EDITOR: I had the opportunity to register my daughter, an
incoming ninth grader, for high school. As we prepared for the
registration meeting at Live Oak, we were grateful for the
“Course Planning Guide” which contained the much-needed
information about boundaries, graduation requirements, UC
requirements, etc.
EDITOR:
I had the opportunity to register my daughter, an incoming ninth grader, for high school. As we prepared for the registration meeting at Live Oak, we were grateful for the “Course Planning Guide” which contained the much-needed information about boundaries, graduation requirements, UC requirements, etc. It contained an especially large section listing all the elective classes offered – 74 to be exact.
My daughter and I anxiously searched through all the different electives available. So many choices to make. Would she take Leadership or International Foods, or maybe Fashion Design – they all sounded so interesting. We finally settled on our top picks, and listed them in preference, from 1 to 5.
However, when we attended the registration meeting that evening, we soon realized that our excitement was for naught. We were reminded that the incoming ninth graders are subject to new graduation requirements.
The facilitator told us that the ninth grade curriculum was mostly preset. Every student will take English, Social Studies, PE, Math, and Science. But we did still have one choice for an elective, right? No. The facilitator told us that if the students are college-bound, that choice must be a foreign language.
So much for dreaming. My daughter dutifully crossed out all five elective choices and wrote “Spanish 1” at the top. So here’s a timesaving tip for all the parents of incoming freshmen: don’t waste your time searching through the 74 choices of electives. Your choices have already been made for you.
Now don’t get me wrong; I’m all for rigor. District officials have cited the need to “increase rigor” as their reason for the new graduation requirements. They have also said they need to better prepare students for entrance to the UC colleges, sadly stating that only 34 percent of our students have met the requirements to enter the UC system. “That was like a knife in the heart” (the words of Sobrato Principal Rich Knapp when he referred to that statistic.) So is that what is driving the new requirements? Think again.
If that were the motivating factor, then the requirements would have been in line with UC requirements. The UC requires two years of social studies, yet the administration recommended four years of social studies. (Side note: The task force responsible for graduation requirements met for two years, and recommended three years of social studies. The administration overruled them and recommended four years. It was approved by the board in a contentious 4-3 vote.)
Why would the administration recommend moving away from UC requirements, thus forcing students to take an extra two years of social studies, which could have been electives or rigor in other areas?
The reason is simple: clusters also known as small learning communities. And don’t let the name fool you, small learning communities does not mean smaller class sizes. The names keep changing, but the philosophy stays the same. It’s the same one that drove the attempted removal of advanced classes a few years ago. It’s the same philosophy that is taking away choices for our students now.
Small learning communities (clusters) do not allow for choice. The nature of clusters necessitates a uniform curriculum for all students. Basically, a cluster consists of a group of approximately four teachers teaching a group of 120 students. The foundation for the cluster is the “core” classes, thus it was essential to require four years of Social Studies/English.
Ideally, all the students would take the same six classes for ease of scheduling. But if you add in variables such as advanced classes, AP classes, remedial classes, ESL classes, band, and 74 electives, you end up with a scheduling nightmare.
Thus, over the past several years, the administration has been consolidating or removing many of these classes. It began with the removal of all advanced social studies, then the attempted removal of advanced English, then the removal of introductory courses (Intro. to Biology, Intro. to Civics, Intro. to Economics). Now add the move to make social studies required for four years, and finally, the crown jewel: the small learning community grant, which clusters all students in grades 9-12, and seeks to mainstream everyone in the same classes.
Little by little, choices have been slipping away for our students. As you can see, these small learning communities are to the detriment of students at all learning levels, as they are funneled into a “one size fits all” curriculum.
Is this the end? Not so fast. The administration tells us that our students’ choices will drive the curriculum. They say that electives will be offered if enough students sign up for them. So I guess the only real choice for students to make is either to take electives or to graduate from high school. Some choice. I predict that the next words from the administration will be: “Electives had to be discontinued due to lack of student interest.”
But the good news is this: Think of all the time you’ll save in registering your students. No more electives to choose. But, on a serious note, I feel that, as a parent, I know what’s best for my child. I have only the best motives for him/her. I am not distracted by financial gain, self-serving personal agendas, or the like. I would encourage parents to get involved in sending a message to our administrators and school board: We want to be included in the decisions that will shape our children’s future.
Valerie Hickey,
Morgan Hill
