Curriculum & Standards - What is the mission? What is the right decision?

Had a good moment today!  Had a parent pull me aside in a public place (not school) and thank me for helping their student with math.  The student had just completed their math course required at college (college algebra).  It was a student that struggled in all my math courses, a student who I demanded non-negotiable skills from.

The student struggled with grades - usually in the below average range, but I did not make the courses about a grade.  We made it about the skills, the concepts, what the student would have to do at college.  We quizzed, requizzed - worked at skills, would become frustrated and repeat.  I spoke at length with the student prior to graduation that math at college was something that the student could do -- just find the proper math help -- tutors, help centers, etc.  In the end the student got a C+ -- that is awesome!

It is times like this where I feel I have the curriculum balanced properly between how fast and how much mastery - because curriculum speed and mastery are not independent of one another.  My Algebra 2 course - which is college prep - does not go as far as many other school's Algebra 2 courses.  But the material we cover we know; we work hard at having a conceptual understanding of the items we do, and a mastery of the basics.

It means things like delaying the quadratic formula in favor of completing the square first.  Doing Geometry proofs as a few weeks of enrichment versus a semester of memorization.  About making each course a progression of the previous - including the course's grade.  A Geometry grade at my school is about 50% Algebra 1 skills, an Algebra 2 grade is 50% Algebra 1 and Geometry skills.  And so forth - except AP Calculus.

When I think about the trilogy of college prep courses - Algebra 1, Geometry and Algebra 2 -  I am mostly concerned that they learn how to problem solve, have a true mastery of basics skills, and have a tenacity to stick with things - to look for the how and why.  I simply don't care if all the "standards" have been met, I don't care about a grade -- I want the team (student & I) to care about the big picture. 

And the big picture is that we do the things to make students successful.  Because I work for the student, not the 16 year old in my class, but the "future student" - the 23 year old student.  The student who wants the skills, knowledge and tenacity to be successful in their life - that is my math mission, that is how I set up my math curriculum. 

Students first or testing first?

So where is the line between data and over-testing?  Rigor and rote-drones?  Accountability and test craziness?

The new WKCE cut scores literally took schools in Wisconsin from approximately 75% passing to 45% passing.  In my district our 'math mission' is to have all my 12th grade graduates ready for "College & Career" readiness in math.  Meaning that if they go to college they can start with a college credit course.  Then the scores change and we went from feeling like we were accomplishing our mission to the feeling that the goal had changed and we are left wondering does the new test prove anything?

When you have really small class sizes word of mouth will get you the results you search for, I always ask my students after graduation for their math placement and results.  Nearly all reply about their placements; and while there is an epidemic with remedial college math, pushing 40% of students, we have been less than 10% the past 3 years.  Isn't  that the goal?  And the students who go to technical colleges are passing their placement test nearly 100% of the time (compass test). 

So as with most things we need to ask ourselves does the current high stakes testing lead to our desired results.  Are the standards and core creating the students we need to be successful in the world?  The Common core is 200+ standards, how many of those are really needed?  Does Cramer's rule really create a better student, or is the only place to show that is an Advanced math course (not Algebra II or lower)? 

Would just a little money in post high school surveying be more useful - I am not really sure but lets face it - teachers work for the students, we're customer service.  But we do NOT work for the current 16 year old, but the 27 year old student.  (I joke that the student's future self called and begged me to be tougher so they could become better problem solvers and get better jobs, thus more money.)  And the new standards and testing does seem to be making a better 27 year old.