[CSPS] CS Response

[Lindquist, Eric]

Hi Sarah:

I think you get my point - just requiring an additional year of anything
will not solve the problem as perceived. This is faulty logic on the
part of the state legislature and we should call them on it. Schools
will find a way to meet the requirements without actually addressing the
problem. This is to be expected - meet the letter of the law at the
lowest possible cost. I am not saying CSISD will (or should) take this
approach, but this is a rational reaction to this kind of mandate. Will
the state provide additional funds for this requirement? There are just
too many questions at this time, in my mind, to be very positive or
negative about this issue. But getting some of the potential drawbacks
and opportunities out in the open for discussion is certainly a good
start.

I am not so sure our culture and society have failed because not every
kid is interested in school. There are a lot of ways other than in a
classroom to learn and get an education - and get ahead in life. But
since the state requires that kids attend school, whether they are
interested or not, we should at least recognize that not all kids want,
or should, go to college and address this issue rather than come up with
some arbitrary requirement that the legislature thinks will solve some
ambiguous problem like "competitiveness." And in regard to other
societies (countries) being more competitive, there are many who look to
the US education system with envy, in part because we offer electives
and choice in the curriculum and allow the students some breathing room
- which is what we are in danger of losing through such mandates as the
one we are talking about here. 

Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Bednarz [mailto:s-bednarz at tamu.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:05 PM
To: Lindquist, Eric
Cc: Mahajan, Arvind; csps at PHILEBUS.tamu.edu; Susan Scott
Subject: Re: [CSPS] CS Response

Dear Eric:

Just by way of update, there are a number of science options which
should excite kids and the state is in the process of developing a
new/improved earth science/environmental class. CSISD already has a
top-notch environmental science class taken by too few (in my
opinion) students. There is a Geology, Meteorology, Oceanography class
at Consol that is used primarily for low achieving students. I do not
know anything about its quality.  I know there will be revisions to the
math curriculum in light of national initiatives but I don't know what
courses will be offered for the fourth year. Re whether the teachers are
"highly qualified" or not, unless we require more courses and pay for
better professional development, we will never get any improvement in
achievement, measured in any way.

As a former high school teacher (at Consol in fact) I know about those
kids who come only for the electives. This situation represents a
failure of our culture and society. It is our problem that kids are
turned off school, not the fault of the curriculum requiring kids to
think about abstract and difficult subjects. It is our problem that we
do not value work and effort and that we have a different
conceptualization of what it takes to learn than in other cultures.  
It isn't this way in other parts of the world. It also represents the
fact that not all of our teachers are inspiring, that the overall
atmosphere in our schools does not promote intellectual development, and
that too few parents are genuinely interested in what their kids are
learning in school. But the question I ask, only partially facetiously,
is why do we want those kids in school if they are there only for the
electives? And I don't count languages in that list of electives. Yes,
they are off the streets, and they are in relatively safe places. But
what else is going on?

Sarah
.
On Dec 13, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Lindquist, Eric wrote:

> 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

*******************************************
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