In the second Utah-related education story in as many days, the state is considering a proposal for raising the graduation standards, so that kids are actually forced to do better in classes, and not just perform well on standardized exams:
...instead of applying solely to high school students, the revised proposal holds middle school students to a C or better in their classes to earn course credit. Those who don't make the grade could still move on to high school but would be required to take certain classes to catch up.
In addition, the state board could require students to demonstrate certain skills -- such as technical writing or oral communication of ideas -- in order to graduate. Employers and colleges, then, would be assured that every graduate sufficiently proved his or her abilities in practice, not just on a test.
Although adding grades into this process is subjective, some supporters of the proposal believe this is a good thing, because grades may include "intangibles such as a student's work ethic, class behavior and effort. " Unfortunately, it could also include intangibles such as a teacher's unwillingness to assign a D or an F if they know that the student won't be able to move forward with those grade.
Other suggested changes:
* Sets non-negotiable minimum standards for students in kindergarten through 10th grade starting in fall 2004.
* Adds frequent "diagnostic" assessments in K-10 to alert teachers and parents to students' grasp of subject matter.
* Notes the state board will investigate establishing and enforcing exit competency guidelines that aren't necessarily connected to a single course. For example, a student could demonstrate competency in writing in classes such as history or science.
* Expands performance expectations to include seventh and eighth grade. Like high school students, seventh- and eighth-graders would be required to earn a C or better in each of 12 courses to advance to high school. Students who fail to do so would still move on to high school but would have to enroll in specific classes to catch up.
* No longer cites a six-period daily class schedule as the preferred schedule.
* No longer prescribes course requirements for the junior and senior years. Math, for example, would no longer be required senior year.
* Expands the breadth of electives high school students may take beyond 24 core and elective credits (or six courses a year over four years). One-third of additional classes must be in language arts, math, science, social studies, fine arts, applied technology, physical education, math or foreign language. This is meant to ensure a meaningful senior year by preventing students from filling their schedule with easy classes.
* Drops reference to tying school funding to student competency.
Interesting. How are the increase of the breadth of electives, and the deletion of the math requirement for seniors, supposed to prevent those kids from "filling their schedules with easy classes"? If math and phys ed are both considered acceptable electives, it's not hard to see which way some kids are going to go.
And how are schools going to be held accountable if state funding isn't tied to competency? Are there any provisions in the report for that?
Posted by kswygert at July 24, 2003 11:04 AM