Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 24, 2009

Click here to view bill details.

Even more dumbing down?

Why have public education at all if what students learn is meaningless?

Especially when the taxpayers are forced to pay for it?

 looks like a job for vouchers for private schools.

I am a CTE instructor and see these students everyday and how they are bringing more and more skills to the table every year in technology driven classes.  CTE is an amazing place where students can learn to use those skills and prepare them for challenges they might face in a field of study that actually leads somewhere. People believe that CTE is all about pushing the student into the workplace and that’s all CTE does, they could not be more wrong. We push students to college and prepare them so they will be ahead when they hit their career in college also. Whoever still believes that places hire right out of high school is living in a land of make believe, or is promoting students to become future factory workers and we have seen where that path has lead. You think little Paul or Jan look at there dad being laid off and say to themselves "boy I can't wait to be a factory worker like my dad". These new students will be creating new jobs, they look at the adults nowadays as people that can't even use their computer correctly, and communicate on a global level through social networking sites that span every inch on the internet.  Students will eventually take the classes that the Merit are pushing in college as a core class. So how does them taking example Algebra II twice in their life help them get a job?
 I will defiantly be rooting for this bill. I just hope people that don’t come in contact with students every day ruin it for them.  They need this bill to pass!

 You people AND some of our legislators are nuts.  If anything, we need to completely redefine a high school diploma, the requirements have barely changed in 50 years thanks to decades of telling ourselves we're the smartest in the world and always will be.  Guess what, the rest of the world got a whole lot smarter, lessening the value of a traditional high school diploma.  Now a bachelor degree is the ticket to the middle class, not the upper class, and even that's in question now.  Michigan needs to change primary and secondary public education to a full year instead of nine months.  This will create ninth graders with a similar level of education as today's graduating seniors.  The remaining three years should be for traditional college prep or for advanced technical training that will create highly flexible and intelligent graduates ready to take on high technology jobs.  The reason you liberals thing we need a dumbing down of high school is because our public school system, led by an inflexible teachers' union and supported by the Teachers' Tenure Act, is broken and in desperate need of an overhaul.  By the way, a less-educated electorate is more likely to look to the government for solutions to their problems as opposed to looking to themselves.  Any surprises this bill was introduced by a Democrat?  For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat as I don't think a single party has all the answers (and they're both like pigs feeding at the trough anyway).

 Yes the public education system is in bad shape.  However, making all students comply with the same curriculum is not the answer.  I have three children and each of them is different and has different strengths and weaknesses.  One is very analytical and another is very artistic.  Making them both take calculus is not serving their needs.  The real issue is the lack of educational choice brought on by the public education system.  Government run education is a bad system.

I don't disagree all kids are different but to suggest a relaxation of standards is absolutely ludicrous. We need to be going the opposite direction if we want any chance for this state to become relevant again. You know, I really didn't want to take home ec in school because I didn't expect I'd be sewing too many gym bags. But I had to and not only did it not kill me, I actually learned something. The point is, our kids need a thorough, well-rounded education in ALL subjects and at the highest level possible in order to give them options they might never have otherwise known they had. Don't expect much from them and they're guaranteed to meet your expectations.

Wrong move, wrong legislation.

We struggled to finally put some meaning into a high school diploma again.  There is no sense in finding ways to again water down that meaning by watering down the graduation requirements and curriculum.    

changeagent:

Government run education is a bad system.

I agree. I do not agree because that is the case, we should abandon public education and move toward private education.

This is a bad bill. Public education needs to improve, and lowering standards to improve graduation numbers will certainly not accomplish that goal. Whether one child is analytical and another is artistic doesn't change the fact that there are certain basic knowledge requirements for us all. I'm pretty sure calculus is not required for high school graduation.

 

 

 On the surface it may sound like it but do you really think every student is 4 year college material and do they all want to go to college.  Who will do the non-college jobs?  We will have to import more illegal aliens as no 4 year college student wants to do some of the service jobs out there.  Let people have a choice, those that want to do college great (if you can afford it) those that want to fix your furnace, assist the doctor in the office, bake cakes at the bakery learn at the various tech centers.  Why eliminate the tech centers?

 You are correct, this (CTE) is an option to our education system that supplements education whether going to college or not.  I suppose once all humans are cloned then 1 way works but until then we need to provide variety and options for students.  Lets pass this bill.

 You gotta read the bill.  That is not what is says.  This provides options for both college bound and non-college bound.  Do you really think everyone needs to be the same, say an engineer.  Who will bake the bread at the bakery, who will help the dentist clean your teeth, who will put pressure on your wound at the accident site.  Probably a person who needs a little different education than an electrical engineer.  Thus why are we trying to create clones?  Jobs are not clones?  You must assume that a person who goes to an EMT class at a tech center is and will be stupid because they took that instead of trig.  This my friend isn't watering down but tayloring education to provide meaninful learning for a majority of kids.  When you went to high school or if you have kids now, you really think they all will try to learn trig?  Only some will have an interest.  Yes I am using trig as an example but it could be some science class or geometry, or a foreign language.  Either way, we cannot try to clone the kids.  Won't work, sounds good but won't work.

 Who should decide what is best for your child, the government or the parent and child.  Provide the opportunity.  Read the bill, this isn't dumbing down.  Where do you guys get this from???  It allows me to take a health science class instead of a geology class.  I think there is a need for both but a student cant take 15 classes a day.  The bill does not allow a studnent to take 5 gym classes a day.

All of you that think this is dumbing down, educate yourself on what the bill actually allows a student to do.  They have choices by certified teachers.  I can now take human anatomy instead of biology for my science education.  Currently biology is the class, why is taking human anatomy dumbing down and watering down your education????

 You got it right?  We are not robots/clones.  Pass this bill.  If we don't we will have the half of the kids go on to college and those we try to make them but they don't want to, can't afford to, have no interest in, will be left to do what.  We will actually dumb down the US with no choice.  As long as the choices are real eduation, lets do it.

 This bill and you people who want it passed are a joke.  You are the reason Michigan is becoming less competitive instead of more competitive.  So let's give kids the skills to work at McDonald's.  That's your solution to the problems our state faces?  Get real.  I agree 100% that college is not for everyone.  I also agree that skill-based career training is an appropriate and acceptable alternative to a college education.  But dumbing down our education system (and that IS what this bill does) by creating a watered down "general diploma" is not the solution.  As I've said before, we need to be more aggressive with public school education, not less aggressive.  We need our kids finishing 9th grade to academically be where our current graduates are.  THEN spend the next three years on either college prep OR a career-path education.  This will allow students to tailor (not "taylor" as my general diploma holder states below) their education in a way that they are able to generate real earnings that can support a family.  Otherwise, all you're doing is creating a bunch of people barely able to rise above minimum wage because nobody set any real expectation for them to be successful.  But again, this is exactly the type of voter Democrats love - someone unable to support himself and his family and blames everybody else because he doesn't have an opportunity to advance his position.  LANSING MUST NOT PASS THIS BILL IF MICHIGAN IS TO BECOME COMPETITIVE AGAIN.

 I agree with you.  The reason this bill should pass or a bill close to this is to give the choice that you suggest.  This bill will take that away and leave many kids who you say are not college bound students with less than they have now.  How do you provide the choice you are suggesting (skill-based education) if we take away the skill-based education facilities and teachers.  Do you hire them into the current public schools to do that.  Then nothing changed and it cost a lot of money to do that nothing.  We don't need to dumb down, we need to provide choice such as I can take anatomy and physiology instead of biology because I want to be in healthcare.  In additon I can learn some hands on healthcare in this anatomy class.  Why not continue to offer that.

All of that aside, can't help it but if all students go to college who will work at McDonalds?

searay:

All of that aside, can't help it but if all students go to college who will work at McDonalds?

The kids going to High School saving for college, and the young people going to college paying for it.

 One of my concerns is people who insist on using terms such as "dumbing down" or "lower requirements" to describe the direction of this bill. The sad fact is not everyone is financially able, intellectually able, or has the drive to handle a 4 year or more year education. Even if everyone could, the job market is not matched to that goal. There are many entry level jobs available for people with specialized skills in the service industry. Career Technical Education provides a valuable service in Michigan educating students to fill these vacancies. The Tech center where I am a Para-pro has programs including machining, welding, automotive repair, broadcasting, business, retailing, and powersports. Every one of these programs provides the basic skills for entry level positions which means these students can become contributing members of society right out of high school. We also provide them with job searching and job retaining skills, such as resume's, interview practice, and try to instill the values which employers want such as attitude and importance of good attendance.

Many of our students continue on to more advanced trade schools, community colleges or other post-secondary venues. Some will always be technicians, some may become parts specialists, and some may end up owning the business. The next time you pay $75 to $100 dollars an hour to repair your car, snowmobile, or motorcycle, thank a Career Tech center or other trade school.

The option for this type of training has to be an available part of Michigan's Curriculum or many talanted young people will be lost on the way to College. I was one of them 40 years ago.

You seem to imply that graduation requirements are now so stringent that someone not bound for college has difficulty passing courses now required for graduation. I don't believe this to be true. Whether a student goes on to university, community college, a trade school, or directly into the workforce has more to do with attitude, ambition, career preference, and finances than his or her ability to pass the courses now required for graduation.

There are basic skills needed, no matter your career choice, and high school is where those basic skills should be taught. To reduce those requiements is to send our children into the adult world unprepared and uncompetitive.

 This is the last thing that should be done!  We need to become more competative. The requirements for High School are not that hard, if the student just applies themselves.  If the student needs additional help, there are always special classes that they can take. 

doctortom:

Many of our students continue on to more advanced trade schools, community colleges or other post-secondary venues. Some will always be technicians, some may become parts specialists, and some may end up owning the business. The next time you pay $75 to $100 dollars an hour to repair your car, snowmobile, or motorcycle, thank a Career Tech center or other trade school.

The option for this type of training has to be an available part of Michigan's Curriculum or many talanted young people will be lost on the way to College. I was one of them 40 years ago.

This is absolutely true. I think that the bill is really useful in motivating people that don't have certain abilities to pursue further education. Saying that the bill is "dumbing down" requirements is stupid and absolutely counterproductive. Trade schools are absolutely necessary and many of the students there have very good and profitable jobs later on.

doctortom:

...

Many of our students continue on to more advanced trade schools, community colleges or other post-secondary venues. ...

And the problem is, they populated the remedial classes in core academic disciplines -- language arts, math, civics -- required to earn an Associate's degree, etc.  The new high school graduation and curriculum requirements are designed to minimize or put an end to that kind of waste in post-secondary education time and resources.

The option for this type of training has to be an available part of Michigan's Curriculum or many talanted young people will be lost on the way to College. I was one of them 40 years ago.

The new high school graduation requirements do not / will not put an end to the vocational education opportunity, as this comment suggests.  They will strengthen it.

 

 

Algebra ll is not meaningful to every student.  In fact, studies show that only 15% of Algebra ll course content is ever used by even the most technical professions.  Further, if we aren't going to require every student to pass advanced Shakespeare, these math requirements are fundamentally discriminatory.  Every student needs to be challenged, yes, but Algebra ll is not even useful for the vast majority of professions, therefore it should be eliminated as a required course.

Everyone is an unique individual! Requirements for high school are not for all individuals and it our high schools look like an assembly line! Students at a young age know their interest but as the traditional school goes on peer pressure sets in, allowing for many individuals to forget their interest. For instance, a small child is interested in reading and writing and math and science are not their strong suits but they continue in the reading and writing and become a famous author.

I believe we need to step back and take a hard look at the working America. How many of us take for granted the people who work at the super markets, the fast food industry, at the mall, automotive repairs, techs in the hospitals, janitorial staff everywhere, the garbage and recycler pick ups and ect. Students see the secretary, the janitor, and the lunch people working what are we saying to all these people those to come forward to do those jobs? Many of the people I mentioned love their jobs and are very intelligent but not everyone is the same!

The Algebra 2 requirement was pushed by Achieve, Inc., a joint venture of the Business Roundtable and the National Governor's Association. It was based on research by Cliff Adelman at the Department of Education in his 1999 report "Tools in the Toolkit." Adelman noted that students who took Algebra 2 or higher math courses in high school were more successful in college. He was careful not to say that the higher math courses caused students to be more successful. Algebra 2 and higher math courses were elective courses in nearly all high schools at that time. Which students would elect to take such courses? Probably the kind of students who already possessed the qualities to be successful in college. The same correlation would be seen with students who took physics or advanced chemistry courses. I e-mailed Mr. Adelman several times before he admitted his research hadn't discriminated between elective and required courses.

Achieve, Inc. in all its claims was careful not to say that higher math caused students to be more successful in college. Turns out, they didn't have to. They just pointed out the correlation and let people who should have known better (the State Board of Ed. and state legislators) jump to the obvious and incorrect conclusion. Voila! Algebra 2 for everyone!

There's quite a bit more to the story. After filing an FOIA request to get the notes and background readings of the "task force" that developed the curriculum, I detailed the whole mess back in October of 2006 in a blog post entitled "In Michigan, It's All Business, As Usual." I also sent it to most major newspapers in Lower Michigan. Never heard back from anyone.

At least I get to say "I told you so."

Essentially, this is another step backward for Michigan.  But I'm sure it has popular appeal among math-phobes.

It is a shame the proposed amendment to create a "general" diploma was defeated.  This would have mandated truth in labeling for our HS grads.  Prospective employers then would instantly be able to differentiate between grads who were willing to take on challenges and risks, and work hard, and have academic backgrounds preparing them for higher level performance and job responsibility, from those who opted to avoid challenging courses.

 Is your assumption here that employers were unable to tell the difference before? I think most employers who were concerned enough to look at transcripts would have been able to tell pretty easily. "Grads who were willing to take on challenges and risks, and work hard, and have the academic background to prepare them for higher level performance..." probably went on to college (if they could afford it). As I posted previously, the Algebra 2 requirement came about because of a, um, "misunderstanding" of some research. The push was on for more "rigor" at the time, and requiring everyone to take Algebra 2 cetainly sounds rigorous, but it was not justiified by any real research.

The struggle to insert rigor into Michigan public high schools' ciurricula has been long and difficult, culminating in 2006 legislation that finally accomplished the task.  Ever since passage of that legislation there have been efforts to water down the state-mandated curriculum, of which this bill is a prime example.

One theme that educators long have touted is that our public schools must prepare students for a "life of choice" beyond high school.  That is an important and appropriate goal for educational institutions.  Educators also have carried on a long-standing flirtation with the "school-to-work" concept, encouraging students to select their future career paths as earlly as the ninth grade.  Trouble is, it defies common sense to  believe that the majority of high schoolers know early on what their real post-HS objectives are, to say nothing of their own life-long career aspirations might be.

What gives a person the best shot at a "life of choice" beyond high school graduation?  There is no question that post secondary education is it.  Adequate high school preparation provides -- a rigorous college preparatory regimen -- provides ready access to post secondary education opportunities and a real life of choice.  It is much easier in the long run to enter and succeed in "trade school" -- if that ultimately becomes a high school grad's choice -- if he or she is prepared for college than it is for hime/her to attend and succeed in college without the "college prep" experience.

This legislation proposes doing an educational disservice to the young people of  Michigan, and should go nowhere.

 

 All efforts to mandate "rigor" are fatally flawed from the outset. Coercion does not create academic excellence, and in fact does it great harm. Plato knew this:

"Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."

Einstein knew it as well:

"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of education have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry; for this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom; without this it goes to wrack and ruin without fail. It is a very grave mistake to think that the enjoyment of seeing and searching can be promoted by means of coercion and a sense of duty. To the contrary, I believe that it would be possible to rob even a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness, if it were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to devour continuously, even when not hungry, especially if the food, handed out under such coercion, were to be selected accordingly."

Academic excellence iis the product of students’ complete engagement in a discipline they find relevant and valuable, and there is no better way to extinguish the innate joy of learning than by relying on coercion. The negative effects of coercion on real learning is one of the most thoroughly researched topics in education. Please read Punished By Rewards by Alfie Kohn before extolling the virtues of compulsory Algebra 2, The results we've witnessed over the past few years were totally predictable.

Both the state and federal government have been increasingly heavyhanded in their approach to our childrens' upbringing, using the current economic crisis as an excuse to usurp the natural right of parents to direct the education of their children. It is laughable that the same people who complain about the government's involvement in the marketplace turn a blind eye, or even support, this massive intrusion into the private lives of families.

swbaker:

Both the state and federal government have been increasingly heavyhanded in their approach to our childrens' upbringing, using the current economic crisis as an excuse to usurp the natural right of parents to direct the education of their children. It is laughable that the same people who complain about the government's involvement in the marketplace turn a blind eye, or even support, this massive intrusion into the private lives of families.

The only qualification to becoming a parent is the physical ability to reproduce. The resulting children need to be able to function in and contribute to society. It is much more effective if society as a whole sets the basic standards for educating children rather than parents individually. This is not to say parents shouldn't have a hand in that education, they should. But it really does "take a village".

swbaker:

"Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind."

Who am I to argue with Plato, but I sure can't see how I would have learned my multiplication tables if I hadn't been forced to by a very strict nun. And to this day they have a "hold on my mind".

 I'm talking about the deep learning that leads to real achievement, not simple memorization excercises. You could have, and would have, learned to multiply quickly at any time in your life when the need really arose. There was no reason for it be beaten into you (You have may sympathies. Any lasting damage to your knuckles?).

Anything you mandate, that is, make compulsory through the threat of a "legal" use of force, is instantly devalued. You are announcing to everyone that the thing you mandate is not valuable enough to stand on its own merits. Think about it this way: If I leave a plate of brownies in the staff room, some people will choose to eat one (or several) some won't. If I stand there and offer you $5 to eat a brownie, you immediately begin to wonder about what's in them. The same thing happens if I stand there with a baseball bat and threaten to smack you uspside the head if you don't eat a brownie. Now you know something must be wrong with those brownies.

We've done the same with education. We've devalued it by compulsion and oversupply. We don't hold learning in reverance anymore because it's been cheapened by overabundance, coercion, and the idea that knowledge is nothing but a set of data points.

"It takes a village" is a platitude, a folksy jingle used to justify the intrusion of government, at both state and federal level, into the upbringing of our children. It implies that the responsibility for our education rests with someone else, rather than with each of us as individuals.

If you have a moment, look for John Taylor Gatto's essay "The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher" on the web. You probably won't agree with everything he writes, but it will definitely help you view education from  a new perspective.

swbaker:

"It takes a village" is a platitude, a folksy jingle used to justify the intrusion of government, at both state and federal level, into the upbringing of our children. It implies that the responsibility for our education rests with someone else, rather than with each of us as individuals.

No, it's not a jingle, or a platitude. It's a fact. We learn from all the people we meet. I'm learning from you now, and you're learning from me.

As much as we would like all our life experiences to be a choice, they are not. There are things we must do, rather than choose to do.

A high school education is not chosen by children. It is, in reality, forced upon them. They really don't know what's good for them, or bad for them. As adults and parents, it is our responsibility to give them the basic tools needed to function in our society, so when they are flung into this modern world, they have a strong foundation to build on.

I respect your opinion that learning should not be complulsory. I differ as to when that choice should be made. I still believe we should give our children the best education possible, whether they like it or not.

The problem here is that when you say "our" children, you're talking about other people's children (including mine). I appreciate and consider opinions and suggestions from others but the final say in their upbringing belongs to my wife and me. No need of the economy justifies any government making such important decisions on my behalf. I understand that some (many?) parents don't live up to the standards that I (and you, I suspect) hold ourselves to in regards to the upbringing of our children, but only in the most severe circumstances should state interference be sanctioned.

Did you know that the original "task force" that brought us the Algebra 2 requirement was studying the Chinese education system, with its strong central control over all aspects of education, as they worked to design the new, "rigorous" curriculum? Is that an appropriate model for the United States? What is really funny/sad is that, while we proceed to standardize our students through a regimen of standardized curriculum and standardized tests, the Chinese are loosening their grasp on education. They are making an effort to create diversity in thought,which they've decided is vital in fostering the creativity in its young people needed to continue to compete successfully in the global marketplace. We had that at one time, when school districts were locally controlled.

Why do we have laws that guarantee us a right to a "free and appropriate public education," and laws that compel us to attend. That makes no sense. How can it be a right when I have to be forced to attend? And how were people educated (and they were) before the arrival of compulsory schooling?

Have you read the "Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher" essay I mentioned earlier? I'd be interested in your reaction to it. I also have written (albeit sporadically) on Michigan education matters on my blog "PerfectlyDocile." If you really want to know what's going on behind the scenes in education, and who's pulling the strings, I would suggest "Schools Matter." and Susan Ohanian's website as well. Alfie Kohn's Punished By Rewards, and Gatto's Underground History of American Education are worthwhile reading for anyone interested in creating a truly world-class education system for the children of Michigan.

I have read the "Seven Lesson Schoolteacher" essay, and frankly find it to be making a mountain out of a molehill, what with these poor children having to be interrupted each day with ringing bells and the regiment of a school day. Mind you that's just my opinion. I don't remember my school days being that bad because of the recess bell, or having to stand in line, or sit with children of my own age.

But I do agree with you on this particular piece of legislation. I especially agree with the amendment to replace Algebra II with a personal finance class of some sort. I do this with trepidation, fearing a slippery slope to lowering our standards.

I disagree with your idea that parents should be the only decision makers in a childs education. I did not say "upbringing", which I consider to be a different matter, and lies exclusively with the parents. That's why public education is "public". You seem to be leaning to the present day phobia of the "gubmit" taking over our lives. That can only happen if we give up control of "our" government through ignorance and apathy. Many of the loudest voices against government nowdays were silent when our freedoms were being attacked out of fear. Many of these people didn't bother to vote, contact their representatives, or stay informed. Now, all of a sudden, they have the time to "demonstrate". I aplogize for getting somewhat off subject.

Your children and my children are "our" children. They must live in whatever world we leave for them. My hope is we make them strong enough and smart enough to thrive. That means they will need to learn some things they may not want to. I don't want to make school easy, I want it to be effective.

As I've written earlier, I am more than willing to listen to suggestions, advice, research etc. from all who have a stake in education (businessmen included), but the final say has to remain with parents, which means local control of school districts. There simply is no "one right curriculum" for everyone, and silly and naive to think so. Leave control over the curriculum with local school districts and parents who know the children they teach better than anyone in Lansing or Washington could ever pretend  to. Give us real, unbiased research and information to work with and the resources to make real change happen. 

In American pubic school education -- especially at the high school level -- we have, in one way or another, carried on a steamy affair with "student-directed" curriculum for 50 years.  The result has been legions of high school grads who lack the intellectual training and discipline to think critically and engage successfully in lifelong learning.  Now, more than ever, critical thinking skills and that "lifelong learning" capability is critical to survival in the working world. 

Understanding this, Michigan (through its legislature) four years ago moved to strengthen the requirements to earn a high school diploma.  We haven't yet been completely through a cycle in which we can fully assess the result of that important and forward-looking effort, and already there is a great cry to water down the curriculum standards for a high school diploma, to backslide.  I do not wish to see our high school diploma requirements weakened because I think it would be bad for Michigan, and so oppose this legislation.

You will never hit high unless you aim high.

 

FreeSpeaker:

In American pubic school education -- especially at the high school level -- we have, in one way or another, carried on a steamy affair with "student-directed" curriculum for 50 years. 

An anecdote: My oldest grandchild graduated from high school a few years ago, honor roll student. She is presently in nursing school at a community college. In her first year out of high school, she was having some financial difficulties and asked for my advice. Seems she was constantly over drawing her checking account. Through discussions with her I discovered she didn't know how to balance her checkbook. She's not stupid, (no one's grandkids are) and once I showed her how, she took to it with ease.

My point is, I agree with FreeSpeaker and disagree with swbaker in that we should maintain high standards for high school graduation not based on what the children can do, but what they need to do to go on to high education in some form, whether a trade, the arts, or business. I still support this bill if it limits the standards changes to making a personal finance class optional to Algebra II. Again, being wary of the slippery slope.

I share swbaker's concern with the involvement of the corporate world in our children's education, but let's face it, not everyone is destined to be artists or entrepreneurs. Most of our children will have to make a living working for a corporation. We need to give them the skills the corporations require, along with, of course, the freedon of their minds to develop along more ethereal lines.

 

gypsy:

An anecdote: My oldest grandchild graduated from high school a few years ago, honor roll student. She is presently in nursing school at a community college. In her first year out of high school, she was having some financial difficulties and asked for my advice. Seems she was constantly over drawing her checking account. Through discussions with her I discovered she didn't know how to balance her checkbook. She's not stupid, (no one's grandkids are) and once I showed her how, she took to it with ease.

Surely this simple training did not take enough time to constitute a semester or year's worth of high school math coursework.

That is my concern with this "financial literacy" bunkum.  Beyond knowing how to balance a checkbook, how much does a person really need to know, and how much instruction does it really take to impart that knowledge?  My guess is, not much.  I don't question that the checkbook balancing lesson is worthwhile, but there is no good reason it -- and a few other fundamental "financial literacy" concepts -- can't be explored very well in the current array of required courses.  Many of the "skills" involved are only practical applications of the principles explored and learned through the study of algebra, for example.      

An old time description of what education best does for the individual (and by extension, society) is to give one the tools for learning -- that is, the tools to acquire information one needs to get on with and succeed in his or her life.  In other words, one becomes educated when he or she has learned how to learn.  Reading with real comprehension, critical thinking, problem solving skills and approaches, and capacity to identify and query information sources are more valuable in the long run than learning specific task skills and a raft of definitions or concepts by rote.  The discipline of academically rigorous study is what sharpens the learning skills.  That is why rigor in the high school curriculum should be maintained.

 

The more I read our back and forth, the more I think we agree on the goals of school, and less so on the means to get there. In case you haven't guessed by now, I'm a teacher. I worked for 12 years as a high school resource room teacher, and four years ago made the move to elementary (My god! These children are all smiling!).

During my first year in the land of the little people, I taught basic trigonometry to "impaired" 5th graders. It wasn't particularly difficult. They picked it up quickly, practiced a little bit each day, and most became competent with basic sine, cosine, and tangent operations. And none of it was compulsory. You can have rigor and high achievement without relying on coercion. Human curiosity and the desire for competence are powerful motivators in themselves. Sometimes teachers just need to get out of the way, something the current curriculum and test-mania seldom allows us to do.

I'm here at Ground Zero, where I get to experience with my students the effects of these periodic legislative carpet bombings, few of which are based on research, but rather on some political/economic agenda. Most people think the Algebra 2 requirement was based on research, but it was not, as I explained earlier. NCLB is simply the application of the tenets of Total Quality Management (a manufacturing model meant to efficiently produce cars, hair dryers, toys, etc.) to education. Apparently, sometime in the late '90s someone in California thought, "Hey, educating a child is no different than building a good toaster." It originally invaded schools as Outcomes-Based Education but was beaten back by parents concerned about the many "character" outcomes to be targeted (some silly notion about character being an issue for families and communities). Nonplussed, the proponents of OBE retreated, retooled, and returned. Outcomes are now (and ya gotta love this) grade-level-content-expectations. This time it was pitched to legislators, because they can be fooled and/or bought more easily than parents. Voila! NCLB arrives, complete with carrots (for parents) and sticks (for schools).

When you are relying on coercion, in the form of rewards or punishments, it's a sure sign you are "schooling" children rather than educating them. It's no different than teaching your dog to sit in that It's an attempt to control behavior. I'm much more interested in educating, which is equipping young people with the tools to evaluate and be successful in any situation in which they find themselves. Freethinker mentioned something about reading comprehension, math skills, etc. that was right on the mark.

But lets consider lightening up on the coercion and compulsion. I work with children. Not dogs. Not toasters. I want my children to be educated, not schooled, and I want that for all children, not just the wealthy ones.

It's late. I'm tired. Goodnight all.