I understand the fallacies of simple correlation arguments; however, Algebra (to a lesser degree) and Algebra II with national studies seem to hold up as universally significant courses which are more independent of the school (or classroom) in which they are taken. Most teachers I’ve known–and I’ve been working in public schools since 1975–want their own children to attend and graduate from college. My own boys took math all the way through high school in part because I know it puts them in with the group that has twice the chance of graduating from college–for whatever reason.

I believe the biggest single factor for a student being successful in Algebra II or any higher level math class is the teacher they have for that class, and to a lesser degree the teachers they have had since pre-algebra.

AP is another attempt to insure rigor; however, many students don’t have an opportunity to take AP courses–and many of those that do don’t take AP credit. The challenge I see isn’t with the top 10-15% of students (commonly in AP), but rather with getting 60%, 70%, or 80% of the freshman class to successfully understand rigorous coursework such as is found in the vast majority of Algebra II courses in American high schools.

I don’t know why Algebra II would be more consistent than other courses, but I might speculate that there is a fairly consistent use of common text books and content standards–math teachers agree on what consists of Alg II. I don’t think that’s true for statistics, English Literature, U S History, Composition, Economics, Music, Art, or even the sciences.

Certainly it is difficult for a high school to justify why it is that Geometry in room 200 has different standards / rigor / learning results than Geometry in room 201. Here’s a role for common End-of-Course exams.

I do by the way completely agree and value the worth of a quality statistics high school course –well taught with high standards and even higher support — would be for each and every student. These are key real world skills.

My response:
That depends on the course. If the school teaches AP Statistics, the teacher is required to complete an Audit in order for the students to receive AP credit. While the AP course is mathematically easier (other than a bit of knowledge about logs), it requires logical thinking and clear communication skills. (Which BTW are very important skills in the real world yet lacking in many math classrooms)

However, your comment also applies to any course in the school. I also teach Geometry and I know the rigor in my classroom differs from other teachers in my school, even though the content is the same.

Also, there are some school who are teaching Physics first.

Education Trust reports that students who are successful in Algebra II in high school are twice as likely to graduate from college compared to those who don’t. They attribute this not to the specific content of the course, but to the common rigor. The same wouldn’t be true of statistics coursework which could be quite different in two different classrooms in the same school.

What’s more important is figuring out how to teach the sort of rigorous content to all students than sorting them into tracks. Wouldn’t most of us want our own kids in the “track” that is twice as likely to actually graduate from college?

Deborah Meier is incredibly wise about education, but changing the one universal high school course sequence –Alg,Geo,AlgII– that correlates to college success (and much greater job opportunities) is going to need better arguments than “I didn’t get anything out of the class” or “The kids don’t have the aptitude”.

Geometry > Algebra I > Algebra II > (I forget what goes here) > Calculus ?

I never understood why it goes Algebra I > Geometry > Algebra II.

I can see far more value of having Geometry on one set of tracks and Algebra I > Algebra II on the other.

Most students who do well in an Algebra > Calculus mathematics chain, also do well in Chemistry as the two come from similar origins.

Most students who do well in Geometry but did not do well in Algebra I, struggle in Chemistry because it is similar to Algebra I and not to Geometry.

Of course, I’m probably at the only school that had the poor sense to make Algebra II a co-requisite for Chemistry, rather than a pre-requisite. So I get a lot of students who scraped by in Algebra I, did well in Geometry, and are now in Chemistry/Algebra II concurrently and are having a nervous breakdown because “scraping by” in Algebra I and Geometry did not prepare them for either Algebra II or Chemistry.

However, the students that do well in Chemistry/Algebra II concurrently, would be poorly served if their experience was discounted.

Perhaps an either/or on the college admissions thing? Either a stats track OR an Algebra track?

I wish I’d had stats over Algebra II. I used nothing I learned in Algebra II in PreCalc or Calc, and all I can remember of that course now is passing notes on my TI-83. (Texting for an older generation?) So from a personal “I wish I knew this now” perspective, it makes total sense.