Idaho has apparently backed off a plan that would have required students take more math and science courses. The Idaho State Journal has a rather biased article on the subject entitled Plan worries area educators: What would science, math effort cost?

Geez, makes it sound kind of ominous, doesn't it?

The article dutifully carries the banner of the education establishment (teachers, principals, and so on) who are adamantly against it. Not a single person in favor of it is quoted. In condenses support for the plan in a single paragraph, dismissing it at the end:

Representatives from the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, Micron, the Idaho National Laboratory and the state's universities also voiced their support of the measure, leading some to question how much industry stands to financially benefit from the proposal.

Say what?!

I would really like it explained to me how these groups would benefit from a more fundamental curriculum. The only thing I can think of is that they benefit from better educated individuals. The state universities I suppose benefit more directly because they will have to offer less in the way of remedial classes. But if the students aren't taking lower level math courses, they are given the opportunity to take higher level math courses. That may not appeal to the high schooler that wants to take Theater III, but I can see why high-tech employers like Micron and INL might like that idea. They will have to do less recruiting from out of state.

So yeah, it may benefit Micron and INL and state universities, but absolutely not at the expense of the state. Unless, of course, you don't want the kind of educated employees that they are looking for. Or you don't think the state should be educating. Or you think it's more important that high schools offer Theater II and/or Ormanental Art rather than require students to take calculus. In any case, since I've gotten up here Idahoans have been complaining about the lack of well-paying jobs in eastern Idaho. Maybe when companies or organizations that hire such people say they want something -- something that could benefit everyone -- the state should listen to those people rather than the educators who may simply not want to be bothered with having to do it.

I'm actually not even sold on the plan. My main fear is that it would lead to students learning in four years what they currently learn in two or three. Mandatory classes are always slowed down to the lowest common denominator. One of the joys of the precalculus class I took my senior year was the notable absense of certain kinds of students. Add on top of the fact that I am interested in teaching what is still in most places an "elective" course in computers.

I guess it's the tone of the article and the sinister portrayal of those advocating the plan to sneak more insidious math and science classes into the curriculum that bothers me. The education establishment's motives are not challenged like this, only echoed and amplified. The educators' argument that this plan is unfunded seems like a non-starter. If all you're doing is swapping classes, then the cost should be the same. In fact probably less because in my experience supplies for elective classes cost considerably more than the pencil, paper, and calculator required for math and science classes. Maybe I'm missing something in this argument, but the article doesn't even address possible counterarguments to what the principals are saying. There is the layoffs argument, but it's not up to school districts to provide theater majors with jobs. Of course, many majored in education rather than what they're teaching, which is a problem in itself.

Anyway, the educator and state senator Bert Marley (D-nearby) could be correct in that it's simply a matter of rowing faster in the wrong direction. Though he thinks the issue is relevence. I presume that he is challenging the relevence of calculus, which is fair, but I would want to know why calculus - and learning the thought processes involved in calculus - is (or are) less relevent than than that fourth year of band or choir. Additionally, he would need to explain to me how exactly it is that our kids are getting such a great education that it's worthwhile to preserve the arts classes.

On the other hand, those in favor of heighening requirements would need to explain a couple things as well. First, as I mentioned above, how can we be assured that instead of teaching everyone what's in calculus classes now we won't end up teaching kids in calculus considerably less? That's a real problem and that's where I think that Marley may be correct about rowing in the wrong direction. One of the biggest obstacles I see in public education is the refusal to sufficiently differentiate between kids that are smart and those that aren't and those that want to be there and those that don't (and those whose parents require that they get an education and those that don't).

There are some kids that simply don't belong in calculus. But by making it optional, you're giving kids that should be in calculus the ability to get out of it. Few kids would prefer calculus over Positive Mental Attitude class, after all. And the way students are measured (Grade Point Average) will often actually reward the PMA student over the calculus one.

So I'm not sure. Thoughts?

Clarification: The classes I use above are examples. I use Theater and Positive Mental Attitude and fourth year of band and choir as examples of inessential electives. I use calculus as an example of upper-level math. Other electives include things that I find more useful such as computer programming and the like and it's quite possible that IT classes would be cut as well as theater classes. And in most cases, four years of math in high school would lead to precalculus or trigonometry (I took four years and ended up in precal).