after the bell

I read today that the State of Colorado decided to buck this year’s trend by refusing to require high school students to take more science and math.  Their decision is described here.  On the face of it, it seems obvious that one answer to our nation’s need for a larger technically qualified workforce is to mandate more technical coursework at the high school level.   There is also evidence that students who take demanding courses in high school do better in college. 

I agree with the opponents of the Colorado bill because they were concerned about the possibility that other courses, such as the arts and vocational programs, would be phased out.  One quote from the article was:   “Not everyone will be an engineer.” 

In my experience, these curricular mandates often have unintended consequences that outweigh their positive benefits. The concern opponents of the Colorado initiative was born out by a local superintendent I spoke with after Michigan passed a similar initiative last year.  I asked her if the new science and math requirements would strain the school system’s budget because of a need to fund enough science and math teachers for the added courses. She smiled and said she didn’t think so, since the number of students and the length of the school day would not change.  The only change would be the types of classes that were allowed to run, and the types of teachers that would be needed.  As a parent of a child that blossomed during his four years of taking French and four years of orchestra because he had some spectacular teachers in those areas, I had to shake my head. 

As new science teachers, what do you think about these initiatives?  Should students have to take more science and math?  Thinking back to your high school experiences, how would these initiatives made a difference?  What can you do as a new teacher to try to make such initiatives succeed?