After reading Dick Startz’s Wednesday column (“Two-tiered system would make diploma more honest”) I am compelled to relate my experience growing up in New York state. We had the “two-tiered” system – actually there were three if you counted “vocational school.” All students were required to complete the “basic” curriculum to receive a high school diploma.
For the college-bound, (about two-thirds of us in my class of 1968) we had the NYS Regents Diploma — which required a few more course levels and the Regents Subject Tests. We also had the Regents Scholarship Test – which sent thousands of students to state colleges and universities with free tuition, based totally on the academic merit of the test-taker. But that’s a topic for another time.
By the time I went to high school, the supposedly upper-level Regents courses were completely geared toward taking the Regents test. Proof of this: My 10th and 11th grade math texts were the Regents Exam review books – page after page of sample questions and answers! I aced the courses and scored 100 percent on the tests.
Was I prepared for more advanced mathematics in engineering school? Not in any positive way whatsoever! And I aced Math 12 too! I really think this demonstrates a big part of the problem. A good student in high school is unprepared for college?
I agree completely with Startz’s earlier column about not lowering standards. This is clearly a wrong direction. But we should think in the long-term and beware that standardized testing might actually turn good students away from academic enrichment – as it did me all those years ago. Perhaps there is a balanced way to modify this well-intentioned approach. Does the “two-tiered” approach really work in New York and California? Are their graduates better prepared and go to college in higher numbers?
Andy Branca
Mukilteo
* mail voting
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
