- Many students earn credits in classes by receiving a passing grade of a 65 or near it. (this number is greater or smaller depending on the teacher and school)
- Many of those students then don't pass the standardized tests associated with those classes because they didn't learn the content or skills well enough (but they think they did, because they passed with a 65 or 70).
- Many of those students then go to summer school where they earn a credit by doing a paltry amount of work compared to the amount assigned during the real version of the class that they failed (and now they think they learned the content).
- Overall, because of #1, 2, and 3, many students don't improve their literacy, reasoning, critical thinking, or numeracy skills or retain the content knowledge of the class.
- Many of those students then continue to earn failing or barely passing grades in their future classes. Teachers feel pressure from their principals and assistant principals to pass at least 80% of their students, so some teachers give students grades of 65 despite them completing less than 65% of the work at less than 65% proficiency. Or the students are annoying and disruptive, so they pass them just to avoid teaching them again.
- Many of those students barely graduate high school, but then don't go to college. Or, they go, and then stop going after earning low or failing grades.
- While they were barely passing academic classes for all 4 years of high school, we were NOT teaching them more valuable and engaging skills/content like personal finance, the stock market, nutrition, sex education, psychology, vocational trades, activism, current events, local government, and the arts.
- I am part of this problem.
So I'll stop there to qualify this: Many teachers are doing the opposite of this.
There are certainly health teachers who make students feel like their class is not a waste of time and DO teach nutrition and sex education well. Many career and technical education schools (CTE) DO teach valuable vocational trades. Many math teachers DO teach applied mathematics where students improve numeracy and see how to utilize it in personal finance and investing. Many English teachers DO dabble in activism and psychology, using engaging and relevant works of literature as entry points. Many social studies teachers DO diverge from the standard curriculum and teach about local government and activism. And there are many robust arts programs in high schools.
If you disagree with those above 8 patterns, I'd love to hear your anecdotes or see research suggesting otherwise. Because I am an optimistic person (although the Republicans and climate scientists are doing a killer job of ruining my optimism) and I want to see and believe the opposite.
But in my experience teaching and talking to dozens of teachers in New York City, I see these patterns. I see us cramming academic knowledge down the throats of students who are years behind in literacy and math skills, who barely learn enough to pass, then promptly forget it as their new classes don't reinforce and build on their prior knowledge, all the while leading them to a college education that they are unable to complete quickly: 30% don't even go to college and and 40% who do attend won't finish - https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholaswyman/2015/09/01/why-we-desperately-need-to-bring-back-vocational-training-in-schools/#7849dd2f87ad.
And without developed literacy, math, or critical thinking skills, they are duped into believing lies from politicians, police officers, lawyers, judges, accountants, big businesses, conspiracy theories, and religious leaders who squeeze them of money. And we end up with 5-10% unemployed, and many more underemployed (https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm), not to mention a steady stream of adults who are unprepared to be activists, voters, or entrepreneurs (https://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanishing-startups-in-decline.html).
Is this happening? Am I imagining things? Do other teachers and students see the same apathy for the algebra, geometry, trigonometry, world history, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and literature we attempt to teach students? Please weigh in.
And why do I think I'm part of the problem? I've tried my hardest to reinvent the wheel and teach world history in more engaging and interesting ways, but I always get depressed when political and economic events in the world are so caustic to humanity, and my students can't understand it, because it has little to do with the Greek, Roman, Persian, Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Byzantine, Mauryan, Gupta, Aztec, Inca, or Mongol Empires. And when I, as a student of history, can connect it to more recent events like Spanish colonialism, Industrialization, the French and Russian Revolutions, Imperialism in Africa and Asia, or WWI, II, or the Cold War, we don't have the time to draw those connections for students (because of the time we spent on the ancient history). Or we keep our classes as little islands that don't connect Earth science to world trade, or biology and chemistry to nutrition, or math to anything. And we spend so much time having students read literature that doesn't inform them of their world. I've taught English and Social studies, and I still kick myself for spending 3 months on Macbeth. Why the fuck did I do that? Why didn't I have them read Assata or Malcolm X? Why didn't I have them read something more recent and relevant, or just do a media literacy unit? What was I thinking?
Am I crazy? Is this why we have such a hard time holding students accountable for their learning and skills, because what we are teaching them is so removed from their lives and immediate struggles? Could it be the content? Or could it be our lax grading policies that push them along without forcing them to really learn? Do the students who earn 80s and 90s in these subjects go on to live more successful lives? Would it be better if fewer students earned credits until they genuinely learned the material? What do people think?