Yesterday, at the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) conference at the Westin in downtown Seattle, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn announced his new plans for math and science graduation requirements to an audience of over 1,000 statewide school board members.
Dorn, elected as a reformer last year, said it was necessary to postpone stricter graduation requirements for math until the class of 2015, and all graduation requirements for science until the class of 2017, to give students and teachers appropriate time to adjust to pending reforms.
For math graduation requirements until 2015, Dorn is okay with giving students a fall back option of earning two credits of math after tenth grade in order to graduate (a choice that is set to disappear in 2013) in place of passing a set of exams. Reformers want the scheduled changes—getting rid of the additional course work graduation option—to kick in for the class of 2013. They want students to have to pass either a state exam or two end-of-course exams to graduate starting in 2013—without Dorn’s fallback.
For 2015 and onward, Dorn offered a two-tier proposal: Students either meet the proficiency level in two end-of-course exams or students meet the basic level in the exams and earn four math credits. Students who don’t meet the basic level in the exams have the option of retesting with a comprehensive exam or using state-approved alternatives such as the SAT.
As far as the science graduation requirement, Dorn proposed postponing any requirements until the class of 2017, and replacing the current comprehensive assessment with end-of-course assessments in physical and life sciences. The 2010 legislature (starting this January) is supposed to define the science requirements.
Dorn explained the delay would allow teachers and students to assess whether the end-of-course exams and new strategies were effective before being implemented as graduation requirements.
Dorn said his proposed changes would improve educational standards in Washington and lead to higher proficiency in math and science—adding that he approved national common curriculum in science and supported the need for unified school standards.
Not everyone agrees that Dorn’s proposals would strengthen Washington’s schools. State Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48)—who led the fight to pass last year’s education reform bill—told PubliCola that Dorn’s plan would simultaneously lower the level of the math and science curriculum and not require the number of years students needed for students to be competitive. Hunter accused Dorn of lowering the bar.
UPDATE:
Governor Chris Gregoire also disagrees with Dorn’s proposal. She released this statement:
“I oppose the proposal. As our state and global economies become more technically driven, we need to ensure that our students leave high school highly-trained in math and science so they can qualify for Washington state jobs or entry into training and higher education programs of their choosing.
“Our students are capable of mastering our state’s standards in math and science. They have shown us their capacity to meet our expectations in the past. Schools I visited recently give me every indication that when students know the work is important they dig in and make the most of it.
“We can’t lower our standards in math, nor can we communicate that science is not important. We must prepare our students for their future. There is every reason to focus attention on the math and science learning needs of our students so they can succeed after high school. The Superintendent is concerned about the graduation rate. I am concerned about the bigger picture—preparing kids for life. I think parents share that concern.”
Dorn’s proposal could also put Washington state’s accesss to federal education dollars at risk. I’ll report more on that soon.
Tweet
China and India are graduating more engineers than we are; MS can’t even get enough Americans, it needs to hire foreigners.
In this context postponing math and delaying science until 2017 — 2017! is a perf plan for failure.
By 2017 we will all be $14 an hour peons in factories building e cars…..factories owned by Chinese and Indian companies….
Let’s see, using my 12th grade math skills, um, 2017 minus 2009…um, wait, um…that’s um eight years…Well we wouldn’t want to pressure those teachers to have to learn how to, you know, teach, on a you know, “quick” or “urgent” basis…and obviously expecting them to learn it in less than eight years would be too much “pressure.”
The good news: as our income levels fall achieving a smaller carbon footprint will come naturally.
This is disappointing indeed. When I look at the public school system’s failure to produce students proficient in math, I think that the fundamental problem does come down to resources. We have a critical shortage of teachers who are themselves proficient in mathematics, mainly because people with that skill set can get much better paying jobs elsewhere. Obviously, the present budget situation is not at all helpful. Also, I wonder if we are going to give our educators the opportunity to experiment, or if we are going to keep them locked into the same deficient models of the past.
Another issue is of the nature of a high school diploma. We want two contradictory things from a diploma. First, earning a diploma should be an accomplishment and should represent the mastery of high school level knowledge. Second, we want all kids to get one. A diploma won’t mean much at all if Boeing and other companies continue to move away due to Washington state graduates being of a lower level.
So anyway, I would ask this question about the standards. Do we set standards at what we believe to be an appropriate level of proficiency for high schoolers? Or do we set standards at whatever level is necessary so that all students meet them? Clearly, the two are not the same right now.
@ 2:
Disappointing? It’s flat unacceptable!
Yes, this is completely unacceptable. I can understand postponing things by one year or two. But four? Eight? That’s just ridiculous.
These tests are not even that difficult! I am 90% certain that it doesn’t even have any “word” problems (because reading is “hard”!). In one or two years motivated students can absolutely achieve this.
I would also argue that this examination should be given right now. Perhaps it can be made non-binding this year (and/or the next) but it will give the students and teachers an understanding of the level of difficulty.
Elim Garak:
Just a point of information, students will have to take the HSPE (WASL replacement) starting this spring regardless of whether they have to pass it. As far as the end-of-course exams for math, those should start being administered spring 2011.
School is so important now…, they should think at middle school too. Thank you for the news
The truly scary part is the state superintendant does not report to anyone. They are completely autonomous. The Legislature can veto this move, but they won’t because the teachers’ union will threaten to organize a vote against them when they run again.
@1: China and India are graduating more engineers than we are
China has 1.33 billion people.
India has 1.17 billion people.
The United States? 307 million.
Shouldn’t countries 4 times our size create more engineers?
@4: I am 90% certain that it doesn’t even have any “word” problems (because reading is “hard”!).
You’re 100% wrong.
http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/WASL/MathTestspecs/2008/HSMathRIDFinal.pdf
@7: The Legislature can veto this move, but they won’t because the teachers’ union will threaten to organize a vote against them when they run again.
This sort of ignores the fact that the WASL was created in the first place, and the MAP, and all the other changes to the assessment system over the years.
@ 2:
Disappointing? It's flat unacceptable!