Times opinion piece
Lynne Varner of the Times had a column recently, Grad Requirement Needs Fine Tuning about Seattle School district requiring 3 classes of occupational ed/career and technical education (the state requirement is 2 classes). Her concern is that music can't be part of it. This is a problem because when you have music at nearly all the high schools (with two of them being national powerhouses for their musical programs) and kids are trying to work in 4 years of math/foreign language, AP. etc., you just plain run out of time in the day. One mom went to bat for her daughter, arguing in favor of "cross-crediting" where a subject such as drama or music can be substituted and got a waiver but that's an anomoly. It's interesting because the state is willing to work with the district but the district, acccording to Ms. Varner, seems unwilling to consider it.
Given that research shows that kids who take music do better in some subjects (math comes to mind), should the district be encouraging participation in music or should music just be considered enrichment?
Given that research shows that kids who take music do better in some subjects (math comes to mind), should the district be encouraging participation in music or should music just be considered enrichment?
Comments
"Administrators in Seattle aren't keen on this idea. The head counselor at one high school told me that if music becomes a part of Occ-Ed he would abide by the rules. His voice dripped with distaste. Calls to the district's point person on Occ-Ed were turned over to the legal office, where I was given a primer on education rules and the challenge of music as both liberal arts education and occupational training."
Who are these "administrators?"
Has anyone brought up this issue with our current Seattle School Board candidates?
"establish guidelines for course equivalencies in CTE programs toward meeting graduation requirements." There wasn't a lot of discussion but there was no opposition and it passed. CTE and Occ-Ed are different so this was only for CTE. As English teacher pointed out the district administrators aren't excited about doing this so I wonder how much traction Raj, as a lame duck, will have in getting this to happen.
As to the state being supportive, check again with Lynne Varner, apparently Rod Duckworth has disavowed the quote she attributed to him.
As far as I can tell from speaking with Carla Santorno, Mary Bass, and Ted Howard, the District support this, but is having to work around the fact that the definition of Oc Ed is currently tied under state law to CTE, and Mr. Duckworth (who heads CTE, therefore has an interest in keeping Oc Ed = CTE in place) has not been recieptive to the idea of expansion.
I'm surprised to read from anonymous that "Foreign language elective can fulfill a high school language requirement"
RCW 28A.230.090 addresses credits earned before high school."
"If requested by the student and his or her family, a student who has completed high school courses before attending high school shall be given high school credit which shall be applied to fulfilling high school graduation requirements if:
(a) The course was taken with high school students, if the academic level of the course exceeds the requirements for seventh and eighth grade classes, and the student has successfully passed by completing the same course requirements and examinations as the high school students enrolled in the class; or
(b) The academic level of the course exceeds the requirements for seventh and eighth grade classes and the course would qualify for high school credit, because the course is similar or equivalent to a course offered at a high school in the district as determined by the school district board of directors.
If you go back to WAC 180-51-061, you will see that taking a world/foriegn language is not a graduation requirement for the state. SPS does not have a language requirement right not either (http://www.seattleschools.org/area/gradreq/gradreqmemo.pdf) but if you have listened to Irene Stewart or Brita Butler-Wall at all in the two years, it is something this Board want to see be a requirement.
So, if your seventh or eigth grader is taking a class at a high school, with high school students, you can ask for high school credit. If they are taking an advanced class that the board has determined to be equal to a high school class, they can get high school credit. However, there is no "high school language requirement" - even schools like the Center School who "require" two years of Spanish can't really force students to follow through with that given the current graduation requirements - so it would only count as an elective credit.
Back to WAC 180-51-061, the exception is that for the "Washington state history and government requirement only, the term 'secondary school students' shall mean a student who is in one of the grades seven through twelve." So your eight grader's Wa state history class will automatically count without having to get prior permission first.
For Oc Ed, this is an OSPI problem, not a district problem. Aim the complaints to Rod Duckworth and Shep Siegel, they are the ones who are behind all of the problems.
The larger problem, it seems to me, is that when teachers and parents float interesting new ideas, the response from the bureaucracy--whether local or state--is too often a list of reasons for why they can't be done.
Doesn't anyone else get tired of the lack of open-mindedness among some education professionals? It doesn't seem, well, very educational.
This is one reason I want to see some tenacity in our School Board members. I don't want members who will take "no" as an answer.
Keep in mind that Math is a moving target. Last week the state board "clarified" the state's math requirements. including for this year's graduating class (two months before graduation, nice timing). Of the state mandated 2 math credits i.e. four classes, they have to meet the GLEs for 9th and 10th grade.