<p>Yes, it has to be a two-pronged approach: a short-term one to reverse the dropout trend and a long-term one as embodied in the NRC report.</p>
<p>The short-term measure should stress on making math learning fun, in addition to having special/extended classes to provide assistance and motivation to the slow learners/late starters/uninterested/disenfranchised.</p>
<p>The success of the short-term measure also would have a positive feedback in that the "enlightened" present crop of high school students
would be able to provide better parental help for their kids, hence setting off a virtuous cycle that would complement the long-term measures.</p>
<p>Wow, IvyHopeful, I think you've come up with a good compromise that I really agree with. Work <em>toward</em> higher standards over time, while at the same time implementing other improvements geared to bolstering the kids who are faltering. So the high schools could have long range goals of eventually having all kids take math through algebra 2, but phase that in over time by setting goals to increase algebra 2 and passage rate by a certain percentage each year. </p>
<p>Similar to No Child Left Behind long-term goals, but more realistic. (NCLB unfortunately,, has the goal that all children will be above average by the end of the phase-in.... a statistical impossibility). </p>
<p>I'd have no problem at all if there were additional requirements for graduating from high school in the year 2016, if by that time we had the support systems in place to make that a realistic goal. But the support begins in elementary school and middle school -- if you want high schoolers completed algebra 2, then you had better start with a strong pre-algebra program in the 6th grade. (In the 6th grade, my daughter was still getting fuzzy math -- I swear my daughter went through school getting a series of the most abysmal approaches to math education that were ever created. My son was only 5 years ahead of her, but rode the tail end of a really great math curriculum)</p>
<p>I see more where you are coming from now calmom- I agree that algebra II shouldn't be required to get a diploma
However- if you are not yet at that level- I think that 4 years of math should be required- what ever that means-
I notice that some AP classes are taught over a year period- and in some schools they are only a semester-
I think they could teach math that way- why can't we make sure students get the concepts before they move them through?
I realize math isn't "fun"- but just because it is difficult- isnt a reason not to take it.
If they need two years to get through algebra I - then let them have it.
we still have fuzzy math in all grades- pretty sad- if the parents can supplement or the teachers want to do their own supplementation then the students do much better than in the school where the parents can't/wont reteach the math and the teachers just use the curriculum as written.</p>
<p>calmom: "I think we need to focus on rescuing the kids who are in the water and drowning before we worry about building better ships. Its a triage approach to education which might not be the ideal -- but that's the way I see it. When 90% of the kids are staying in school and passing algebra and geometry, then we can start looking at making sure they go to the next level. But I'll bet that the majority of the dropouts haven't even passed geometry, much less moved on to algebra II."</p>
<p>I completely agree. That is why I advocate a two-tier high school diploma -- one for kids who are "college prep" and one for those who for many reasons don't have what it takes to pass higher math so "a vocation diploma" is right for them (the kid may have the IQ but is too immature to have the interest or focus). I agree with Calmom that we must have a system that leaves the "option open" for those "lower tier" grads to go back and get those credits at a later time. She is right that some/many do -- after militiary, after working for awhile, whatever. Certainly the military doesn't require its recruits to have completed Alg II. Yet, many leave the military, go back to college and fill in those gaps later. </p>
<p>There is one thing that I would insist upon, that a parent must sign something that indicates that they are aware that their child is not pursuing the college prep diploma and that they agree with that decision. I wouldn't want kids who are capable of doing Alg II taking the easy way out and their parents not be aware of it.</p>
<p>I completely agree with Calmom that once a kid drops out, we've essentially lost him/her. Those kids inevitably end up being involved in drugs and crime, while a kid with the "lower tier" diploma is more likely to get a job, be a good ciitizen and perhaps go to a community college later to learn those higher math concepts.</p>
<p>How about one type of diploma, but a diploma can have an additional honors-type designation if the student has also completed a college prep program? It doesn't have to be labeled "honors" - something else that was suitably descriptive would do. The point is that this would avoid any stigma being attached to the vocational/basic type of diploma - and at the same time give added recognition & incentive to the students who do complete the college prep program. </p>
<p>And I agree completely that parents should be informed at the outset what the college prep track requires, and whether or not their kid is on it. But the problem is that most of the kids we are talking about probably don't have parents who really care in any case. I happen to live in the kind of neighborhood where the vast majority of high school grads do NOT go away to college -- they either get a job or live at home and attend a local community college or CSU at best. They simply don't have parents who expect anything different from them. </p>
<p>And as I am puzzling out the problem of where I'm going to come up with the funds for college next year, I can see why: there is no way around it. In order for me to send my daughter to college, I will need to take on debt that I will still be paying off 14 years from now. I come from an upbringing and culture that values education highly - so I can accept the reality that the cost of attendance & residence at our in-state colleges is $22-$25K per year simply because that's what college costs, and I'm willing to pay for it whatever it takes. </p>
<p>But that really isn't an option in the world of many kids -- its probably hard to get motivated when college is unaffordable in any case. We're not talking about the stellar students who will qualify for free rides at elite private college -- we're talking about kids who will be lucky to graduate with a C+ average and aren't going to be in line for anything but loans. </p>
<p>This last list specifically is geared to jobs that students can train for in high school, with schools that have CTE (Career Technical Education) programs, usually completed in 11th & 12 grade. Some aren't too shabby as far as pay; for example, an elevator mechanic earns from $40-96,000. It may not be what we want for our kids, but not all families are as far along on the upward mobility track. (oops... sorry... I didn't intend the elevator pun. ;) )</p>
<p>I notice that some AP classes are taught over a year period- and in some schools they are only a semester-</p>
<p>Ek:</p>
<p>The AP classes that are taught in one semester, if they are not semester classes such as Macro and micro, are taught on the block schedule which involves double period. So the same amount of time is required to teach AP-Calc whether it is on the block schedule or not. The only real difference is between schools that offer either AB or BC-Calc and schools that offer BC- Calc as a one-year follow-up of AB-Calc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some aren't too shabby as far as pay; for example, an elevator mechanic earns from $40-96,000.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am strongly in favor of vocational ed.</p>
<p>And yes, that salary range is not too shabby. I just saw an advertisement for a library cataloguer. Needs an MLS plus an Asian language plus familiarity with a variety of computer languages, plus cataloguing experience. Starting salary $36k.</p>