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.
