by Brian
Back in September I wrote a post called How Much Math Does a Man Need? I questioned the wisdom of requiring every student to take and pass Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 in order to graduate from high school, beginning with this year's freshmen. Today state superintendent Randy Dorn wrote a guest editorial in the Seattle Times, and posted on OSPI's website his proposal for changing the math and science graduation requirements. He proposes using a two tiered model, already in use in Massachusetts, to provide students in Washington the opportunity to graduate with either a ranking of "proficient" or "basic" math skills. Proficient will be the goal for all students, but under this proposal the student with basic skills will continue to take additional math courses, and still be able to graduate.
I think the superintendent has taken a huge step toward setting the bar for high school graduation at a realistic level. For far too long we have been telling too many students that they were below standard in math, when the problem was not their skill level, but how hard the WASL was. We were giving the same test to students in Algebra 2 and Pre-Algebra. It didn't matter what course they were taking; they all got the same WASL. Now they will take end-of-course exams over the math they have just learned, and they will be judged to be at a proficient or basic level. That seems a lot more fair.
I'm still not convinced that everyone needs to take Geometry, but this would be a vast improvement. (And thank goodness Algebra 2 has disappeared from the required list).
I applaud the Superintendent's honest and realistic recommendations, and I hope the Legislature will consider them carefully.
I can only speak for my district, Kristin, but I do think we’ve worked hard and made progress toward vertical allignment in math. In the early grades we recently switched from a “constructivist” curriculum that was never widely used to a more structured, traditional curriculum that everyone has to use. Although I personallyu preferred the other book, the fact that we’re all using the same curriculum is better for the students, and it looks like they’ll be better prepared for the secondary curriculum. So I’m cautiously optimistic.
Good analysis, Tom, and great post Brian.
As a secondary teacher I’ve been following the math scores closely, and there’s never been much improvement. They set the bar and then did nothing else. When the WASL (our state assessment) was introduced, the big push was for reading across the curriculum and writing across the curriculum. I always thought there should be some sort of math across the curriculum, and science too.
This situation also makes me think of Tom’s post about departmentalizing elementary. I often subbed in elementary schools the year before I had my own classroom, and I was surprised at how many teachers wrote “Do what you can, the kids know I have a math phobia” into their lesson plans. More elementary teachers wrote something like that than not. What is that teaching kids?
Before a standard is set for a tenth grader’s math skills, a first grader should be taught what he needs to know, and that teaching should continue on up through the grades to the test in tenth.
Now, the standard has been changed, but does it at all correlate to what’s happening in elementary schools? Is there any vertical alignment at all, or have we simply altered the bar to fit what is?
Last year the legislature passed a law requiring 3 years of mathematics including Algebra II. It sounds as if his proposal doesn’t specifically address the issue of whether or not students need to take Algebra II, just whether or not they will need to pass an end of the year test on Algebra II. As a math teacher, I can say with some conviction that I am supportive of not requiring all kids pass an algebra II test. However, it would be nice if they would quit moving the bar around. Really tough to reach a moving target, whether it is a realistic one or not.
Brilliant. I read Dorn’s piece this morning and it was weighing on me all day. At first I felt disappointed; we let down our students and are now admitting that we can’t get them to the goals we’d set back in 1992. Then I realized that all the state really did toward that end was raise expectations. There was never really a concerted effort toward raising the capacity of the system to meet those expectations. Now of course, the Business Roundtable and League of Education Voters will climb all over Dorn and accuse him of caving to the Association, when in fact all he’s doing is what you said, Brian: Resetting the bar to a realistic level. Great post.