Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - February 3, 2012

Editorial: Boosting grad standards

Aligning high school graduation requirements with UC/CSU admissions standards is the first step toward eliminating achievement gap

After a false start last spring, when a similar plan was met with resistance, the Palo Alto school board took a major step in the right direction this week when it gave its informal blessing to an updated plan for phasing in graduation requirements that are in sync with what is required to attend state universities.

Once the board passes the final package in May, the plan would be phased in over the next six years, taking full effect with the graduating class of 2018.

Under the new proposed policy, Palo Alto would adopt the UC/CSU entrance criteria as its standards for graduating from high school, a higher bar than is currently in place. The change would add two years of foreign language, increase from two years to three of math, including Algebra 2, and change the current two-year science requirement to include a laboratory science.

About 80 percent of the high school graduates in Palo Alto already have been meeting these so-called A-G standards and will not be affected. The debate has centered around whether elevating the requirements will result in getting that number up closer to 100 percent, or simply cause more students to not graduate from high school.

School superintendent Kevin Skelly advocates raising expectations of both students and teachers, so that beginning in elementary school the academic goal is to prepare all students to be able to pass the high school classes needed to attend college.

We strongly agree with Skelly and are happy to see the school board appear ready to move forward with these changes.

Skelly's first plan to adopt the UC/CSU criteria ran into trouble last May when the chair of the Paly math department protested, saying in a letter that he did not want to dilute its current Algebra 2 curriculum, which is set to a higher standard than needed to meet state curriculum standards. The letter, signed by almost the entire department, revealed a stunning lack of sensitivity to the needs of students who struggle with math. It rightfully caused an uproar among some parents, who demanded that the district's lowest math lane be designed to help these students achieve success and to gain eligibility for admission to UC/CSU schools.

Additional questions were raised by special education parents, who feared their children might not be able to meet the higher standards for graduation. The board put the proposal on hold and told Skelly to bring back a revised plan that would address the concerns.

His answer for special education and other students who are not bound for college is a plan to craft individual alternative graduation requirements for those who have "explicit post-secondary" plans that do not include attending college.

Underlying the math curriculum debate is the fact that a disproportionately higher percentage of black and Hispanic students are failing to earn a passing grade in the current Algebra 2 course, in part because it is more demanding than necessary.

Skelly said school principals are "fired up about this and believe it is the right work," but added that teachers "have a lot of different views" and are split on whether raising the graduation standards will help underperforming students.

The challenge for Skelly and his principals will be to make sure that teachers view closing the achievement gap and attaining near 100 percent graduation rates as just as important a measure of their effectiveness as the number of brilliant, award-winning students going on to elite schools.

Test score data shows that Palo Alto schools are doing a worse job than most districts in California in educating both minority students and economically disadvantaged students, an embarrassment for a district with our resources and quality of teachers.

There is much work to be done to close these achievement gaps, and the solution won't be as simple as changing graduation requirements. But Skelly's proposal, which has received praise even from those critics who have been pushing for action, is a solid start.

When the final plan comes before the board in May, we hope it includes a clearer strategy for how the administration plans on making sure the needed changes are implemented in classroom curriculum. It's one thing to change policy, it's another to successfully bring teachers around to embracing and implementing it. To that end, the school board should make this one of Skelly's performance goals for the next year, as he should with his principals.

Comments

Posted by Show-Us-The-Numbers, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 6, 2012 at 11:21 am

> Test score data shows that Palo Alto schools are doing a worse job
> than most districts in California in educating both minority
> students and economically disadvantaged students

Really. Where is that data? So far, we've seen one set of data dealing with Algebra II for one year only. There are somewhere in the order of 6.2M students in California, and perhaps 1100-odd school districts. Where does the Weekly come by the data and analysis that the PAUSD is worse than "most districts" in educating a certain group of people--"minorities and economically disadvantaged" over the past 100+ years of its existence?

Time to put up the data, or withdraw the claim.


Posted by Carlos, a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm


"Underlying the math curriculum debate is the fact that a disproportionately higher percentage of black and Hispanic students are failing to earn a passing grade in the current Algebra 2 course, in part because it is more demanding than necessary."

Once we start blaming the system for the undeperformance of some groups, and start lowering standards to please everybody, we'll end up with a watered-down alternative that won't help anyone in the long run.


Posted by Paly Parent, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Feb 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm

It's good for all of our kids that we're modernizing our graduation requirements to make them relevant in the 21st century, with more math and science, and world language, while also providing more choice through the enablement of alternative pathways. Our current requirements need to be rationalized, as for example we require four years of social studies, which is not needed for college admission or required by state law. That extra year could be used as elective time for more math, science, journalism, whatever. There will always be naysayers, even when the positive change to modernize our requirements is self-evident. We're on the right road, which we previously undertook by aligning English and visual arts to UC/CSU requirements, and this is just the home stretch of that very good work.


Posted by A concerned parent, a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 6, 2012 at 8:31 pm

"the district's lowest math lane be designed to help these students achieve success and to gain eligibility for admission to UC/CSU schools"

Is there any data to show the number of kids currently in the lowest math lane who have gotten admission in the UC/CSU?


Posted by concerned citizen, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 7, 2012 at 7:46 am

It's common sense that the more students take the courses required for admission to our public universities, the more will be in a position to attend UC/CSU etc. This is a larger initiative to modernize our outdated graduation requirements. PAUSD should represent the gold standard in education, and we need to have the right system design in place for our students, along with the flexibility that goes with alternative pathways. Agree with Paly Parent that the social studies requirements makes no sense at all, we should ditch the extra year of that to make room for more electives. It's great to see we're going in the right direction here.


Posted by notnecessary, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 am

More kids meeting those requirement does not necessary translate to more admission from colleges.If this is not the case,then other less great schools won't be able to send their kids to any colleges.Same is true that great kids in PA will have less chance to get into ivy schools in pa than less great but good kids in other not so good schools.


Posted by observer, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 7, 2012 at 10:06 am

Arguing "not necessary" misses the point entirely about what should be our 21st century graduation requirements? Keep up the good work Dr. Skelly.


Posted by notnecessary, a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 7, 2012 at 10:20 am

Dr. Skelly,I wish you think about this further and thoroughly,for kids sake,please do not be pushed and be rushed by others.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields