our high school switched to fuzzy math. I detest the stuff for the multitudes while respecting that it can be right for some students. I wish there were a way to offer students a choice. My youngest started with fuzzy math in elementary school. At first I was thrilled that a first grader would know his polygon names, but when I pulled him out to homeschool (5th grade) he was fully 2 years behind in math. It took us over a year to catch up. When he opted to go back to ps for high school (definitely against my wishes), he was considered a genius in his math classes. He does well (for our school) meaning he could be VERY unprepared for college math. Fortunately, he's picked a major that doesn't require much math. Hopefully he'll be able to catch on or muddle through. He's never been open to afterschooling to fill in gaps - well - not with subjects he doesn't like. He goes VERY in depth self studying things he likes.

 

 

Teachers are the life-blood of a school.  They need to really know the material well, but they also really need to know how to facilitate learning.  And many don't.

As much as I absolutely love the teachers where I work as people, very few know more than the content they are supposed to teach. Their degrees tend to be in education - not in their subject matter. I wish we required our teachers to have degrees in their subject and minors in the educational aspect of "stuff."

[Chelli]

I grew up in a bubble thinking that all school experiences were like mine.  Where I grew up and where my kids go to school today (different town) things are so different than what I read on these boards.  We are a basic school system in the state - quite far from being the wealthiest or most elite, but the schools offer so many opportunities.  Differentiation starts in Kindergaten with separate reading groups and separate work for students on different math levels.  there are also numerous enrichment programs offered for advanced students and students that need assistance or have IEPs are mainstreamed as appropriate and have a variety of services available.  

Actual class differentiation begins in 6th grade and the students are essentially "tracked"  A students can be in advanced math but remedial English at the same time.  The actual "Gifted program" begins then (no longer called enrichment) but it is only a few of the top students per grade.  There are a few 2E kids included if they qualify.

 

By the time students get to High School there are quite a few avenues not just high and low.  At this point many make the decicion to attend one of the many vocational schools the state offers.  There are also magnet schools but few suburban kids attend as the education level does not match the average suburban  ps.  They are basically comprised of urban students looking to escape their local urban ps.  The exception are the performing arts schools which draw from a variety of towns and people seem to be less concerned about a rigorous education.  Students who are struggling at the PS often go the vocational route even if they do not have a career choice.  The academics are less rigorous and I don't see having high level math requirements necessary here.  Many graduate ready to move on to an apprenticeship or career and are not looking at college.

 

Back in the PS by 9th grade students are staring to decide which AP tests they will take early and which they will defer for Junior or Senior year. By Senior year the top track is taking Calculus because they know that is what the selective colleges require. For this class they receive credit for from the local state college which many (but not all )will be accepted by the college of their choice.  Most students do go on to college and there is a very small drop out rate.  Algebra here is usually 8th grade with advanced kids starting it in 6th or 7th.  4 years later by Senior year most have at least reached Trig or Pre-Calc.  The few students in the remedial classes by Senior year are usually also students getting assistance and accommodations.

 

Yes there is a priority placed on academics in the community and it can get quite competitive, but I think it is a better attitude than having no regard for education at all.  I know this experience isn't limited to my community or state.  Why do we always have to look to other countries to model what we want when it does exist in our own country?  Also, why tell students what level they need to achieve in school when they may be better served going a vocational or alternative route?

 

The school I went to for K-12 was exactly like this as well. It was a great school experience.

Unfortunately the school is no longer like this. With NCLB and other federal programs, all of the things you listed above and that I experienced were slowly done away with. 

After I graduated from college with my teaching degree, I taught 8th grade at my old school. It was a TOTALLY different school. Under-achieving kids, different community focus, dumbed down work, basically a complete 180. 

[creekland]

The school I went to for K-12 was exactly like this as well. It was a great school experience.

Unfortunately the school is no longer like this. With NCLB and other federal programs, all of the things you listed above and that I experienced were slowly done away with. 

After I graduated from college with my teaching degree, I taught 8th grade at my old school. It was a TOTALLY different school. Under-achieving kids, different community focus, dumbed down work, basically a complete 180. 

 

I'm afraid that this is what has happened to mine as well.  My mom tells me it isn't the same school now as it was when my peers and I went through.  If that has indeed happened, it's really sad.

 

By trying to force all into the same path, one doesn't help anyone IME.

[Jane in NC]

I feel that there are several issues being discussed in this thread.  One is whether Algebra II should be required for a high school diploma; another is whether Algebra II should be required for admission to a state university.

 

To me these are different things.

 

Here in NC, there are two types of high school diplomas available.  The Core diploma requires four years of high school Math including Algebra II and one class beyond Algebra II. The Occupational diploma requires three years of Math: Intro, Algebra I, and Financial Management.  Students with an occupational diploma can matriculate into a community college and then perhaps have the opportunity to transfer to a state uni.

 

So Texas has been requiring all students (not just college bound students) to take Algebra II?  OK.  I now see why they need to change that since not all students may be capable of Algebra II.  But that does not mean UT needs to consider applicants who have not had Algebra II.  In fact, I see that UT Austin requires applicants to have four years of mathematics including Alg II and a course beyond.  School systems that are preparing students to enter the UT system should be offering more than Alg II to students--one would think (hope). 

 

A high school diploma is not a ticket to college acceptance.  I don't think it has ever been.  Even back in my day, there was a secretarial/office track at my private all girls school--although most of us were college prep.  Community colleges have open door policies for a reason.  Some minds are not "ripe" until later.

 

Many of the posts in this thread offer good arguments for keeping open doors at community college systems and maintaining inexpensive programs. One of the failings of my state is having insufficient technical programs at the high school level.  Students should not have to wait until after high school graduation for tech training.