No, this does not have Kiefer Sutherland in it. (But that would be interesting!)The "Core 24" is the short form for a new proposal by the State Board of Education to increase the minimum number of graduation credits from 19 to 24. The Meaningful High School Diploma project is one of the Board's major initiatives this year. In order to earn a diploma under the MHSD model:
"...every student will develop and follow a coherent personal plan of study that prepares them for the next step after high school- whether it's a trade, an apprenticeship program or college."The increase would vary depending on the pathway -- work ready, college and work ready or college ready. Here's the comparison of work ready vs. work and college ready vs. college ready (differences in bold) and they each involve 24 credits:
WORK READY
- 4 credits of English
- 3 of mathematics
- 3 of science
- 3 of social studies
- 3 in career and technical ed
- 2 in art
- 1.5 in fitness
- .5 in health
- 4 elective credits
WORK & COLLEGE READY
- 4 credits of English
- 3 of mathematics
- 3 of science
- 3 of social studies
- 3 in career and technical ed
- 2 in world languages (the same language)
- 2 in art
- 1.5 in fitness
- .5 in health
- 2 elective credits
COLLEGE READY
- 4 credits of English
- 3 of mathematics
- 3 of science
- 3 of social studies
- 1 in career and technical ed
- 2 in world languages (the same language)
- 2 in art
- 1.5 in fitness
- .5 in health
- 4 elective credits
Do you support the overall concept and goal of the Core 24 proposal? What specific concerns do you have, if any, about the proposal?
2 comments:
I support the idea of increasing our state requirements for graduation since most schools already exceed the current 19. However, as a principal in a small school where I have one math/science teacher and one English/History teacher, I would like to know what programs or positions I should eliminate to provide for all the course offerings? In addition, I have students going the GED route to excape (since the requirements for passing this is set at the Federal level) and not completing school at all.
I concur with Mr. Ostheller. Our state has a large number of small, rural school districts which cannot meet the highly qualified requirements now, let alone with the grad requirements meet 24. I would suggest, as I did during the public meetings on the subject, that schools be encouraged to deliver content in a variety of methods, including online, directed independent study, as well as the standard in-class group method. This was what I proposed when I was an alternative high school Principal and had set up a system wherein students could work with highly qualified online teachers in subjects for which we had no resources. At the same time, these same students would be enrolled in courses on our campus and would be required to spend a certain amount of quality time there working toward mastery in all of their courses (online and on-ground). Of course, if our students were to have attended online courses, would we have lost funding for that time there were not enrolled in our on-ground courses? Probably, and that is the precise reason why the concept was squashed. Until we can rectify the funding quandry, we will continue to run into brick walls with regard to bringing high quality learning systems to our students, especially in tax-poor regions.
Post a Comment