Yes.
We can’t require less and say we’re upholding standards.
By Eric Wearne
I keep a poster on my office wall of Winston Churchill. Churchill is pointing at the viewer with his typical bulldog-like expression, and under his face are the words “Deserve Victory.” Originally, it was meant to encourage Britons to do what was necessary to win the war.
I don’t think the state’s decision to lessen Georgia’s high school math requirements is reason for quite that concern. But this could be a precedent signaling the state’s desire to retreat from high standards and expectations for our students generally — and Georgians should find that troubling.
One defense from the state is that this move is “not a retreat from the rigor of our Georgia Performance Standards (GPS). This is simply a restructuring of the GPS in a discrete fashion.” But how can it be anything other than a retreat? If previously math “support” courses did not count for core credit, and now they do, how then is that holding students to the same standards?
If a student realizes that he doesn’t need to plan to pass Math III because if he fails Math I or II, he can just take a remedial course for the same credit, how likely is it that he’ll take Math I or II as seriously? If students are struggling with math, the answer is not to teach them less math.
Another defense might be that “we need to give our students choices.” But does this really give students or parents choices about the method they want to use to learn? Will schools begin offering students the option of both ways to take math? It gives school systems some choices, I suppose, but not students or parents.
A third defense might be to argue that integrated math is too abstract and today students need an education that is more “relevant.” But this is to argue either that we don’t care enough to teach them what’s best for them in the long run, or that we don’t know how to, and we’re too afraid of saying “no” to them to try.
Technology is often the scapegoat here. That students make more use of technology than ever before is true. But the best way to prepare students for an ever-changing technological and economic environment is to teach them enduring ideas that will enable them to adapt to their future environment.
This is not only about math. My concern is that this move by the state is a sign that its broader plans may be to guide our public schools away from high expectations and toward the path of least resistance. The state can keep repeating that this isn’t a retreat from rigorous standards, but repeating it doesn’t make it so.
I wonder if we’ll see more examples of creative ways to make school less of a challenge for our students. If we weaken requirements further and, say, offer more and more “career” tracks to younger and younger students, we may get to hand out more diplomas — papers that say “diploma” on them, anyway — but it is certainly not in our best interest to do that.
If we are going to have the state setting rules to guide our public schools, then we have to decide what kind of schools we want. Students may not always like a lot of math (or science, or history). But can they learn those things at a high level? Yes. Even if they are from poor rural or urban areas? Yes. Do we have the courage to say to all of our students, “If you work hard, you can learn all of these things. People may tell you that they have a more ‘relevant’ path for you, and it may be more fun, but in the long run knowing more math and science and history is better for you, and for the state, and for your kids than knowing less”? I’m not sure. In the global economic competition, we’ll certainly “deserve” something if we continue down that path, but not victory.
Eric Wearne is an assistant professor of education at Georgia Gwinnett College and former deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement.
No.
Rigor will remain high, more students will have more options.
By John D. Barge
Two years ago, our current 11th graders entered high school taking the Georgia Performance Standards in math. The standards are much more rigorous than the old curriculum, which I applaud. However, at the same time we raised the rigor, we created the perfect storm.
We had a major shift in the way the curriculum was delivered — from a discrete approach to an integrated one. Then, the economy took its sharp decline, providing few resources for teacher professional development. A group of teachers from each school district received a few days of training, and then were expected to go back and train all of the teachers in their own district. That is not the ideal way to roll out a brand new curriculum.
While I don’t believe there is a right or wrong way for the delivery of our math curriculum, I do believe students learn differently and should be given the option of learning through a different teaching method. The integrated approach is not working for all of our students, and we are responsible for preparing all of them!
That’s why I applaud the action our State Board of Education recently took to give local school districts the flexibility to choose what is best for their students. They know their students much better than we do at the state level. With either delivery model, the rigor of the current mathematics standards will not be compromised.
The State Board also allowed students who have struggled under this math delivery to receive core academic credit for the support courses that go along with Math I, Math II and Math III.
Some would say we are retreating from the rigor by allowing credit for these support classes because our graduation rule requires students to complete at least through Math III. I can certainly see why some may think that; however, I would say this is a recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach to mathematics and graduation is counterproductive to the expectation that we prepare students to lead successful lives when they leave us, regardless of their postsecondary paths.
Our current graduation rule requires that all students earn four units of math to graduate, including Math I through Math III, and a fourth math course. On our current integrated delivery model, Math III is the equivalent of trigonometry and statistics. So, even students with learning disabilities in mathematics must complete trigonometry and statistics in order to earn a diploma. Rigorous expectations? Absolutely. Realistic expectations? No.
We currently have thousands of students in 11th grade who have one or no math credits toward the four required to graduate. Without allowing these students to earn credit for their support classes, many of them will ultimately give up on high school, simply because they couldn’t grasp the concepts of math in an integrated fashion.
Our current GPS math curriculum is far more rigorous than our previous curriculum, meaning a student who graduates with Math I and II, as well as Math I and II Support, is far better prepared in mathematics than he or she would have been under our old curriculum.
While this isn’t an ideal situation, I would rather these students have options for careers and/or another form of postsecondary education or training when they leave us.
Let me be clear, I don’t believe in just giving out a high school diploma to students that haven’t earned it. But, many of these students have shown in multiple ways that they deserve it.
The intervention we provided this week for our high school students doesn’t lower the rigorous bar we’ve set; it simply gives them other opportunities to be successful. Without this intervention, the door to the future for thousands of our young people will be closed.
John D. Barge is State School Superintendent.
