Guest Dennis71 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 In 1992, the state board of Texas Education discussed raising performance standards and levels of expectations for all students. One of the obstacles to this goal was the existence of the below level courses in English language arts, mathematics, and science. These courses tended to isolate low-performing students and to minimize expectations of them. Accordingly, the board adopted the schedule for phasing out below level courses. Correlated Language Arts I, Fundamentals of Mathematics, Consumer Mathematics, and Introductory Physical Science did not satisfy graduation requirements after the 1991-92 school year. After the 1992-93 school year, Correlated Language Arts II - IV and Applied Biology no longer satisfied graduation requirements. Business Mathematics, a business course, was added to the schedule to be deleted after the 1992-93 school year. Pre-Algebra was to be discontinued after the 1995-96 school year. In 1992 the state board of Texas Education also adopted a Policy Statement on High School Education developed by the Task Force on High School Education. The task force consisted of board members, representatives of the governor’s office and state agencies, educators, and business representatives. Their charge was to develop a policy statement and make recommendations regarding high school Texas Education. At the same time they adopted the policy statement, the board endorsed recommended proficiencies for Texas high school graduates that grew from the work of the task force and other groups. The recommended proficiencies represented a standard core curriculum for all students in excess of the minimum graduation requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Ummmm, true? Dennis, do you have some thoughts on this, or something you'd like to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Three links to the same web page in a thread which invites no discussion. I smell agenda. The first couple of sentences are cut and paste from a report. Please cite your references if you're going to do that verbatim and as Bignose has pointed out it would be nice if we had some opinions from the OP that helped to shape a discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now