AJC.com > Blogs > Get Schooled > Archives > 2007 > June > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USWhen Raising Achievement, Students Must Step Up, Too
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sometimes I’m puzzled when I read about school officials or politicians shooting at the diverging targets of increased rigor and higher graduation rates at the same time. Do they not understand that any time you raise the bar in education or in any endeavor you automatically exclude a higher number of students from clearing it?
Over time, some of the students will recognize that the standard has been raised and they will adjust their sights and clear the new height. Many won’t. They will continue what they have been doing and settle for a lesser outcome or, in some cases, choose to drop out sooner as the finish line is moved farther out of reach.
When I graduated from a Georgia high school in 1975, the public schools were educating a rather homogeneous student body. There were few, if any, special-needs students in regular schools. The only students who came in speaking another language were exchange students, who probably spoke English about as well as many of the American-born students.
Today’s schools are being required to teach a much more varied group. Students are coming from around the world never having heard English. Many of them had been unsuccessful in school or had not been attending school in their home country. The number of students with various disabilities also has increased tremendously. These students are now required to complete course work that would not have even been offered to them 30 years ago.
Currently, the State Department of Education is considering raising the graduation requirements from 22 to 23 credits. This will include four years of English, four years of math, four years of science, three years of social studies, one year of physical education and health and seven electives — including two years of foreign language for college-going students or three years in a job-related pathway for career-technical students.
Increasing the rigor of the high school diploma is fine. Those who achieve that goal will have a fine accomplishment and should be prepared for their next level of academic course work.
What we must understand is that we are working at cross-purposes if we expect more students to meet a more challenging standard. For those students who, for whatever reason, cannot meet the more rigorous requirements we can offer a different goal or a different level of diploma to demonstrate their abilities and efforts. If we don’t offer it, they’ll find it for themselves. It’s called the GED.
In almost every article on increasing student achievement, someone mentions helping teachers to be more effective in their efforts. When will we realize that it is not the teacher but the student who, as he enters each successive level of education, increasingly dictates the pace and amount of his learning — either enhanced by or in spite of the efforts of his parents and teachers?
Perhaps the disparate targets of more rigorous graduation requirements and a higher graduation rate can both be hit. But it will take more than one entity taking aim.
The student must come ready and willing to learn with a quality education as his foremost priority.
Today’s guest blogger is the principal of Sagamore Hills Elementary School, part of the DeKalb County School System. If you’re interested in being a guest blogger on Get Schooled, submit an entry on any education-related topic to bgutierrez@ajc.com.
Comments
By Lee
June 29, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
I pretty much agree with most of what you said. There is one statement I would like to offer my comments on:
“Today’s schools are being required to teach a much more varied group. Students are coming from around the world never having heard English. Many of them had been unsuccessful in school or had not been attending school in their home country. The number of students with various disabilities also has increased tremendously. These students are now required to complete course work that would not have even been offered to them 30 years ago.”
The problem is that schools that this diverse student group of varied backgrounds and ability levels and dump them all in one classroom. You have a range of kids from the future valedictorian to the illegal immigrant who cant speak a word of English to the special ed student who is borderline retard. While you’re at it, throw in a few behavior disorder kids for good measure.
THAT is the current environment many kids face in today’s schools. Until you fix that, you can increase the rigor and graduation requirements all you want, it’s not going to change a damn thing.
By Dan
June 29, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this
The student group is no more “diverse” than it ever was. People always have been and are very similar. In the past there was a curriculum and if you were in school you were expected to pass it. Now under the guise of sensitivity and understanding, we define all sorts of classifications special needs, behavior disorders. All this does is provide excuses for those who choose not to work (I am not saying there are no special needs, the real ones are just a fraction of the reported ones) Teachers and parents know better than anyone, the flexibility and adaptibility of kids. Expect the best of them and you will get it give them a list of options and most will take the easiest path, like any other human
By Mark
June 29, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this
I couldn’t agree with you more. I graduated from a Georgia High School in 1975 also and never encountered a student who spoke a language other than English and I do not remember any special education students in my high school. I do remember a few in a “special education” catch all class in elementary school. Schools in Georgia are substantially more diverse now. I’m not sure I completely understand the state’s constant drive to make it harder for students to graduate from high school and to fit one mold….the one that leads to college. My own children attend public schools in Gwinnett and their courses and the requirements to pass them are MUCH more rigorous than any course I took in school. In fact, many of my daughter’s AP courses are more challenging than courses I took as an undergraduate at Emory. I think the bar has been raised enough. Maybe too much. What we need to do is expand the opportunities and realize that college is not the proper route for everyone. High schools should go back to training carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, secretaries, bookkeepers and other technicians as they did for many years. That would help the drop out rate. Not everyone should have to pass Algebra II or something even higher in order to graduate from high school.
By Lee
June 29, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this
They call them “behavior disorder” because that sounds more clinical than “troublemaker”. A true behavior disorder is a psycho and doesn’t need to be in a regular classroom.
God, how things have changed.
I remember growing up seeing chain gangs on the side of the road, cutting grass with sling blades. I knew right away that I never wanted to do anything to wind up there.
Act up in class, the teacher made you go stand in the hall. The principal made his rounds and if you were standing in the hall, you got paddled. Nothing like hearing a “Pow,Pow,Pow” echoing down those halls to make everyone sit up a little straighter and pay attention.
Cause too much trouble, and they sent you to “Reform School.” Now, I don’t know where reform school was, I always figured it was close to where those guys on the chain gang were kept. Either way, I knew I never wanted to get sent to reform school.
If you couldn’t keep up in class, they put you in special ed class. Yeah, that’s what they called it back then. We called it the slow class.
Thinking back, the only time my parents came to a school function was graduation. Back then, schools knew how to do their job. “Parental involvement” is a crutch.
My high school had a “smoking area.” ‘Nuff said.
My high school had a rifle team. We shot 22 calibre rifles at targets - on school property. Come deer season, half the trucks in the parking lot had an old 30-30 rifle or shotgun in the gun rack in the rear window. Nowadays, a kid draws a picture of a gun and gets suspended.
My senior year, I had most of my required classes completed and took mostly industrial arts classes. Didn’t affect me too much, seeing as how I went on to collge and earned BBA and MBA degrees as well as CPA certification. Difference is, I now have my own woodshop and can weld and wire with the best of them. I can fix anything around the house. My son-in-law probably took Calc III in high school, but doesn’t realize electricity can shock you…
I’m through ramblin’ now.
By MM
June 29, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
Amen Lee, Amen.
By em
June 29, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
As a social studies teacher, I am biased but yet again, the State of Georgia is showing that social studies does not matter. It has increased the graduation requirements for English, science, and math but not social studies with government and economics remaining at one-half of a unit each. How can the state justify not increasing graduation requirements for government and economics? Both of these courses will influence the students’ lives more than any other course yet they receive the least attention in the new graduation requirements. The social studies portion of the Georgia High School Graduation Test has the second highest failure rate, after science, yet the graduation requirements for government and economics remain unchanged. Many Georgia students lack the basic understanding of their government and history; therefore, they tend to perform poorly on nationalized social studies exams and cannot even pass the U.S. citizenship exam. In reviewing the new Georgia Performance Standards, the State Department of Education has increased the standards in both government and economics but did not change the length of time in which both courses are taught. I simply cannot fathom why the State Department of Education simply did not increase the graduation requirements for social studies especially when it would only reduce elective credits from seven to six.
By Ernest
June 29, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Good blog Principal Joe! You gave us all something to ponder.
I with you Lee on a majority of what you said. I’m from the same era as yourself. We must factor in that there were opportunities for those that we knew were not going to graduate from HS or go to college to find employment and make a contribution. There were many jobs available that required more ‘brawn than brain’. Many of those jobs are now offshore thus leaving fewer choices for one becoming self sufficient.
By em
June 29, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
I remember those days, too, Lee and thought the same thing. A little fear (or healthy respect, as my Daddy used to say) helped keep me on the straight and narrow. :)
By mmm
June 29, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
Great comments Lee. But I don’t know how to pull society back to those values. Can it be done? Should it be done? How?
By luvs2teach
June 29, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Good post, Lee - “My son-in-law probably took Calc III in high school, but doesn’t realize electricity can shock you…” LOL!
My only disagreement would be “Thinking back, the only time my parents came to a school function was graduation. Back then, schools knew how to do their job. “Parental involvement” is a crutch.”
Back then, parents ALLOWED the schools do their job. It was a joint effort. Now it’s way too adversarial (and litigious). My mother would never have come up to the school to defend me if I talked back to a teacher - after I got mine in school, I would’ve got twice at home! She also wouldn’t have asked my teachers for “extra credit” work to help me bring up a grade I let fall through not doing my work. I would’ve had to endure the consequences of that low grade - at school AND home (and home was worse, no doubt).
On the topic, I just keep going back to the thought of “one-size-fits-all” generally doesn’t, and why are we focusing so much on “differentiation” if we want them all to have the same outcome?
By Lee
June 29, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
Luvs, I think the reason parents back then ALLOWED the schools to do their job is that they TRUSTED the schools and their ability to do their job.
Today, sad to say, we don’t. Hence, I am now paying private school tuition for my youngest.
By jim d
June 29, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
Dear Joe,
“The student must come ready and willing to learn with a quality education as his foremost priority.”
While a will to learn is paramount in delivering an education, we must not forget that everything that is learned in life is not taught and that some students have not the inclination nor the ability to learn what it is our schools are delivering.
What we truly need is not more of a one size fits all delivery of education. We must first realize that not every student will become doctors, lawyers and such. And we must provide an alternative education for those wishing to do something else with their life. The new educational standards ignore this simple premise and are sure to fail the individuals as well as society as a whole.
By Lisa B.
June 29, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
I don’t understand why we spend all this time of differentiated instruction, when the CRCT, and other tests aren’t “differentiated.”
We want all the kids to perform the same, and when some fail to do so, it seems the only alternative for them is jail. A recent news report said America currently has 33 MILLION people incarcerated! That’s crazy. We need to work on creating more options for people. I certainly have no problem with jailing true criminals, but wonder how many of those inmates could have been guided into more productive lives if things were different.
Great posts Lee. You are on a roll today!
By Lee
June 29, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
mmm, re “I don’t know how to pull society back to those values. Can it be done? Should it be done? How?”
Maybe that’s the problem, schools are trying to focus on society’s problems and forgot their core mission, which is to educate. Personally, I think they [schools] should just get back to the basics, which worked perfectly well before the social engineers came into power.
By SET
June 29, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
Joe P Reed is in a fantasy world with a fantasy school for Utopia.
He doesn’t get it that the public schools are for the proletariat. They represent the lowest common denominator. Screwing this up produces the hordes of prison inmates and unwed unskilled welfare mothers we see now. The lesson the public schools are supposed to teach is discipline, duty, civics and basic (10th grade avg) reading and writing. Beyond that their students are to by well prepared for the military, industry, or higher education. The elite will always take care of themselves - they don’t need the public schools.
Joe Reed needs to read Lee’s first post here aloud to himself. That was the school system the produced generations of Americans that saved the world from the Nazis and the Japanese, built the USA’s infrastructure, landed on the moon, and invented most of the worlds tenchnology.
And it wasn’t just the German Jewish Scientists we brought over in the 30’s and the 40’s (and all the other high functioning immigrants)that created everything from medicines to the bomb. It was the armies of Rosie the Riveters, the United Auto Workers, and all the union members - the public school graduates - who built this nation.
Our public schools are totally failing. We can all read the stats. And we also see the results in the courts, on the streets, and behind the McDonald’s counters struggling to count. We aren’t buying these claims that the “water’s fine”.
And I want to hear what educators are going to change to help the left side of the Bell Curve, not the right side.
By Joe Reed
June 29, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
I certainly realize that the public school system doesn’t have all the answers. I’d be quite happy to have a voucher system as we do for college and pre-K where all schools compete for students and the tax dollars they bring with them. Keep in mind that schools would also have the opportunity to turn away students and families who aren’t vested in their own success. Joe Reed
By Lisa B.
June 29, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
I am in favor of school choice. I think competition would be good for all involved (except perhaps for teachers who don’t do their jobs and a few truly bad kids). I think many children would try harder to follow rules and complete work if they knew they would be removed from their chosen schools. It’d also save money in salaries currently paid for people to enforce residency requirements.
By Lee
June 29, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Sorry Joe. A voucher system would result in a three tier education system.
The high performing private schools probably would not accept vouchers and the rules, regulations, and red tape that would invariably accompany them.
The quasi-private schools who accepted vouchers probably could set up filters to keep out most of riff raff.
The ones that remain, the left side of the Bell Curve as SET often refers, would be relegated to the current public schools, which would be the school of last resort.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like GROUPING BY ABILITY. It just took the market place to do it. So, if the free market can figure it out, why can’t all you educrats with Phd’s figure it out?
A lot of what is wrong with today’s educational system is self inflicted. Sadly, I just dont see things getting better anytime soon. Sorta like an alcholic who has to hit rock bottom before he seeks help.
I don’t think our schools have hit rock bottom yet.
Scary….
By Lisa B.
June 29, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
Lee,
Your last post describes exactly my opposition to vouchers.
We can have school choice without vouchers, if we just let people chose which schools their children attend. The few times I’ve seen residential restrictions eliminated, the children didn’t all flood into one particular school. Some high achieving schools were avoided by some students because parents thought they were too tough, or too strict. Some of the low achieving schools were turned into schools of International Studies or some other type of magnet school. I think transportation is probably a nightmare.
By Lisa B.
June 29, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
My son and his peers will be impacted by the new standards in high school. Unfortunately, I’ve already heard parents of some of my son’s friends bemoan the fact that their children will never be able to graduate from high school because it will be too hard. If parents don’t think the kids can do it, I see big problems ahead.
By jim d
June 29, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
The solution?
Google “michigan choice schools” here’s a program in place that is actually doing something.
By Lisa B.
June 29, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
Jim D.,
Michigan Choice Schools in one that I’ve read about that seems to be working.
By jim d
June 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
It is really the only one true choice system I’m aware of.
Here’s a link to a report that many may find helpful in understanding how it can and does work.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gO6vNdosLJAJ:www.epc.msu.edu/publications/workpapers/choicepolicy.pdf+michigan+choice+schools&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us
By jim d
June 29, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
Lisa,
there is another pretty good peice that was done on school choice and education in this country available at eric. here’s a link.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/contentstorage01/0000019b/80/16/e7/97.pdf
By jim d
June 29, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Soory for taking this blog into school choice again but we just spent a couple of weeks in Michigan visiting family and friends. Took a couple of days to visit the campus’ at E. Lansing (MSU) and Ann Arbor (U/M), even went by my old high school.
I must say I was encouraged, after talking to students, parents amd educators, that there is hope for our public school system. We simply need to be open to the changes that must happen and we voters need to get off our arses and make them happen.
By luvs2teach
June 29, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
Lee - schools aren’t the only institution in which the American public has lost trust, sad to say…
Interesting study done on choice - Steven Levitt discussed it in his book Freakonomics (he may have conducted the study - I don’t remember) - the school system in question didn’t have open choice, but it had a lottery system. The fascinating thing, to me, was that even if the students did not get their first choice school, they still did better. Something is to be said for parental investment and interest (and self-fufilling prophecy in the case of the parents who don’t think their kids can maintain the higher standards).
By holdingAJCaccountable
June 29, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
A principal wrote this? A principal is willing to hold the student responsible for his learning and not automatically blame the teacher when the student doesn’t put forth the effort? A Dekalb County principal no less? Maybe there’s hope after all…
By Janine
June 29, 2007 4:20 PM | Link to this
Just got here. Great blog today, Joe Reed. I must say, Lee has this all wrapped up.
IMO,It’s difficult to have standards in our PC USA today. When NON JUDGMENTAL is the nation’s password, the bar is lowered….way low. There is no standard acceptable to all, [or even most]by which to judge quality…[if judging were acceptable.] Not that we don’t all do it, it’s just not acceptable to talk about it.