Foundations urge adopting A-G
Placements into Algebra at issue
Two foundations in Silicon Valley are encouraging school districts to adopt college preparatory courses, known as A to G, as their default high school curriculum, with all students required to take the classes unless their parents request that they not.
In order to ensure that students stay on track for admission to a four-year college, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and the Silicon Valley Education Foundation (the sponsor of this blog) are also urging school districts to create consistent criteria for placing students in Pre-Algebra in seventh grade and Algebra I in eighth grade.
The recommendations are among those in the policy brief “Time to Act: Closing the Racial Achievement Gap.” They stemmed from forums on the achievement gap that the foundations sponsored earlier this year.
Fewer than one in five school districts statewide reportedly offer all of their students the A-G curriculum, a series of 15 courses (18 recommended) in seven subject areas, including English, math, history, lab science, foreign language, and the visual and performing arts that students must pass with at least a C- for admission to a California State University or University of California campus. The Legislature has twice rejected legislation to make A-G mandatory.
San Jose Unified was the first district to adopt A-G as the default curriculum, for the Class of 2002, and San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified have followed suit within the past year. (Completion of A-G will first apply to the Class of 2015 in Oakland). This week, the East Side Union High School District in San Jose, the largest high school district in Northern California, will consider the idea as well.
In San Jose Unified, about 40 percent of the Class of 2008 satisfied A-G with no D’s and the prerequisite courses. It was about 7 percentage points higher than the state average. The graduation rate has increased since the institution of A-G, and the percentage of students needing catch-up courses once they get to a CSU school is significantly lower than the state average.
The foundations are urging the adoption of A-G, knowing that many high school graduates will not end up going to a four-year college, says Manny Barbara, the Silicon Valley Education Foundation’s vice president for advocacy. But, he says, “students should make a conscious decision on whether to go to college; it shouldn’t result from a lack of knowledge of the requirements” or a denial of opportunity due to a shortage of A-G classes, a faulty assignment of courses, or the lack of counseling and encouragement.
Racial disparities in college readiness are significant. In 2007-08, fewer than 25 percent of Silicon Valley’s Latino students achieved the A-G course requirements, compared with more than 70 percent of Asian students and more than 50 percent of whites.
No ‘falling between the cracks’
“Adoption of A-G would help prevent students from falling between the cracks,” Barbara says. Entering freshmen would assume they’re going to college. By junior year, they and their parents could choose otherwise. And for those students who opt out, there should be programs, such as career academies in the building trades or green technologies, that offer both career and college alternatives, Barbara says.
Algebra I is the gateway course for college admission. And yet determining which students get to take Algebra I in eighth grade and which are assigned to repeat it in ninth has been arbitrary among and even within districts. Statewide, a record 57 percent of students took algebra in eighth grade last year, and 46 percent of them – also a record – were proficient.
And yet the percentage of students in neighboring districts with similar demographics in Silicon Valley and elsewhere has radically varied, as has the percentage of students who test proficient. (Two years ago, a third of students in one San Jose district took Algebra I, compared with 80 percent in a nearby district with a high percentage of low-income Hispanic children; yet both districts feed into the East Side Union High School District.)
A study of San Mateo school districts by the Noyce Foundation found that inexplicable numbers of students, many of them Hispanic, with passing grades and proficiency on the state’s standardized achievement test, were required to repeat Algebra I in ninth grade, often to their detriment; a second time through rarely raises achievement and often turns students off to math.
That’s why the foundations recommend the adoption of consistent placement standards among districts, without spelling out what those should be. Silicon Valley Education Foundation, which provided Pre-Algebra and Algebra readiness summer school for 900 students this past summer, has asked participating districts to commit to create common criteria.
Subtle biases – an inability to relate to kids of color or the belief that many of them would never be college material – also could be at work. That’s the assumption behind the foundations’ recommendation that teachers be given “culturally relevant and responsive instruction.”
But simply mandating a rigorous course load, professional development, and placement criteria alone won’t be sufficient to substantially bump up the numbers – not without effective teachers in all classrooms.
Equity comes into play. Low-income schools continue to bear a disproportionate share of intern and inexperienced teachers, particularly in math and science. And these schools have had a higher churn of teachers because their newer teachers have been the first to get laid off. Los Angeles Unified is currently being sued over this issue; SB 691, which would have prevented disproportionate layoffs in low-performing schools, was defeated last month.
The foundations urge that the state and districts enact policies to attract and retain the most qualified and effective teachers in high-need schools, although no specific policy is recommended.
This looks like a policy running counter to what’s currently before the governor’s desk:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/13/3024171/california-bill-would-ease-arts.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The A_G positive comparisons between San Jose Unified use the state “average” attainment. But is San Jose an average district? It has the Almaden valley which is wealthy and may be above the average, but downtown which is below average income and education. We need a more fine grained analysis of A-G impact in San Jose Unified.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
With most students never going to college, we need to have at least as much K-12 geared toward non-college employment (CTE) and stop the illusion that all kids can or want to go to college. This is an impractical and frankly elitist strategy that seeks to stamp educators’ own autobiography on the public at large. Prepare kids for the real world.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Is it necessary to end a post that talks about raising/making standard higher expectations for students that would allow all of them to apply for college having met the starting requirements with a comment that none of this will work because we have ineffective teachers?
It REALLY sucks if students are being discriminated against when it comes to assigning classes.Tracking is a form of that discrimination, and that’s been going on for a LONG time. Adoption of A-G more widely could help that, I hope.
Teachers graduating from SJSU in the last 10 years are exposed to methods for teaching “culturally relevant and responsive instruction” in their credential classes. Many new teachers, still inspired to get their credential to make a difference (certainly not for the pay, considering the cost of student loans for that credential), are paying particular attention to issues of equity in their classrooms, in the school and beyond. You can’t get through the teaching induction program (BTSA) without working through equity issues in the classroom now, so all new teachers are being exposed even if it wasn’t in their credential program. I cannot speak to the preparation or attention with TFA candidates, but from the blogosphere you’d think that TFA was the answer to this issue. I don’t see how.
But these new teachers are the ones who are being #$%^ on all over in the media these days, because they can’t get the years of experience they need to have all of their teaching methods polished and become part of leadership teams and address equity at their school and their district without actual years passing by, acquiring both experience and respect from the rest of the staff. And they have been moved to new schools where they have to get to know everything again or laid off, starting over at another district or becoming a substitute teacher assigned to work by a computer.
If you want social justice to be a really important issue in schools, put some support behind new teachers who care deeply about the topic. But it’s crazy to expect that new teachers can learn all the ropes and administrative responsibilities and be as good as a 20-yr veteran in 1 or 2 years. It’s also crazy to expect that one year of teaching will overcome the social inequities occurring in every aspect of many children’s lives, including those attending school in San Jose Unified.
One of the reasons why good teachers get burnt out is because they see the unbearable hardships in their student’s lives, they can’t help but absorb some of that suffering. On the other end, pressure to “fix it” comes from the district, the state, the federal government, fix it in 4.5-6 hrs of instruction 180 days in a year.
Our students, who are not widgets but thinking beings, deserve high expectations. They also deserve support beyond the schools. So do teachers, who are caring for not only academics but that emotional well-being every day. It’s hard to get up and go to school every day knowing the news on the radio, tv, and in print is talking about how terrible you are at your job and repeatedly take away your ability to innovate instruction in your classroom. That alone is a good enough reason for some of the best to leave and do something else.
Something reading to consider: http://thejosevilson.com/2010/08/31/poverty-the-difference-between-a-reason-and-an-excuse
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
>Fewer than one in five school districts statewide reportedly offer all of their students the A-G curriculum
Where can we obtain a list of the districts that do honor these requirements? Who checks to see that other classes are not substituted?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is a large part of the growing opportunity gap for students of color. Tracking is real and pervasive in our school system. Mandating a-g’s is not about saying that every student should go to college, but that at ninth grade, we have not pre-determined that certain students can and certain students cannot go to college. All should have the option. CTE is an important option for students, but the most progressive districts, and usually the more affluent ones, recognize that CTE and a-g are not mutually exclusive. CTE can serve as an alternative to the traditional curriculum while still preparing students to attend college. Options are key.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This was implemented in my district, San Francisco Unified, only recently, and I learned during the discussions that most people don’t really get the gist. A lot of people without current or recent high school experience (as parents, teachers or students) had the notion that some kids were being tracked into an entirely different set of classes than others. People, that’s not the way it works. The point is that to fulfill the A-G requirements, a student might need one more year of math and/or history than he or she would need to meet the state’s and district’s graduation requirements. It would almost always be the same classes — just more of them. Also, students can graduate from high school with D’s in those classes (a D is still a passing grade), but must get a C or better in all of the classes (plus a minimum GPA) to fulfill the UC/CSU A-G requirements. A disadvantage to this requirement is that it may limit the options to students — for example, I’m told that journalism classes don’t fulfill the English requirement under the A-G criteria.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Reillyfam, I am not able to do the research right now, but I don’t think it’s true that *most* students never go to college.
And George, your comment is inaccurate and doesn’t even make sense. All school districts offer enough classes for their students to meet the A-G requirements. Where did you get that misinformation? The issue is just whether students are required (or even encouraged) to complete all the classes that mean they have met the full set of A-G requirements.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You’re right, Mike. San Jose Unified is not a typical urban district. That said, here’s some more data on San Jose Unified. I wasn’t able to get information on students who qualify for free and reduced lunches — the indicator for poverty — but in most schools, except Leland and maybe Pioneer, most Hispanic families come from low-income families.
In San Jose Unified, 29.1 percent of Hispanic students fulfilled A-G (grade C or better in all of the courses), compared with 22.5 percent statewide.
By high school:
Lincoln: 55.7 percent of students are Hispanic, of which 35.8 percent of those students met A-G;
Gunderson: 38.4 percent Hispanic, of which 19.6 percent met A-G;
Leland: 10.1 percent Hispanic, of which 61.5 percent met A-G;
Pioneer: 29.0 percent Hispanic, of which 38.9 percent met A-G;
San Jose Academy: 63.8 percent Hispanic, of which 23.9 percent met A-G;
Willow Glen: 47.3 percent Hispanic, of which 19.8 percent met A-G.
In other words, there are schools in which a low proportion of Hispanic children are meeting the district’s policy and schools in which A-G is working to send comparatively more students to a four-year state school. In every one of San Jose Unified’s schools, the percentage of students needing remediation as freshmen at a CSU campus is less than the state average.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Take a closer look at the San Jose A-G experiment … one obvious finding will be the fact that they had to drop their passing grade from C- to D- so as to not fail many students. Do you think kids with “D” grades are going to UC/CSU? Also, their college entrance rates have dropped (yes, that’s right; they have less students going onto college now than they did before their A-G mandate!). These are two glaring deficiencies of the San Jose track record. But the more important policy question is: Why should the UC BOARS determine what is valued at every high school for every secondary student? Do we trust that their limited mission (i.e., scholars, researchers and academics) is applicable to our entire student-body? The A-G obsession doesn’t jibe with the reality of our economy, the elementary-grade preparation of far too many students, and the overall function of the K-12 system; given the percentage of CSU freshmen needing English/math remediation (nearly 50%!), I’m not sure the A-G construct even works for its intended targets. Let’s get real about high school education reforms, or we’re going to continue seeing far too many students vote with their feet (by leaving the system before graduation).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Are you saying that students couldn’t pass classes with a D previously, Fred Jones? That doesn’t make sense — why have Ds, then? And just to be clear, UC/CSU REQUIRE grades of C or above for the classes to fulfill A-G — with the exception that students who get a certain score on the relevant AP or SAT subject test can compensate for the D that way (this did happen to my own wayward child). All that said, I was dubious about imposing this requirement on the basis that it limits students’ flexibility, and having experience with smart but quirky teens, I know that rigid requirements can be seriously problematic. For some students, an extra year of math would be torture (I’d make a large bet that this would include most working journalists, too).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline: The point about the “D” grade in SJUSD is that a lot of students are being compelled into Algebra II and other theoritical courses that they may struggle with, and many are getting low grades (including D’s), but being passed through the system (that is why only 40% are considered A-G worthy, by the district’s own acknowledgment). Should the district really be bragging about placing all of their students in the UC A-G curriculum, then? And what do you think that experience does for the confidence of those kids? While at the same time, SJUSD is turning away from their CTE programs (good luck finding an Ag program, for example … even Journalism is “out” since it doesn’t meet UC’s standards … too career-oriented, I suppose!). The underlying problem with the A-G movement is the lack of reality on which it is based, and the zero-sum game the “time in the school” reality places on elective courses in an A-G mandated district. The notion of racial tracking (via CTE enrollment) is a farce, since Dr. Gary Hoachlander’s own findings in a landmark study of Voc Ed enrollment from 1969-1987 show that minorities were NOT over-represented in Voc Ed courses, and since the only schools, today, that continue to maintain any semblance of CTE are in affluent districts, not poor urban districts. I don’t have a problem with UC setting its own admissions criteria, but why should we compel all students into that narrow worldview? And why did CSU decide to wed itself to that same standard back in 2000? Aren’t they still considered polytechnic universities? Or have they suffered from “UC envy” so long that they have given up their tech-roots altogether? If students are being denied access to college-bound coursework, that is a tragedy that must be immediately rectified; but should we be forcing all kids into this narrow bandwidth and then bragging to the world that we are doing something real for their benefit?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m somewhat inclined to agree, Fred, based (as noted) on seeing kids who need flexibility, not more rigidity, to be engaged and successful in school. I’m just trying to help people be clear in discussing the A-G requirements what they really are, since as noted I discovered wild misconceptions (in practically everyone except those currently involved in high schools in some capacity) when this was a hot topic here in San Francisco.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Though I’m reluctant to bite the hand that feeds this fine web site, the foundations’ very brief briefing paper on this topic seems to start with the very questionable assumption that the “a-g” course requirements constitute a good and worthy set of goals.
In practice, many front line school and district staff who work this system can tell you that the “a-g” course approval process is little more than a cursory review of course syllabi, resting on the Western Association of Schools and Colleges variable accreditation “seal of approval.”
Unfortunately, the UC Board of Regents delegates virtually all “a-g” policy decisions to a small group of faculty who constitute a committee called BOARS (’gotta love that name) that often sets these key policies with virtually no opportunity for public participation. The California State University largely “piggybacks” on the UC’s system with even less forethought.
If foundation staff spent a bit more time digging into this, I’d bet they’d rethink their recommendations, perhaps calling for an analysis of how California’s K-12 and higher education segments could get their collective act together. Better yet, they could also include what little is left of the state’s career-technical programs involved too.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Eric: The old-style vocational programs may be withering, but the more academically rigorous career academics, the so called multiple pathways, linked learning — in engineering, computing, medical professions, computer graphics, green technologies — is thriving, or at least surviving in tough times. And these programs do offer both work opportunities and A-G courses. I agree that the UC process for approving A-G courses deserves more scrutiny.
As for biting the hand that feeds me, the web site welcomes all points of view, including those contrary to advocacy positions of the foundation, and I am free to express my own points of view as well.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John,
You start with suggesting that schools create consistent criteria in grades 7 & 8 for placing students in pre-Algebra and Algebra. I heartily support this idea as long as it is well-done, but the biggest problem the Noyce report (mentioned later) found was grade 9 admissions into Algebra and Geometry that mostly ignored Algebra 1 success in grade 8. Why focus on grade 7 & 8 in that case, rather than on grade 9?
Further, it should be noted that Algebra taking in grade 8 may soon become a moot issue. Few middle schoolers will take Algebra in grade 8 if the state-board-approved bloated Algebra 1 based on the common core standards sequence will come to pass.
Even further, the SVEF/SVCF report may be focusing on the wrong solution. Its recommendation #1 reads “Support professional development of teachers in culturally relevant and responsive instruction.” The report then focuses on racial distribution of teachers versus students, as if it were a truism that teacher’s race should ideally match the student’s. This is an assertion unsupported by serious research and one that promotes racial quotas. The report goes on to state that “They must receive professional development in culturally relevant and responsive instruction defined by curricula as well as performance and delivery standards that recognize the learning styles, strengths, interests and cultural background/heritage of students in the classroom.” That is an insidious and insulting statement that implies there is a different way to teach mathematics to one race than to another. There is no such thing as “white Algebra,” “black Algebra,” or “yellow Algebra” – there is simply algebra. Similarly, research clearly shows there is no such thing as “learning styles” and even SVEF ought to know that by now. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive to a culture, but there is a lot of wrong trying to adjust content instruction in a “culturally relevant” manner – we end up teaching diluted content to minority students.
And that brings me to the A-G curriculum. The report recommends that “Require students to take A-G courses unless parents and students request not to.” This strikes me as ill advised – either parent OR student should be able to request not to take the course. More, this seems to continue the trend that wants to make HS graduation equal to college admission. This is – in my opinion – a foolish trend, and I am gratified to see commenters agreeing with me on this. We do expect all our children to graduate high school, but we do not expect all of them to continue to college. Insisting on equalizing the two will either force us to fail a larger fraction of students from graduating high school, or lower the definition of college readiness (as, incidentally, do the Common Core standards.) I agree with others that developing strong and attractive CTE offerings is a much better way.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The University of California designed the A-G curriculum as necessary preparation for admissions to their four-year university system. Those high school students pursuing a career that requires a either a Bachelor of Arts or Sciences (B.A or B.S.) degree should take these courses. Furthermore, since the United States Department of Labor forecasts that between 20 to 30% of the jobs in our economy will require a bachelors degree — then at least 20 to 30% of our kids should be successfully pursuing and completing this type of education.
However, what about the other 70-80% of careers that do not require a bachelors? Are these not to be valued? Are the kids who pursue these careers judged to be working towards a “lesser achievement” than those who seek careers that require a bachelors? Think about it.
Is a skilled plumber in our society seen as less ambitious and less intelligent than the dentist? For many reading this post the unspoken answer is “yes.” The plumber’s path is seen as a result of an individual who “just didn’t work as hard in school,” “they didn’t get the right breaks,” “they didn’t have the right encouragement, etc.” the list goes on of infinite reasons to rationalize and sort “those” people who want to pursue “those” types of careers. What many are blind to, or actively deny, is their own discriminatory attitudes about “plumbers” and other proud, intelligent and skilled workers in their own communities. This discrimination is rooted in age old “class-ism” and “elitism” pure and simple. And, this bias unfortunately plays out in formal education policy on a daily basis in foundation board rooms and in the halls of Sacramento and Washington DC.
It is widely understood that our K-12 system is failing the majority of our kids (and reducing their lifetime income and competitiveness in the global economy). Our public schools do not provide our students with the curriculum necessary for the “admissions requirements” for life and careers in the real-world and industry. A-G is great for those kids seeking up to 30% of the careers. However, nobody can honestly claim that UC designed this set of curriculum as a predeterminate of success for the other 70% . If they did – they failed.
It may be time to recognize the impact real and bona fide discrimination (unspoken as it is) is having on our current education system; and perversely it’s role in contributing to the shape of new education “reform” efforts. In a world where all professions are truly respected equally, high school graduation requirements would not be be dependent on the unilateral decisions of UC and CSU admissions offices. Instead, the graduation requirements would be designed to successfully prepare 100% of our students for life and ALL jobs in California’s new economy. Yes, this curriculum would likely be heavy in career and technical education (CTE). Problems?
A-G curriculum was not designed for the educational needs for the majority of our students and the careers they will pursue. There will likely be scholarly posts that attempt to argue that “A-G” mandates will better prepare the plumber for his/her career. A plumber, they will say, also needs Algebra II and three years of foreign language — even if these courses squeeze CTE out of his high school. Really? Does anybody in the real-world buy this? Perhaps it’s time to move-on and stop trying to rationalize and adapt UC’s A-G curriculum as an elixir to our K-12 failures.
I propose that we try to do a better job of keeping blind discrimination out of education policy – at all levels and adopt rational K-12 curriculum policies that makes sense for students, our society, our economic future and the taxpayers footing the bill for this unsustainable and costly system of public education.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John
The only reason why some Partnershp Academies are surviving is that only one-third of their funding comes from the State … the other two-thirds come from industry and local districts. And therein lies the rub: how can we expect to scale Linked Learning Programs (or “Multiple Pathways”, or whatever the next branding will be of this costly campus reform models) statewide to every high school pupil, given the current cost of such programs? The closest thing we have to LLPs/MPs are PA’s, and they require $4,500/student in addition to ADA (after taking into consideration all three sources of funding for PAs). That is why the James Irvine Foundation are providing 6-figure grants to convince districts to establish limited LLPs/MPs, and why advocates of this exclusive delivery model are seeking state and federal funding streams to maintain those costly programs once the foundation dollars run dry.
John, be wary of endorsing a copyrighted delivery model that requires the transformation of an entire high school campus (not just CTE programs, but how and what is taught in core disciplines, too), especially one that seems to only value CTE in the context of a college-prep curriculum that is mandated on all students. There are many ways of delivering bona fide career training and preparation coursework … dare I say multiple pathways to student success. It appears some want to embrace a “One Way to Win” approach to public education. Sad!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John: What are the “old-style vocational programs” you refer to in the precious post?
Are these the classes that taught the previous generations metallurgy, welding, construction and automotive skills? I would submit these courses were both rigorous and relevant in preparing the skilled workforce that built our current infrastructure and economy. I would also submit to you that these courses remain rigorous and relevant to the existing and future economy in California.
“Green technologies” is a nice term. How do you build a ”green” house or commercial building if you don’t have construction? How do you build “green” energy generation systems if you don’t know metallurgy or how to weld? How do you build ”green” engines and vehicles for transportation if you don’t know how automobiles work today?
I would speculate that the reason these essential courses have withered in today’s high schools is not due to any associated lack of “rigor” but that they have withered because of a changing attitude that is pervasive in education policy that these skills lead to “lesser” careers.
Do we need to call metallurgy, welding, construction and automotive classes “green” to be socially acceptable and seen as “rigorous and relevant” in today’s discriminatory world?
Really?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Fred: The debate over CTE and Partnership Academies has migrated from an earlier discussion on Gary Hoachlander’s video, so, for the other side, I will refer readers to the responses of Gary and David Plank, rather than rehash them here.
Chris: I am referring to vocational courses in cosmetology, auto body repair, food service preparation, some construction programs in which students were often steered for low-skill jobs. No question welding, metallurgy, engine repair require training and skills;they also demand high levels of literacy and computation. Partnership academies offer both, do they not?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John:
Until the last two decades, it was common for California’s middle and high schools to provide vocational classes that instilled students with skills and knowledge in automotive, construction, metallurgy and welding (as well as culinary arts and cosmetology) – even journalism. These same schools also provided English and math courses that placed a premium on literacy and computation skills. It was this model that educated the skilled workers that built and maintained the California economy.
Unfortunately, critics of this successful educational model for grades 7-12 will often raise the word”tracking” or surrogate terms to imply we should prejudicially avoid returning to this system. When you say in your previous post “in which students were steered for low-skill jobs” it sounds like you are also promoting this line of thinking. Which students are you talking about?
To answer your primary question: partnership academies (PA) provide vocational and academic coursework. But, that’s not the point. If we could dispense with the unspoken discrimination against blue collar jobs perhaps we could return to the point where all schools teaching grades 7-12 provide vocational courses along with their academic coursework. Boutique and expensive PAs with specialized thematic focus should not be the only “allowable” forum for student access to vocational education in our public schools.
It appears the difference between your opinion and mine is that I don’t believe that students should be forced to enroll in a PA; or alternatively be mandated to take all of the “A-G” coursework in order to: 1) enroll in vocational education programs; or 2) to graduate from high school. It seems you believe in these two “reforms” and I don’t.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John:
Until the last two decades, it was common for California’s middle and high schools to provide vocational classes that instilled students with skills and knowledge in automotive, construction, metallurgy and welding (as well as culinary arts and cosmetology) – even journalism. These same schools also provided English and math courses that placed a premium on literacy and computation skills. It was this model that educated the skilled workers that built and maintained the California economy.
Unfortunately, critics of this successful educational model for grades 7-12 will often raise the word”tracking” or surrogate terms to imply we should prejudicially avoid returning to this system. When you say in your previous post “in which students were steered for low-skill jobs” it sounds like you are also promoting this line of thinking. Which students are you talking about?
To answer your primary question: partnership academies (PA) provide vocational and academic coursework. But, that’s not the point. If we could dispense with the unspoken discrimination against blue collar jobs perhaps we could return to the point where all schools teaching grades 7-12 provide vocational courses along with their academic coursework. Boutique and expensive PAs with specialized thematic focus should not be the only “allowable” forum for student access to vocational education in our public schools.
It appears the difference between your opinion and mine is that I don’t believe that students should be forced to enroll in a PA; or alternatively be mandated to take all of the “A-G” coursework in order to: 1) enroll in vocational education programs; or 2) to graduate from high school. It seems you believe in these two “reforms” and I don’t.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John: The cost of the MPs/LLPs vision (which you brought into this strand) is a relevant consideration to the whole A-G movement, since it appears the only way some believe CTE should be delivered (and get all kids qualified for UC admissions) is through this trademarked version of high school reform.
But it’s also kinda funny you reference cosmetology as an example of a throw-away career path, since my oldest daughter just started beauty college two weeks ago.
She just turned 17, and after one year, will be working in one of the most entreprenuerial industry’s in the free-market; most stylists, today, rent their own booth space, and therefore are independent, sole proprietorships, and if they do their craft well, they will enjoy a clientele that will crawl over broken glass across a desert to get to their trusted hairdresser every 6-8 weeks. Not a bad business venture if you ask me. While it’s true that government statistics indicate lower income potential for cosmetologists, it’s equally true that (unfortunately) many such “booth renters” hide their income (not just tips, but fees-for-service) from the IRS, and hence their official income capacity is WELL below their actual earnings.
Compare her chosen (not compelled) path to those pursuing a 4-year degree (or postsecondary professional degree), and the time (and considerable tuition and expenses) it will take those students to become qualified for the real world of work (assuming their college degree actually provides them marketable skills needed in today’s economy): She will likely own her own salon and employ or rent space to 7-or-8 fellow stylists by the time such loan-laden students graduate (all too many of whom will have a degree that isn’t matched to any market reality). She’ll have no debt, a marketable skill, business ownership and an earned clientele; the 4-year college graduate will have plenty of debt, questionable skills, no job, and likely nobody flocking to them with their wallets open.
So I must ask of you , John: Is my daughter a loser for choosing to pursue this trade? If she were a racial minority, would we be able to conclude she was directed into such a “low-skilled” job?
It’s time to Get REAL about educational expectations and remove our unfounded, discriminatory biases from our deliberations, especially those of us in the public sphere who can influence policies impacting the next generation of students and the future of our state’s (and nation’s) economy. I commend to you an excellent NY Times column by David Brooks that ran a couple of days ago … his insights are directly spot-on to this discussion. There is a lot that hangs in this balance.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
That’s thought-provoking, Fred Jones. My son is a jazz trumpet major at highly regarded Oberlin Conservatory, and nobody EVER treats that path with disdain. But which path is likely to lead to a more secure economic future? Rhetorical question.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Response to Caroline, Sept 10th
>And George, your comment is inaccurate and doesn’t even make sense. All school districts offer enough classes for their students to meet the A-G requirements. Where did you get that misinformation? The issue is just whether students are required (or even encouraged) to complete all the classes that mean they have met the full set of A-G requirements.
The information that not all schools offers the A-G requirement to all students comes from the above article, 4th paragraph from the top. My question was in response to that same paragraph. There was no judgmental proclamation about the suitability for A-G requirements as the default graduation requirements for all students.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Sorry, GeorgeH, out of context I didn’t recognize it as the same information. What John means is that those districts don’t require all students to take all the courses that make up the full A-G requirements. All districts offer sufficient classes.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline and George: Ed Trust-West has found that not every high school does have the capacity to offer A-G to all students –either facilities for lab science or arts courses or foreign language. So it’s not simply an issue of encouragement.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
More on the issue of accessibility to A-G. AB 2446 has passed the Legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature. It would allow students to substitute a career technical ed course (CTE) for the state’s one-course arts or foreign language requirement. Since both arts and foreign language courses are required in the A-G sequence, the analysis of the bill noted as following:
Recognizing that this bill could result in high school students
graduating without taking a single course in foreign language,
or VPA, it must be noted that this bill could have an effect on
a pupil’s eligibility for admission to UC and CSU because both
of these are courses required for minimum eligibility for
freshman admission to California’s four-year public
postsecondary institutions.
In other words, schools may opt to cut back in arts and foreign language classes as more students take CTE courses. That wouldn’t be wise in its own right, and also could have an impact on students who need to complete A-G.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity