What A Messed Up System

After school today I was talking to a couple of teachers and a counselor, and the counselor said that she'd really like to be a fly on the wall during one of our math department meetings.  I asked why she didn't just come, that we'd love to have a counselor there.  From there the conversation veered to why she would want to attend--so she could explain, for example, why the counselors sometimes put students who haven't yet passed Integrated Math 1 (the 9th grade level math class) into an Integrated Math 2 class.

Here's the logic:  California requires students to pass 2 years of math, including either Algebra 1 (traditional track) or Integrated 1 (integrated track), in order to graduate.  A few years ago our school board decided that for students to graduate from our district, they should pass 3 years of math including at least Integrated 2.  A student who has failed Integrated 1 multiple times, for example, could take Integrated 1 in a "credit recovery" course and, if they pass that and Integrated 2 (and another class), they could graduate on time.

Another math teacher and I scoffed at that logic, and the counselor replied, "What else are we supposed to do?"

A lengthy give and take ensued.  We math teachers explained how, in Integrated 2, we don't teach Integrated 1 topics, that we assume they've already been taught and move on and cover the Integrated 2 topics.  Sure, there might be a brief review sometimes, but the days of "spiraling back" are gone; now, we endeavor to teach to mastery and then move on.  A student who doesn't know Integrated 1 material will not be able to do Integrated 2 material simply because they don't have the background knowledge.

Math is not like history.  If a student learned nothing about the American Revolution, he or she can still learn about the American Civil War.  The former is not a prerequisite for learning the latter.  Math, however, is different, and prior skills and knowledge are necessary for learning and understanding later material.  

Thus, a student who has not passed Integrated 1 doesn't have the skills or knowledge to succeed in Integrated 2.  In fact, it's a horrible thing to do to a child, to put him or her in a class he or she is destined to fail.

We came back to the question, What else are we (counselors) supposed to do?  What interventions do we have?

Our answer was multi-faceted.  First, our counselors need to accept that they are not responsible for students' graduating.  A student who failed Integrated 1 multiple times, for example, most likely has several more failures on the transcript.  And even if they don't, it's the student's responsibility to pass a class, not the teacher's and certainly not a counselor's.  What is a counselor supposed to do in such a situation?  Ensure the student knows the requirements for graduation, and if they don't meet them, to let the student know about our district's Adult Education program.

It's a common refrain in education against strict lecturing--if you're doing most of the talking, the kids aren't learning.  The students need to be involved in their own learning.  I say the same thing for our counselors--if we adults care more about a student's graduating than the student does, if we adults are doing more to get a kid to graduate than the kid does, then that situation is out of whack.  But that's exactly what education is like today.  Kids aren't doing well--what are you going to do about that, teacher?  Around a decade ago, math scores in this country stopped going up--about the same time Common Core standards were adopted by most states.  We've changed how we teach--guide on the side, not sage on the stage; stop giving so much homework; change from traditional courses to integrated courses; focus on race; do group learning--and scores were flat.  They started dropping again after the 'rona shutdowns.  We kept focusing on the teacher input, to no avail.  Not focusing on the student side of the equation seems like a serious omission, doesn't it?

This brought us to the topic of what supports and/or interventions do we have?  In addition to before-school tutoring, lunchtime tutoring, and after-school tutoring, we also have a "credit recovery" program.  When it was asked why we didn't have other courses, we said flatly, "They haven't worked."  We used to have a Math Foundations (way below grade level) class, it wasn't shown to help students pass Integrated 1.  We used to have a Support class that students took concurrently with Integrated 1, it wasn't shown to help students pass Integrated 1.  Long before we switched to the integrated track we had a pre-algebra course, it wasn't shown to help students pass Algebra 1.  We split Algebra 1 into a 2-year course, Algebra 1a and 1b, and it wasn't shown to help students pass Algebra 1.  We adults made all these changes, as if we're the party responsible for getting students to pass.  In other words, we expected less and less of students, and we got less and less from them. 

What do we conclude from that?  That our math teachers are incompetent?  Or that some students won't help themselves?  Yes, it's kind of self-serving, but I lean towards Option B.  And our counselors should not shoulder the responsibility of getting a kid to graduate.  They need to keep students informed about the requirements, and help students navigate those requirements--but putting a kid in a class with no preparation, just so we can say "we gave them a change to graduate", is the lousiest of so-called solutions.  It does no service to the failing student.

It would be easy to read this post and conclude I want students to fail.  Anyone who's read more than a few of my posts knows I'm a conscientious teacher who takes my job seriously.  I'm reflective about the work I do and constantly seek out ways I can do my job better.  None of that, however, detracts from a student's responsibility to learn something and demonstrate that learning.  I'll be blunt--we don't expect much in the way of learning in order to get a diploma.  In fact, I'd say you have to try, hard, not to graduate.  Many students go that route, however, and at some point we have to accept that students have a "right" to fail.  And unless we're just going to pass out diplomas like candy, and take away what little meaning they have left, we have to accept that some will fail.  And we cannot wear that as a cross, it's not our burden.  In fact, constantly looking for new ways for adults to lower standards in order to get kids to pass and graduate merely makes it easier for kids to put in less effort and to learn less--and that should not be our goal in education.

Goodhart's Law is in play here.  The focus on graduation rates has made the statistic meaningless.

I don't know for sure how the counselor felt about our discussion at the end of it, but I am quite confident that the suggestions and advice we gave were correct.

Update, 9/20/22:  I failed to include my favorite "get kids to pass" requirement in some schools--the lowest grade you can give on an assignment, even if the student doesn't turn it in, is 50%.  Yes, seriously, that's a thing.