If a teacher does his or her job properly, they can teach any child anything.

Did that statement make sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me! Yet that onus has been placed on teachers as this idea has become "politically correct" to many politicians and school administrators. It seems that many efforts directed towards "raising standards" neglect the fact that the range of human intelligence still fits a normal (or bell) curve. "Raising the bar" in track and field, whether the high jump or pole vault, makes a good analogy. Each time the bar is raised, the athletes that can clear that height become a more and more exclusive group.

Now don’t misunderstand, I think all of us can improve in what we do, and I believe in increasing the learning of all of our children. But no matter what we do to raise the "average", there will never be more than half of our children "above average!" Life is not like that ideal town on National Public Radio where all the children are above average!

I believe in the Biblical concept of "talents." Not all of us are blessed with the same talents! But we are charged to do what we can with the talents we have.

I’d like to get specific with a statewide problem in the high school mathematics curriculum. Several years ago the state decreed that to receive a high school diploma, students must complete one year of algebra, or its equivalent. Some of you might remember some difficulty in being successful in a rigorously taught algebra class? Not everyone has the same talents… For others, your route through high school might have included a couple years of general math.

Shortly after the state made the "algebra requirement", a new two year course, "Applied Mathematics" was introduced as "an equivalent" that would satisfy the state requirements. These became the only two routes through mathematics leading to a diploma. A student could either graduate "college prep", or "vocational." The "general studies" diploma was dropped, along with most of the general math courses.

Applied Mathematics is a terrific course. It was designed not by ivory tower types, but by a multi-state consortium of business, industry, and educational leaders. Being the first state chairman of the Applied Mathematics Association, I am not unfamiliar with the course design and requirements. Taught properly, and with the correct student placement, it can provide the practical, hands-on, mathematics skills that our industries so desperately ask us to provide.

Here’s the rub: Applied Mathematics was designed for students falling into the 25^th through 75^th percentile, both in reading and mathematics. Each lesson is preceded by 18 to 25 pages of reading. Each lesson contains only word problems. No more of the one page introduction and then "do all the even numbered problems 2 through 40…"

This is great for the students it’s designed to serve. But what about the students falling into the 1^st through 24^th percentile range in either reading or math? Has the state forgotten about them? I think so. Guidance counselors have no choice but to place these students into the Applied class. Then what choices does the Applied Math teacher have? "Dumb down" the course so that all students can pass? Or maybe spend the greater part of their time remediating the lower students so that the others are left unchallenged and missing the more advanced objectives?

I think the state program has unintentionally been designed to fail. I think its time to review the requirements, and bring back "general math" and the general diploma! Let’s provide the means for all students to "be all that they can be" regardless of which talents they have been blessed with!

Until next week, keep smiling and remember, wherever you go, there you are! tomiswho@mindspring.com