Those of you complaining that our test-driven culture is forcing schools to drop classes that don't teach the basics might find this article interesting. The article describes the process by which a particular school district in Utah is re-evaluating whether classes can remain in the curriculum.
The schools in Utah are under the gun to revamp their curricula and beef up graduation requirements, and the article makes it clear that the relationship the class content has to the test scores is important for judging the necessity of a course:
In an afternoon study session, the board agreed with a staff proposal to evaluate courses based on three criteria: whether the courses are necessary, whether they contribute to schools' annual growth in test scores and graduation rates, and whether they enhance students' post-high school options.
Now, I don't see these criteria as flawed, but some do. But those who claim that necessary courses are going to go under the knife should look further at the basis by which some of these courses were created in the first place:
Whenever a principal wants to add a new course, he or she fills out an application answering questions such as whether the proposed course is driven by the needs of students, whether research supports the need for the course, and whether it will improve the cultural, social and intellectual environment for all students. In all, there are eight questions in the application...
"Up to now, approval of a course has been pretty likely because all we ask for is for the principal to answer a few questions," Assistant Superintendent Linda Mariotti said. The process is inherently flawed because it is so subjective, she said. "There are no criteria for schools to determine, 'Do we really need this? What constitutes student need?' " she said...
Under the proposal she presented to the board Tuesday, principals and their schools' community councils would initiate the process for adding a new course by answering "yes" to three questions: whether research supports the need for the course, whether a qualified instructor is available to teach it and whether the course is fiscally feasible...Course proponents would also have to meet two of three additional criteria: whether the school needs another core academic class or a class that supports the core, such as "the function of literature;" whether the proposed course will help the school and students meet annual growth targets for standardized test scores and graduation rates; and whether the course will enhance students' post-high school options.
Wow, such onerous requirements these are. Don't initiate a course unless the money and teaching resources are availabe, and there's evidence to support the need for it. Oh, and is it going to help the kids by either allowing them to learn basic/core skills, or help them in the post-high-school world? If not, should taxpayers really be paying for it?
These criteria seem reasonable to me, yet I'm awaiting the inevitable backlash from those who think that kids have a right to take sports marketing (to use one example) in a public school.
Posted by kswygert at July 23, 2003 10:20 AM