EDITORIAL: Science, Math Have Place but at What Level?

Oct 29, 07:05 AM

Current Headlines: By The Sun, Yuma, Ariz.

Oct. 29--Is it really necessary for every student who graduates from Arizona's high schools to be thoroughly grounded in math and science? That would seem to be the thinking based on increasingly tough math and science requirements planned for Arizona high schoolers.

Currently, graduates of high school must have taken two math credits and two science credits. The Arizona Board of Education, however, wants those requirements to be increased over a two-year period beginning in 2012.

Beginning in 2012, those entering high school would be expected to take an additional math course, for a total of three. Then in 2013, another math credit and another science credit would be added to graduate -- making a total of four math credits and three science credits. A half year of economics would also be added.

This is undoubtedly desirable for some students -- those intending to enter technical fields, for example. Perhaps some would need even more. The issue, however, is whether all students need added math and science.

Part of the reason for the proposal is to better prepare students for the academic skills test they are required to pass to graduate. Some students have shown difficultly passing math and science sections of the test.

But does that in itself justify mandating more math and science for all students? After all, the issue may not be the lack of course work, but a test that is improperly balanced, with too much emphasis on math and science. Perhaps the problem is the test, not course requirements.

Those calling for the requirements will undoubtedly cite statistics on how poorly U.S. students do in comparison to foreign students on technical skills tests. Indeed, that comparison is often the basis for efforts to demand more from Americans students. This disparity is seen as weakening the ability of the U.S. to remain atop the world economy.

Perhaps it does and perhaps it does not. It can be foolhardy to jump to conclusions about what test results tell us without looking at a broader picture. There are many factors involved in competitiveness than just science and math skills.

Even if it is desirable to have some students taking more math and science, there should be a better way to do it than mandating that all students take courses for which they may not have the aptitude or desire. After all, many students will not go into technical fields and not need that level of math and science skills.

The board did make concessions on the requirements. If one class is broad enough to cover two areas, it can be counted as two courses. And students could petition to avoid Algebra II. Those are welcome steps.

Still, rather than making such structured demands, why not offer more voluntary options, not only in math and science but in other subject areas. Those who have the aptitude for technical areas can get their needs fulfilled, as can those who do not have that aptitude.

Some may protest it would be too hard to set up universal skills tests with so many options available. Perhaps it would be difficult, but are we trying to provide a broad educational opportunity or simply a way to test and measure people easily? We fall on the side of a broad education.

-----

To see more of The Sun or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.yumasun.com/.

Copyright (c) 2007, The Sun, Yuma, Ariz.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.