Education Panel Foresees Risks in Push for Better High Schools

A group of curriculum experts warned Sunday that the nationwide drive to raise high school standards could “make a bad situation worse” for students at the bottom of their classes.

A task force of the Assn. for Supervision and Curriculum Development said: “No one questions the need for secondary school improvement.”

It did question, however, whether “real and long-lasting improvement can result from the flood of mandates handed down from state legislatures.”

The panel said that states have thrown the balance in the high school curriculum “out of kilter”’ by forcing all students to take more courses in conventional academic subjects and computer literacy.

Vocational and fine arts courses and other electives are being squeezed in favor of more math and science, the panel said. “There is a rising danger that only students privileged to go on to college will have opportunities to experience education specialized beyond a few core subjects,” it said.

These “rock-ribbed requirements” may reduce the need for remedial work in college, but they may also “prove counterproductive for substantial numbers of students, and thus, ultimately, for society,” it said. The high school dropout rate nationwide is already at 27%.

“In New York . . . the new plan for seventh and eighth graders leaves only 10 minutes per day unencumbered by state requirements,” said the report, entitled “With Consequences for All: The Impact of Increased Academic Requirements for All Students.”

It said that teachers of low-achieving students in academic classes will have to “simplify courses . . . (or) maintain standards and hand out discouraging grades to more students.”

“If course work is diluted, the top achievers will be insufficiently challenged and bored,” it added. “If course work is kept potent, the low achievers will be overwhelmed and frustrated,” the report said.

“If new requirements send dropout rates soaring, the chances for lifelong success will shrivel for a significant number. . . .”