Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Case For Lower Academic Standards
In any discussion of education reform, it’s only a matter of time before someone says we need to raise standards. It’s become such a commonplace suggestion that people repeat it without giving it any thought. Regardless, it’s being put into practice; many states, for example, now require Algebra II for graduation. Well, here is an inconvenient fact that seems to have escaped the notice of most reformers: Half of the students are below average — well, technically, below median — in academic ability. Those below-average students will not learn Algebra I, much less Algebra II. (Some of them may pass, but that is an altogether different proposition.)
And it’s not just algebra. Below-average students are not going to figure out the theme of Great Expectations, nor will they be able to explain complex metabolic processes in detail. Telling them that failure to do so should sentence them to a lifetime of poverty is an act of cruelty. This is why we should lower academic standards.
Or, rather, have more flexible standards that account for varying levels and kinds of ability. All but the least-talented should be able to write a simple paragraph that is clear in meaning and reasonably free of errors. They should be able to do the basic arithmetic that comes up in everyday life, including the ability to balance a checkbook and figure a percentage. They should have a basic understanding of how to interpret graphs and charts. They should know basic facts about science necessary to make better choices regarding health and public policy. They should know the basics of history and government necessary to citizenship. Their time in school should be spent on mastering these and similar matters, rather than having them pretend to read Paradise Lost or trying (and failing) to prove a theorem. And once they master these skills, they should be able to opt-out of school with no stigma to pursue vocational training or take a job.
An enormous amount of time in high school is spent trying to teach below-average students skills that will not be useful to them or that are simply beyond their reach. It serves only to render school a place of daily humiliation and misallocates significantresources. Reserve those resources for students that can benefit from them and let the others get on with their lives.
Published in Education
I’d agree, but only for a few cases–a relatively low percentage. Definitely not half. Even then, children with very low academic ability should be competent in basic academics.
When I was teaching school I learned that a lot of the students on “homebound instruction” (meaning they stayed home and met with the teacher one-on-one two or three hours per week) did better academically while on homebound than when in class. There are a lot of distractions in schools.
Ron,
So you want 2 tracks. First track takes kids right through to a full Calculus course in high school. Second track takes kids through geometry.
I’m not sure I can agree about “low-ability” kids. Different subjects at different levels give different people difficulty. When would you decide which track to place the kids in?
Regards,
Jim
But it’s a much smaller percentage than you seem to be implying. In my classes of 30+ students, only one or two couldn’t make the mental leaps to do the algebra I was teaching. Twenty or so had the mental ability, but couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the arithmetic foundation to build anything on top. (e.g. I had to interrupt a factoring polynomials “review” to demonstrate how to multiply a two digit number by another two digit number.) The remaining few managed to learn the material, but my ability to help them out was greatly limited by needing to deal with the rest of the class.
I think he was a familiar face who had graced the living rooms of our homes for quite a while. His experience as governor of a huge state was also a plus, so I think it was a combination of familiarity and competence.
Here is one way of looking at it. According to ACT.org, for a college senior to have a 75% chance of getting a C in college algebra, they should score at least 22 on the math section of the ACT test. A 22 in math is at the 61st percentile of test takers (not the whole population). So that means that only about 40% of students who take the ACT would have a good chance of learning college algebra. The percentage of the whole population would likely be much less (a math ACT score of 22 would probably be around the 75th percentile for the whole population–not sure about that though). So I would think someone in the bottom half of the distribution is going to have a really hard time learning algebra.
I think wherever kids hit the wall (the wall where they can’t do it with effort; not the wall where it gets hard) is where to draw the line. If a kid is trying but just can’t cut it, let him move to the more basic track.
You might find this interesting: link
Ron, I did a like on this, yet I have an impression that might run a bit counter to yours. If parents owned the moneys used to pay for their kids education, then the best schools would be rewarded with students and the moneys to pay for them.
When the Japanese started showing up with very good, high mileage, low maintenance cars, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were forced to look at their practices and adjust in order to succeed.
I believe in an environment where good schools are rewarded by parents’ choosing them, the public school system would be forced to change for the better. Competition is very good and competition in education should prove to be so as well.
I agree that if someone doesn’t know enough algebra as a junior in high school to get above a 22 on the ACT, they aren’t going to know or learn enough algebra to pass college algebra as a freshman 18 months later.
That’s a totally different statement than “sixty percent of students just don’t have the brainpower for math so we just shouldn’t bother teaching them beyond arithmetic.”
I absolutely agree. The idea of a “public school” makes precisely as much sense as would “public grocery store” or “public trucking company.”
We don’t really have to worry about standards if we let parents and teachers sort it out, let the money follow the students. In other words choice. Central control doesn’t work on simple things, what could be more complex than preparing kids, who vary as much as their parents in dozens of capabilities, tastes talents and interests, and will be preparing for life faced with thousands of choices and within those thousands more in a world that will different tomorrow than today and radically different by the time a 5 year old reaches early maturity. And who cares? A remote unaccountable bureaucrat or the parents and the teachers, not to mention the kid as he matures.
My view on primary and secondary education is that it should seek to make the children well-rounded and liberally-educated citizens who are capable of taking care of themselves and of participating in democratic self-government. I’m starting to become a little bit contrarian on compulsory education, but if we require kids to go to school, I think that creating citizens capable of self-government is just barely a justification, while job training for their own good is not. Job training is perfectly good, but I can’t justify a law for this.
Though I agree with the value of practical learning and the dignity of work in any of its forms, I disagree with an approach that would push lower-ability students into an academically-limited vocational education and cut off the future possibility of them going to college. Taking some vocational classes is fine, but not if it narrows their education in reading, writing, literature, math, history, government, and science. These are things that well-rounded people should know. These are things that make up our culture and our civilization.
Again, I like the ability to take elective courses in different topics, but it is a mistake to direct students onto narrow-topic tracks before college. This is the European way, and it feeds into their social and economic class structure. It’s hard for them to break out of whatever they’ve been put into at that early age.
We’re not. We’re Americans.
Well said.
Yes.
Not to mention that letting high schoolers skip high school level math would turn out terrible tradesmen. If I’m cutting fascia for an eight sided gazebo, what angle do I set the miter saw? If I’m scaling up a recipe that uses teaspoons, how do I convert that to tablespoons? If I’m trimming trees, how long of a safety line do I need to reach my spotter when I’m X feet up and he’s Y feet away? If crocheting polyhedral dice takes H hours and D dollars and I sell them for X dollars, how much profit am I actually making per hour? How do I tell if my barbed wire fence is at a right angle if I only have a tape measure and no protractors or T-squares? How many packs of shingles do I have to buy for a roof? If I’m mixing up popcorn ceiling goo and accidentally add too much of one ingredient, how much of another do I need to add to fix it?
Good luck doing any of that without high school math.
I agree students shouldn’t be pushed or directed in onto a lower track. But those that aren’t capable of handling the higher level tasks (and many aren’t capable) should have the option of pursuing something more in line with their abilities.
People capable of learning those things should certainly learn them. But if there is no hope a kid is going to figure out quadratic equations, why make him sit there and keep trying?
As an American I think students should be free to pursue an education appropriate to their skills and interests.
Well, firstly because most people don’t know their limits until they are pushed past what they think they are.
Second, because in today’s world, they need to know these things — to be able to manipulate numbers — or they will be locked out of the trades and taken advantage of. If you’re willing to tell kids, “Sorry, you’re too dumb to ever get a job that pays decently and to know when you’re getting ripped off,” well, there’s not much point to further discussion. I’d rather teach them than high school math isn’t to be feared, it’s not that hard, and they’ll get it with practice and proper instruction. And for the few who simply aren’t capable, I don’t approve of deflating the value of their classmates’ diplomas by calling them high school graduates.
So should we only teach things to people up until the point they don’t improve, and then we stop with that subject? In math and physics, learning comes with repetition and practice. You can feel like you don’t understand something several times, but as you keep trying, you get better. There are a few people whom we shouldn’t expect to learn to solve quadratic equations, but they’re a small minority and are way down on the low tail of the intelligence distribution. The majority of people by far can learn this.
I just finished the teacher’s ed course I’ve picked up, “Physical Science by Inquiry.” It focuses on learning physics concepts by hands-on practice, but it does require using algebra. One of my students was lost whenever she needed to divide fractions or some other really basic algebraic steps. She’d nearly broken down in tears more than once, she told me. Math panic. But I identified the toughest part for her (canceling terms in division) and worked her on it, over and over. She got steadily better, and she can do it on her own, now.
It didn’t look like she was going to get this for a long time. Should I have encouraged her to drop the class instead? Should I have told her, “Hey, what are the odds you’ll ever need to solve an equation again?”
Education should push us beyond what we think we’re capable of.
Given that only 25% of high school seniors tested at proficient or above in math there is scant evidence that’s true. To suggest most kids can learn advanced concepts is a pure act of faith.
In the most recent NAEP exam, I should have said.
Right—I should emphasize that my wording was carefully chosen. Most people can learn this. I don’t claim that most teachers can teach it well. That’s another whole problem.
Most kids (and parents, even teachers) QUIT trying before they have done enough practice to demonstrate whether indeed they are incapable of a task, or just unwilling to do the work.
We must put in the effort required to become better at something, at anything. This is the quality that seems very lacking in our young people.
As was said in an earlier comment, do the NAEP and PISA tests compare apples to apples in the international realm?
In the US, “all” (let’s say 89%) kids go to high school until they are 16. The complete population is part of the NAEP test pool.
In Finland or Korea, are their high school programs containing the same proportion of their youth? Or do their high schools contain a population of their most academically competent and proficient, while the US test pool is an amalgamation of most students within an age group?
I teach in a HS, and when I saw the names of those part of the random sample of the school pulled out of class for the NAEP test, I was mortified, and unsurprised by the international rankings of the United States population. I’m guessing quite a few of them never even bothered to report for the test, or tossed it, like they do on so much other school related stuff.
The top of that list looks a lot like the top of this list, which is probably no coincidence.
For nearly all people, basic geometry is mandatory. In my judgement it is part of the bare minimum necessary life skills to function as an adult, particularly if they are male.
I am fine with lowering and creating more coherent standards, but if we can’t count on really basic geometry, then we may as well pack it up and go home.
That’s exactly what students who can’t do geometry do. They pack it up and go home, aka drop out. I would rather see them learning something they might find useful.
RonH,
And if writing is too difficult, history is too boring, and science requires knowing the stuff in the courses they aren’t taking, then I guess you’d have them sit around, listen to music, and play video games.
Hey, why don’t they just stay home. That’s what they were already doing anyway.
Regards,
Jim