[CSPS] CS Response

Wed Dec 13 14:17:53 CST 2006

As in most policies, the devil will be in the details, or how this will
be implemented. Are there rules and regs in place yet for what can be
offered? Will individual schools have some leeway to be creative, or
will there be one size fits all requirements. In some cases this could
be a good thing - maybe offer oceanography, atmospheric sciences,
environmental or ecological sciences or other more focused science
classes that will give students some insight into what else is out
there. If this is possible these additional classes can become as
attractive as electives to some students. On the other hand if the
school is required to teach more chemistry, and they just divide up the
existing curriculum across more years of study, this will just water
down those classes and not meet the intent of the policy. 

I am also concerned about who will teach these additional classes -
since studies show that a large percentage of science classes in the US
are taught by non-science majors - will the schools be able to afford
good, qualified, teachers for the additional classes that are required?
Or will it be a catch all from whoever is available to teach? 

I agree with Sarah that we have some great teachers here in the CSISD. I
was complaining to one of these teachers a few months ago about
something or another (probably the cost of athletics and renovating
existing athletic facilities) and she reminded me that these extra
opportunities, like electives, sports, languages, and clubs, are the
reason a lot of kids keep coming to school. This was from a math
teacher, ironically, and while she said she was supportive of teaching
more math, the district has to realize that cutting out electives to
teach more math and science could have unintended consequences of
turning these kids off of school. 

Finally, in response to Arvind's discussion with Steve Ogden about the
good intentions of this policy - to increase competitiveness - since
when is more of a mediocre or poorly taught class, regardless of the
subject, a good thing? One good class with a qualified, enthusiastic
teacher armed with a creative and flexible curriculum, and the resources
for adequate support, will be more effective than one additional year of
that same subject just because it is required by well intentioned
elected officials. But this really gets into the faulty metrics we use
for such ambiguous concept as "success" or "competitiveness." More is
not necessarily better. And if the legislature is serious about the
competitiveness issue, they should have targeted their efforts at
elementary and intermediate schools - this is where they need to get
kids excited about math and science and encourage the growth in our
national capacity in these areas. By the time they get to high school
many students are already turned off of these subjects by the lack of
good teaching and curriculum in the earlier grades.

Eric Lindquist

-----Original Message-----
From: csps-bounces at csps.tamu.edu [mailto:csps-bounces at csps.tamu.edu] On
Behalf Of Sarah Bednarz
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:15 AM
To: Mahajan, Arvind
Cc: csps at PHILEBUS.tamu.edu; Susan Scott
Subject: Re: [CSPS] CS Response

Arvind:

I don't think we can afford to have a system which allows students to
have proclivities and not achieve at least a fairly high degree of
competence in all subjects. And I mean all students.  Luckily, the
addition of an additional year of math and science will not affect the
already-required four years of language arts and social studies, hence
this is not a zero sum game in that regard. It may affect student access
to health science technology, but what good is that without math and
science?

I work in the schools with teachers on a weekly basis. I can't be
negative about our CSISD teachers; they are a great group. But there are
a lot of things going on which are disconcerting. We have very low
expectations for student achievement. And the potential problems that
you hint at, well, I can't help but be optimistic that they could all be
dealt with in a positive fashion if teachers and administrators greeted
this change with a positive attitude instead of the negative remarks
that appeared in the paper.

It is like the old values proposition. What is the value of knowing more
math and science? What is the harm? I can't see any harm in the growth
of  knowledge and skills.

Ok, I will stop.

Sarah Bednarz

On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Mahajan, Arvind wrote:

> When I initially heard opposition to the four-year math and science 
> requirement, my response was similar to yours, Sarah. Jonathan and I 
> had a lengthy chat with Steve Ogden a few weeks ago about this issue 
> and it seemed the legislation was well intentioned--American students 
> were lagging those from other industrialized countries and this 
> requirement would make them more competitive in the global market 
> place. However, I am now ambivalent about this requirement and 
> actually leaning against it.
>
> Clearly, students with math-science proclivity will not be affected by

> this requirement.  However, being a zero-sum game, this requirement 
> will take away from courses in language arts, social studies and 
> everything else. It can be argued that America's success is rooted in 
> it's citizens' competitive advantage in creativity, initiative and 
> risk-taking--traits which may have more to do with courses which the 
> math-science requirement will deprive them of. Susan's email captures 
> other concerns. My conversations with CSISD and BISD superintendents, 
> teachers and my own high school junior (who will take four years of 
> math-science) reveal other potential problems with this requirement.
>
> The new rule deals with a very important issue deserving of a serious 
> philosophical discussion. I wish it had occurred before the passage of

> the legislation but I am pleased that we have at least initiated this 
> conversation.
>
> Arvind
>
> Arvind Mahajan
> Lamar Savings Professor of Finance
> Mays Business School
> Texas A&M University
> College Station, TX 77843-4218
>
> 979 845 4876 tel
> 979 845 3884 fax
>
> From: csps-bounces at csps.tamu.edu on behalf of Susan Scott
> Sent: Wed 12/13/2006 10:07 AM
> To: Sarah Bednarz
> Cc: csps at PHILEBUS.tamu.edu
> Subject: Re: [CSPS] CS Response
>
> Sarah,
> I have heard some interesting perspectives on this from Linda Stearns,

> Bryan ISD math teacher, at recent CSPS events.  She can explain this 
> better than I can but it is my understanding that when the 
> requirements jumped from 2 years of math to 3 several years ago, 
> teachers found that they had to water down the curriculum for the 
> upper level courses in order to have a reasonable percentage of the 
> students (at least 60%, I
> believe) pass the classes.  Linda stated that the college-bound 
> students are no longer adequately prepared for first-year college math

> classes.
> She was strongly opposed to adding the 4-year requirement for all 
> students, both for the sake of the college-bound kids and for the 
> students who want classes with vocational emphases.  She and other 
> teachers expressed concern about increased drop-out rates with these 
> new requirements.
> Susan
>
>
> Susan G. Scott
> Instructor and Internship Coordinator
> Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Texas A&M 
> University College Station, TX  77843-2261
> Phone:  (979) 845-5350
> FAX:  (979) 845-0446
> susan-g-scott at tamu.edu
> www.rpts.tamu.edu
>
> >>> Sarah Bednarz <s-bednarz at tamu.edu> 12/13/2006 8:11 am >>>
> Am I alone in being upset with the response of some school board 
> members and administrators as reported in today's Eagle about the new
>
> curriculum? It makes me question the collective dedication to 
> preparing ALL students for life-long success if they do not support 
> the idea of four years of math, science, language arts and social 
> studies.
>
> Just wondering if I have become too elitist or if standards are 
> slipping.
>
> Sarah Bednarz
> *******************************************
> Sarah Witham Bednarz
> Associate Professor of Geography
> Department of Geography
> Texas A&M University
> College Station, Texas 77843-3147
> s-bednarz at tamu.edu
> 979/845-1579
> FAX: 979/862-4487
> CELL: 979/229-7247
> http://agsss.tamu.edu
> *******************************************
> The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power 
> became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to 
> all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class
>
> and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Labor Day speech at Syracuse, NY, Sept 7, 1903
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CSPS mailing list
> CSPS at csps.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/csps
> _______________________________________________
> CSPS mailing list
> CSPS at csps.tamu.edu
> http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/csps

*******************************************
Sarah Witham Bednarz
Associate Professor of Geography
Department of Geography
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-3147
s-bednarz at tamu.edu
979/845-1579
FAX: 979/862-4487
CELL: 979/229-7247
http://agsss.tamu.edu
*******************************************
The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power
became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all
citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and
for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
Theodore Roosevelt, Labor Day speech at Syracuse, NY, Sept 7, 1903

_______________________________________________
CSPS mailing list
CSPS at csps.tamu.edu
http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/csps