Wrong for Schools
On the requirement to offer the choice of dual pathways to each student:
On the elimination of the use of CTE courses for math substitution:
Providing two separate pathways would have a broad impact. Below are just a few ways we see the impact this choice could have. We welcome your additional impact statements in the comments section of this posting.
District/School Impact of providing two separate pathways:
Exceptional Children:
- We will have to develop and provide curriculum resources and professional development for the traditional pathway including honors and foundations courses (so not 3 new courses, but 9!), with no additional funding from the state to support it.
- Scheduling both pathways is a potential nightmare for schools and may cause some classes to be overloaded in one pathway in order to provide classes in the other pathway.
- Possible elimination of offering sections of In Class Resource (ICR) for special education students or sheltered ESL math courses for English Language Learners - most schools do not have multiple sections of these and do not have the resources to offer them in both pathways.
- If we were to adopt textbooks, we would have to redistribute to schools on a yearly basis based on which pathway students select at their school (the numbers could vary from year to year). We would lose purchasing power, since we would be ordering two sets of materials, potentially from different publishers.
- Middle schools would potentially need to pay for more NCVPS slots. They only have the resources to teach one pathway and would probably have to put the students on the other pathway on NCVPS to accommodate their choice.
- Reduction in the power of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) - splitting the math department into two sets of PLCs for the two different pathways will reduce collaboration among teachers. Even worse, it could set up competition between teachers of the two different pathways to recruit students to their courses, which would create friction within the department.
- What if students change their mind mid-pathway and want to switch to the other pathway? There would be huge gaps in content knowledge. The bill does not prevent them from switching pathways.
- At the state level, two sets of assessments would have to be created, which will cost thousands of additional dollars of taxpayer money. Also, with a math department consisting of only two secondary math consultants, DPI does not have the manpower to provide two sets of resources and PD. What they would be able to provide would surely decrease in depth/quality. They would be wasting time on organizing resources into two sets of boxes, instead of focusing on the real work. The same would apply to the work of district leaders.
On the elimination of the use of CTE courses for math substitution:
- The elimination of the math substitution option for general education students would essentially take us from the "Algebra I for all" (prior to the Future Ready Core graduation requirements) to "Math I and Math II for all" (with Future Ready Core) to "Math 1, 2, 3 and a 4th math for all". Certainly a higher standard, but is it what is best for this group of students? The CTE courses that have been used for math substitution were vetted by DPI and Higher Education as containing enough challenging math to meet this requirement. And, these students get to learn the mathematics in a context that is very relevant and engaging to them. Do you want to tell the parents of these students that now they are not good enough to graduate with a high school diploma, even though they have the aptitude to be successful in a technical career?
Providing two separate pathways would have a broad impact. Below are just a few ways we see the impact this choice could have. We welcome your additional impact statements in the comments section of this posting.
District/School Impact of providing two separate pathways:
- Principals and district leaders would need to provide a second set of courses based on student/parent choice of course progression. This would create four separate pathways within one department as both options would need a regular and an honors pathway.
- Both pathway options would have to require special services scheduling, thus doubling the required number of special education, highly qualified math and/or ESL teachers needed at every school. This would further limit exceptional children’s people resources.
- Two sequences would be an additional fiscal challenge to districts that are struggling to provide resources for one pathway. Expenditures would include developing curriculum resources, professional development, development of local formative and summative assessments, and materials specific to two different pathways.
- Professional Learning Communities and collaboration in schools and districts would become a greater challenge if schools are required to offer two course sequences, therefore, creating double the number of PLCs in a department. Even worse, this has the potential to set up competition between two courses on different pathways to recruit students to their course.
- Reverting to 2003 standards would make NC last in the Nation. The Essential Standards were adopted in 2009 in an attempt to improve the 2003 standards. The 2009 standards received a D rating from the 2010 Fordham Institute Report….(http://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2010/201007_state_education_standards_common_standards/NorthCarolina.pdf) and are not College & Career Ready.
Exceptional Children:
- The bill calls for an immediate return to 2003 standards for the 2016-17 SY which does not allow time for EC to align standards.
- The bill prohibits the State Board of Education from allowing Career and Technical Education courses (CTE) as a substitution to satisfy the math graduation requirements. This legislation contradicts a compelling research base supporting better outcomes for all students, including those with disabilities, when mathematics concepts are taught through connections, rather than in isolation.
- In addition, the legislation would profoundly impact students with disabilities as they navigate the high school math sequence. At the current time, CTE courses are allowed as a substitution for a fourth mathematics course in the typical sequence, or the third and fourth math course when the substitution sequence is approved by a principal. In addition, for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in mathematics whose disability prevents them from mastery of Math I, these courses may also act as substitutions for graduation requirements.
- Currently, with careful consideration of transition planning, a collaborative decision with input from students’ families can result in the decision that CTE courses are the most appropriate for preparing for post-secondary goals. The proposed legislation would substantially limit many students’ options for obtaining a high school diploma that provides them with the most appropriate knowledge and skills