Do Away With The Standard Diploma?

Kris Amundson has an interesting op-ed up in the Washington Post calling for the "Standard Diploma" to be eliminated from high school and replaced by only the "Advanced Studies Diploma".  This is a huge debate that is going uncovered in the media, but has major ramifications for the future of the Commonwealth.  So here's the basics behind this issue...

Here are the differences in the two diplomas currently:

English- 4 years required under both with 2 SOL passing scores required

Math- 4 years required under Advanced, 3 years required under Standard (with 2 SOL passing scores required for Advanced and 1 SOL passing score required for Standard).

Science- 4 years required under Advanced, 3 years required under Standard (with 2 SOL passing scores required for Advanced and 1 SOL passing score required for Standard).

History/Social Studies- 4 years required under Advanced, 3 years required under Standard (with 2 SOL passing scores required for Advanced and 1 SOL passing score required for Standard).

Health/PE- 2 years required for both

Economics/Personal Finance- 1 year required for both

Foreign Language/Fine Arts/Career and Technical Education- 3 years of foreign language, 1 year of fine arts or career/tech education for advanced, 2 years of any of these classes for standard

Electives- 3 credits required for advanced, 4 years required for standard

1 Additional SOL Test of Student's Choice:  Required For Both

--------------------

As you can see, the big differences are an additional year of math, social studies and science that are required as well as some additional SOL testing.  That raises some interesting questions. 

Does every high school student need to pass Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry and Physics to graduate or would 3 of those 4 be sufficient? 

Does every high school student need to pass calculus to graduate, or would Algebra I and II with Geometry be sufficient?

Does every high school student need to pass U.S. History, World History I and II and U.S. Government to graduate, or would 3 of those four be sufficient?

Here are my thoughts:  World History II or other history elective don't need to be requirements to gain a high school diploma.  However, on the sciences, it might make sense to require four years since they are all so different.  On math, it's a much tougher call- I don't think calculus needs to be a requirement to graduate, but as Amundson points out in her editorial, math is an area many high school graduates need remedial training on in college, so maybe additional requirements there aren't such a bad idea.

The other problem I see with Amundson's proposal is the foreign language requirement.  (Full disclosure, I graduated with the standard diploma in 1998 despite four years in all the core areas because I didn't take a foreign language).  Does foreign language need to be a core requirement to graduate high school?  Obviously, I think not.

There are two ways Amundson's proposal to create only one type of high school diploma could be implemented.  The first is to do away with the standard diploma- and require the advanced diploma requirements for everyone.  This would likely lead to better graduates, but also could lower the graduation rate, and raise the dropout rate.  Of course, the dropout rate directly relates to the crime rate, welfare usage, etc. so their are large costs in that strategy potentially if the requirements become too stringent.

On the other hand, even with recent improvements, the standard diploma shortchanges students in a number of different core areas.

Option #2 would be to create one single diploma, but with more flexibility than the advanced diploma currently has- allowing students some additional flexibility in selecting the courses best for them.  That would be a big plus for students who currently recieve the standard diploma, but would be less challenging for students who currently participate in the advanced program.  It's an idea, but I don't think it is fair to the students in the advanced program to cut their requirements.

So on the whole, while Amundon's proposal deserves more attention, discussion and debate I don't really think it's the right way to go.  Instead of eliminating the standard diploma, the State Board of Education should continue to strengthen it by adding a required fourth year in either math or science with additional testing requirements and study that approach to see if it improves student performance in college before they eliminate the standard diploma entirely. 

Comments

[GretchenLaskas]

This is a really good follow up to Amundson's op-ed.

These are my thoughts:

I am opposed to eliminating the standard diploma, but that is because I believe we are trying to have our cake and eat it to. There is a difference between a student who has to take X,Y and Z in order to be considered a successful high school graduate graduate (which I believe the Standard Diploma provides) and a having to take X, Y, and Z in order to be a successful college student, for which the standard diploma is probably inadequate, and thus explains the remedial coursework.

In other words, saying that the problem is the standard diploma is the problem misses a more fundamental point -- that not every student should be in college.

Here in Fairfax County, we are OBSESSED with getting our children into college. (For verification of this, feel free to ask my own son -- he'll tell you how obsessed his own parents are.) But thinking that every student is college material misses the bigger point of what a standard diploma can actually offer -- and that's a time period where a student can learn hands on and vocational and non-college based skills.

The bigger question to me isn't does a student need three or four years of X Y or Z, but what will that child be giving up to get them? (And by adding the personal finance/economics class, we are taking away yet another elective.) Will it mean not taking a business course, or a theatre course, or a technical course which might actually be more useful to them in real life than calculus or French 4? (Take it from a mother who has a child who puts up with the academics of school to stay in theatre -- yes, sometimes these are more useful classes than you might think.)

I would much prefer that the standard diploma be strengthened in a different way -- perhaps with a more structured emphasis on a set of classes that might translate into what we all used to know as a vocational program. Recognizing a child who has completed multiple credits/classes in a more hands on or practical field and helping them to find advanced training (which may not be college linked) strikes me as a more helpful approach to students who are not college material than pushing them to take classes that aren't going to really advance the ball very much -- either as high school students, or when they go to college and realize that this isn't for them after all.

And believe me, I get the whole advantage of a college education -- I grew up in a working class world where an education not only kept you out of the "dirty" jobs like mining and steel making, but also gave you entrance into the middle class. My own standard of living can be directly tied to my husband's and my's access to quality education. And I also am not naive to the problem of "tracking" students which can use cultural stereotypes and wrongheaded assumptions to keep bright and ambitious kids out.

But I just don't think we're doing ALL of our children any favors by insisting that they be what we think they should be at the expense of actually realizing that sometimes, they might actually WANT to be someone else altogether. And that may not include having the letters BA after their name.

[NotJohnSMosby]

I generally agree with Gretchen. Not everyone is going to college, even community college. Not every student is super smart either, so anything beyond geometry is tough. I had AP chemistry and it nearly killed me, so much so that I bailed completely out of AP Physics when I discovered I didn't need it for the advanced diploma (it was different back when it was first implemented and dinosaurs roamed the earth). I dropped AP Physics for a study hall.

I assume there are still multiple levels of each class - Level 3 English vs. Level 4 - or is it just AP Whatever and Regular Whatever? Regardless, some of the advanced classes, like Calculus, aren't going to have a "basic calculus" option.

I think keeping more electives open for the standard diploma is the way to go. There's nothing bad or wrong about vocational tech at all, and one of the problems we have today is that kids either think they're too good to learn how to be a mechanic or a tradesman, or they just think that that's a job for immigrants.

[BM]

Need to keep both degrees. I graduated with an advanced studies diploma in '96. Four years of Latin was thoroughly enjoyed but I cant see where it shouldve been required to graduate. Was more like an elective. World, American, and Local/Virginia History should be required though. Understanding local, state, and federal history is key to understanding current events today.
Interesting topic and you are right to bring up the issue!

[Matt]

Keep both degrees. Period.

[martinlomasney]

Amundsen accelerates the race to no where.

For what, so we can have more drop out?

I've made a very good living and never once used trig or calculus.

No one in my office speaks a second language.

Amundsen, who doesn't sit on the Education Committee, is just making noise. This proposal will go no where. And rightly so.

[Stewart]

I think we can all agree no one uses Calculus or Latin in their daily lives. But I don't think the point of (nearly all of) these types of high school classes is to teach you something you will use again someday -- it's to get your brain thinking critically and solving problems you wouldn't ordinarily be presented with. If all we learned were things that would help us in the "real world," school would a lot different (and boring).

[GretchenLaskas]

Stewart: As a writer, I like to say that nothing I've ever studied need ever be wasted, and I believe that absolutely. (My philosophy degree has been extremely useful to me in daily life.) Which is why I don't think anyone is advocating for a degree of any kind without real exposure to the liberal arts, as well as math and science. But not all students are going to move forward in the liberal arts, or in math or languages or whatever. Even those who do go to college.

(For the record, I was only one question away from being put into remedial math in college myself. I still to this day cannot use algebra in any way, shape or form, but I'm so heavily liberal arts as a person and a professional, that it's not as crucial to me. Fortunately, I always have someone that I can ask!)

[NotJohnSMosby]

Explain how the average IQ kid is going to get through physics and calculus? 20 years ago calculus wasn't the top standard in most school districts, it was for the exceptional math geeks. Algebra I, geometry, algebra II with trig and pre-calculus was the standard "high" math classes in high school. If you tested well in the 7th grade, you pushed algebra to 8th grade and added calculus in the 12th.

[novamiddleman]

I think you guys are getting hungup on the advanced classes only. At least at my high school there were plenty of math and science electives outside of physics and calculus you could take.

My question is what are students currently doing their senior year. It sounds like there is an option to take a bunch of cupcake electives. That should be eliminated.

An alternative to the new requirements is expanding work study/apprenticeship for students who do not plan on attending college. I agree that college is not for everyone.

[Kris Amundson]

Interesting comments. You have helped me think about some alternatives to just the current Advanced Studies diploma.

Virginia also offers an Advanced Technical Diploma that might serve as a model - knock down the foreign language requirement, bump up some technical fields (like a computer science class) and call it a Technical Studies Advanced Diploma. Or something. (Naming things is not my great talent.)

My big worry is the math/science, which increasingly affects jobs from auto mechanic to anything in health care.

[maggiebeth]

World History II is actually not an elective. Everyone must take it to graduate. And taking vocational courses does not prohibit a student from taking art, foreign language, or music courses. I did all four and still received an Advanced Studies diploma. I never took calculus. While it's true that not everyone should be shunted to college if they don't want to go, nor should the decisions one makes at fifteen determine that path. Let's create a curriculum that challenges all students to succeed beyond where they thought they could. That's a challenge I'd like both my lawyer and my mechanic to have met.

And as to the concern about dropout rates, recent studies suggest that it's relationships with adults and not high stakes testing or courses required that likely determine whether or not a student stays in school. Expect students to achieve and they will.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Maggie Beth- World History II is an elective for the standard diploma, as that only requires 3 years of social studies, and US Govt and US History are mandatory. Hence, the only other requirement would be level 1 of World History.

[QRow]

My granddaughter's boyfriend is just about to get his electrician's master certificate. He's taking over a business started by his grandfather. I'm not sure the young man finished high school, but I'm sure he must know a bit of physics in his job. He'll make a good living and we, who don't know how to splice a wire, need people like him.

However, by not having a broader education he'll miss out on many things.His interests are rather narrow, but he seems happy with his life.

My granddaughter? Well - she has seen the light and is attending NOVA.

[maggiebeth]

Actually, it's only an elective for students who entered high school this year. All of the sophomores through seniors who are in school now still have to have it in order to graduate. I just think it's a shame we're saying that some students should have an understanding of the way human history has unfolded.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Again, you are wrong. World History II has never been a requirement for the standard diploma.

[GretchenLaskas]

This discussion correlates nicely with Jay Matthew's current blog in the Washington Post, where he is advocating elminating general education classes and putting students into honors.

What I'm finding frustrating is this idea that we continue to think that if we just figure out the perfect structure, then all children will fit into that and we will get the results (well rounded, educated children) that we all want. When the truth is, no structure from the top down is going to be right for every student. I still continue to believe that our best option is to create as many opportunities as we can, which is a messy, complicated, human business, and it might mean more work, time and money. It means having counselors and teachers who really know the students they are working with, and having the time to sit with them and work out schedules that best meet their personal needs. It means parents who honestly look at their children not as reflections of themselves, but as actual people who do something well, but other things less well. And it means students who are guided into adulthood, not shoved there by adults who insist we always know best.

[Not Larry Sabato]

+100 Gretchen

[maggiebeth]

I know that is the case in both the school district from which I graduated and in which I'm now employed. At any rate, I think my larger point about expecting achievement helps create achievement still stands. It's a rare fifteen year old who pushes himself or herself without guidance from adults. And it's even rarer for students without support at home to do so. I reckon I just don't understand why vocational education and foreign languages (which have been shown to improve achievement) seem to be mutually exclusive to some.

[GretchenLaskas]

Yes, it is the rare 15 year old who pushes himself without guidance from adults. Right now, what pushes my son through school is an elective (I'm sure he would laugh at you if you said what he does is "cupcake" there are weeks of the year when he works harder than most adults I know.) When his grades slipped, he asked him how he felt about telling his drama teacher that he couldn't be part of the spring production because of academics. Suddenly the grades came up again.

What I am arguing is that for many students "challenging" doesn't always translates into academic subjects. And "achievement" doesn't always have to mean more math, science, English and history. How can we expect them to become self-motivated if we never give them options to discover the parts of themselves that they will internalize and thrive under?

And it would be difficult, especially now that we've required the financial planning full year course, for a student to take a real vocational track as well as more than three years of a foreign language. And another type of elective is almost certainly out of the question. The problem isn't that any given class isn't a good course to take, but that we are increasing squeezing students into one size fits all set of standards where we decide what they need. Granted, that makes it easier for us as adults, but I don't think that makes for the best education opportunities for our children.

[Aimee]

To my knowledge, Calculus isn't a requirement for advanced studies--plenty at my high school that (I think) got that diploma took statistics rather than calc. Others only made it to Algebra II but had 4 years of math (less sure what degree that was).

[Not Bubby]

FCPS classifies over 60% of its students as "gifted," which makes their entire gifted program a joke. But it's indicative of the FCPS mindset -- "All of our children are better and smarter than everyone else's children."

With that kind of philosophy, pushing every child into an "advanced" diploma is not a surprise.

The next thing will be FCPS figuring out a way to bump up everyone's GPA so that their kids look better on paper than kids from Tidewater and Richmond.

[Noticed]

Oh, Ben, you poor dear! What mean person makes you study history, math science, and lieterature? Why, you should file a lawsuit against the school system for the emotional distress it has caused you!

Of course, since you are intellectually incapable of handling such "hard" topics, you should be careful when you attempt to include them in any of your blog posts. Otherwise, the logical results will become immediately apparent.

[Let's Be Free]

Education is about learning and learning how to learn. When you make it about certification and standardization you have lost what is fundamental.

Standardization has gone way, way too far. Different kids have different strengths and weaknesses and progress at varying speeds along diverse paths.

Take myself as an example. I took off from science my freshmen year in high school because of some really bad experiences in 7th and 8th grade science classes had soured my taste -- so I only got in 3 high school years of science. I got back in the science saddle with physics my sophmore year and chemistry my junior year and performed admirably in both classes.

By the time I was a freshman in college at a major state university, in the 300 or 400 student freshman chemistry courses I earned the highest grades of any student. (In those days test scores were accumulated and then posted on the professor's office door, so we could see how everyone performed).

My kids are pretty much like me in that they take the right brain entry point into learning and education. Most all elementary school teachers and many middle school teachers are ill-prepared to manage a process that suits my kids, and indeed, do much that actively thwarts the outside-in approach to understanding and problem solving.

Good public education is about supplying many different paths that reflect the true diversity of the student population, as opposed to insisting that there is only one way. One size fits all is totally wrong.

[Michael]

Aimee: Same here. Calculus would not necessarily be required.

Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, Math Analysis (similar to a trig or a pre-calc) was a somewhat common 4 years at my high school. I (and quite a few others as well) took algebra in 8th grade and ended up with 5 years of math (including calc), but that's not required.

[don't call it rova]

Good on Kris Amundson for the comment above. Shocked no one noticed it for a day. The missing middle has been a gap in our education conversation nationally for a long time and we've not kept up technical requirements in health care and manufacturing, etc.

[Volunteer in Kenya]

Never thought of it that way, but it really does make sense now. A little bit in a hurry, didn't get to read everything but will definitely come back later to finish everything. This is my very first comment, I think I like this!

[diploma]

I want to know more about the online diplomas. I want to confirm that those do not come in the category of fake diplomas.