A recent study released by
Public Agenda, a nonprofit public opinion research organization, indicated that a divide exists between the public school policy agenda for advancing the rigor of math and science instruction, and the attitude of students and parents to support it. The study entitled:
Important but Not for Me, shows that parents and students are satisfied with the current rigors of math and science curriculum, even though, corporate and government leaders have not been satisfied at least since the federal government released the report:
A Nation at Risk in 1983. A Nation at Risk claimed that American "students were not studying the right subjects, were not working hard enough, and were not learning enough.” The impact of A Nation at Risk, and the later
No Child Left Behind (2001), legislation was to spend more money to improve student academic performance. The main strategy was to increase the rigor in subject areas, especially math, science, and reading. The state of Texas has recently followed suit by implementing standardized tests and a high school graduation program known as
4x4. The 4x4 system requires all students graduating under the state’s Recommended Plan to take four years of math, science, social studies, and language arts to graduate. This plan differs from the minimum graduation requirements by two credits, but it is necessary to graduate with the Recommended Plan in order to be considered for the top 10 percent rule. The top 10 percent rule allows students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class under the Recommended, or the more rigorous Distinguished Plan, direct admission to a Texas state university.
The
Important report should enlighten education policy makers to the fact that they have little support for top-down driven initiatives embodied in
A Nation at Risk,
No Child Left Behind, and the Texas 4x4 program from the majority of students and parents.
Less than 32 percent of parents surveyed think that schools should be teaching more math and science while 57 percent think that the current situation is acceptable. This is similar to any management situation where little collaboration, or collaboration without a representative sample of the population, creates a false sense of direction. My experience has been that without “buy-in” initiatives stall or fail completely.
So the lines are drawn. On one side stand the policy makers and their advisors who want more overall and rigorous education for students and are going to “shove” it on them by making educational requirements more rigorous. On the other side stands reality - the students who have to work harder but don’t want to and their parents who are content with the status quo, at least in science and math according to the report. However, I would extrapolate that this sentiment is true for all subjects. The status quo has been declining as indicated by the percentage of parents who are worried that students are learning enough math and science has dropped from 52 percent in 1994 to 32 percent in 2006. If someone knew how to take underperforming workers and increase their productivity, then he would be a billionaire and the country’s productive capacity would be unimaginable. However, in reality; researchers, authors and social commentators consistently discuss the productivity issues and of course no one has found the magic elixir; but granted, evidence exists that some actions do help. The same holds true for students whose reported attitudes aren’t concerned about rigor in math and science and, consequently, see no need to be more productive in these areas. There is no magic elixir. Ultimately, the government makes the public school curricula harder, and the teachers water it down in order to get the unwilling to pass. Or could it be that these students lack the aptitude to take the rigorous courses in the first place, thus leading teachers to reduce the rigor? It is reported that
according to the ACT college entry exam that only 42 percent of students are prepared for college math. I’ve seen the correlation between college readiness and rigorous courses, but correlation does not determine causality. If all students successfully completed rigorous courses, would that lead to improving college readiness? Sure it would, but the causality question should be; “What causes students to successfully complete rigorous courses?” When the policy is to push students without the aptitude into more rigorous classes, the courses will need to be watered down. Although the watering down won’t be shown on the grade transcript, it will be shown on tests like the
National Assessment of Educational Progress and the
Scholastic Aptitude Test. The concern should be for students who have the aptitude and choose not to use it. Alternatively, those who don’t have the aptitude need a realistic path towards success.
The main argument for students to take more rigorous courses; thus improving college readiness, relies upon the association between higher levels of education and greater income. But why are not more students and parents concerned about rigor and college readiness? Consider the following:
1. Two year colleges will take students with a GED and allow students to transfer to a four year university after completing an Associate degree.
2. The ten percent rule in Texas and others like it in other states can encourage mediocrity. If most students take less rigorous classes, then all students will be competing accordingly.
3. Students and parents are concerned about extra-curricular activities. I once had a school counselor tell me that her son dropped an advanced placement class because it caused too much work with his band schedule.
4. By allowing students to pick from a menu of rigorous classes, they often do not take what they are capable of doing.
5. The high college drop out rate isn’t a major focus of the media so parents and students don’t get the point about readiness until the student realizes that he isn’t ready and drops out.
Should we be insisting that students who are capable of more rigor, actual take rigorous classes? This leads us back to motivation and the easiest path principle. Why take more rigor, when I can get into college without it? Why complicate my life with more work?
Do parents want to push their children and endure some of the push-back? If the statistics show higher income with a college degree, why work harder for a math or science degree? These questions are posed to show holes in the body of knowledge that is prevalent to students and parents.
Another concern about rigor is the fact that people are concerned about students who don’t go to college. Since the Iraq war, recruitment among at-risk students has dropped precipitously. Good paying jobs that didn’t require college or a high school drop out performed have been sent oversees. This is another reason why the income gap between college degree recipients and others is growing. Immigration, legal and illegal, impacts this concern also. The construction industry is a leading employer of illegal immigrants who compete with other American workers.
I’ve heard that illegals do the jobs that Americans won’t, but the supply of these workers is reducing wages; otherwise, we might hear policy makers telling students who don’t fit into the college plan to go into the construction industry because you can make a decent living. Or is it just snobbery that pushes more students into rigorous classes that they aren’t prepared to undertake? I remember reading an article in the
San Antonio Express News that told of a local manufacturer who contacted a prestigious high school in San Antonio about workers after they graduate. Even though his jobs would pay up to $60,000 per year, the counselor told him, in what I thought was a snobbish tone; that their students go to college and they’re not interested in working with him. Again it’s assumed that everyone goes to college even if they don’t want to do the rigorous preparation.
Students require two attributes to be successful in rigorous courses: aptitude and motivation. No matter how much harder the math and science curricula are made, if students and parents do not think that they need the rigor, this will most likely affect their attitude and motivation. The top-down approach that has been prevalent since the federal government got involved in public education continues to not meet expectations, but it allows for a multiplicity of blame to be spread around. All the while
we spend billions to help students and parents who are often content with the status quo.
My recommendation for parents is to be realistic about your child's aptitude. This can be determined by testing such as; Cogat, ITBS, IQ, TAKS (look at the percentile score), and grades. If you want more for your child, if you want him to do well in school; it's important for your expectations to be clear and for you to provide the necessary support.
Parents are more important than any school system or teacher! Don't shirk your responsibility.
