Friday, July 13, 2007
Opinion

07/15/07 LEFT/RIGHT: Georgia’s school requirements: Some improvement, but more is needed

Georgia’s school requirements: Some improvement, but more is needed By Bob Zaslavsky The Georgia Department of Education has posted a draft of a plan (Rule 160-4-2-.48) to toughen the requirem...

Are proposed curriculum requirements enough for shortchanged Georgia students? CREDIT: Shutterstock.com

Georgia’s school requirements: Some improvement, but more is needed
By Bob Zaslavsky

The Georgia Department of Education has posted a draft of a plan (Rule 160-4-2-.48) to toughen the requirements—effective July 1, 2008—for high school graduation. The purpose of the plan is to prepare all students equally for college or the workplace in recognition that the workplace—today more than ever before—needs individuals who are prepared for college-level work, even if they have no immediate, post-high school intent to attend college.

The plan is meant to apply to all students, except those with “significant cognitive disabilities.” The plan is simple, a shade more demanding than the current plan but less rigorous than what would have been called the academic curriculum when I was in high school.

In basic terms, the new requirements are four years each of English/language arts, mathematics, and science; three years of social studies; seven years of electives; and one year of health/physical education. Included in the category of electives is “modern language/Latin,” of which two years of the same language “are required for any students planning to enter a University System of Georgia Institution or other post-secondary institution” but are not required for other students.

In truth, in the new requirements, there are only three quite modest changes:

(1) an elimination of the previous diploma categories (college preparatory
and technology/career, with or without distinction);

(2) an increase in the mathematics requirement from three years to four; and

(3) the specification for admission to the University System of Georgia of a two-year foreign language requirement.

In essence, the new plan is nothing more than the educational equivalent of reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. The new prerequisites perpetuate the flaws of the old ones. Even the increases in requirements are shadow increases only. As is the case throughout our educational system, here too the new requirements are nothing more than the emperor’s new persiflage passed off as stylish educational raiment.

Before I examine the flaws in these requirements—which are not atypical in comparison to other states—I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the one potentially positive change, namely the elimination of the previous diploma categories. Such a change opens up the hope that at last a high school diploma will be a singular reward for meaningful academic achievement at a genuinely college preparatory level.

To put it brutally, for a high school diploma to be meaningful, it must represent the same academic accomplishment for all students at a reasonably high level. Every exception to the requirements for graduation is a dilution of quality. Our system has degenerated in part because exceptions have become the rule and individual accommodations rule the roost. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a high school diploma should be a high school diploma should be a high school diploma.

Unfortunately, the hope for such high-quality uniformity is belied by the requirements themselves. To my mind, their flaws should be apparent.

First, the use of the alternate term “language arts” in tandem with “English” is revealing. The term “language arts” has gained in currency as the belief has grown that the study of language and literature is a “soft” study, not susceptible even to quasi-scientific rigor. Consequently, what should be the bedrock of education at all levels has become a bed of quicksand: What should be the anchor of the ship of education has become its Sargasso Sea. In addition, only two courses in the four-course English sequence have mandated topics: the ninth-grade general course and a course on American literature. Furthermore, in neither of these designated courses is there a mandated core of authors and literary works. Unless we have the traditional sequence of genres (9th)/world literature, (10th)/British literature, (11th)/American literature, (12th) or an equally comprehensive sequence parallel to the proper study of world history—with clearly specified lists of essential authors and readings—we are not equipping our students with the cultural treasury that they need and deserve.

Second, the lack of specific titles (such as algebra, geometry, trigonometry, pre-calculus) in the mathematics requirements—and the exception for “students with significant disabilities”—invites a continuation of the mathematically porous status quo.

Third, in the natural sciences, although the sequence of biology/chemistry/physics is there, so too are the alternate courses: “physical sciences,” “earth systems” and “environmental science.” These courses have been recognized by good science teachers as empty of scientific substance (which implies no judgment about any actual scientific discipline that may share the name of one of these alternate courses). Thus, in both mathematics and natural science, students still have the option of taking fluff courses lacking in solid content.

Fourth, the social studies (or social sciences) requirement is superficially acceptable, although our aversion to calling this strand “history” represents a shrinking from comprehensiveness and rigor. In addition, the requirement should be a full four years that includes ancient, medieval, modern world, American and Georgia state history courses.

Fifth, the foreign language recommendation—it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement—is both inadequate and demeaning. Anything less than three years (a two-year basic course followed by one year of literature study) is less than what a student needs to achieve genuine mastery of another language. The goal of studying another language—just as with English—is the understanding of another culture, and no understanding of a culture can develop without a feel for the culture’s literature.

We’ll continue this discussion next week. SP

Bob Zaslavsky is a retired teacher of our much-neglected humanities.