By Chris Reed

The reports earlier this month that the state will no longer require eighth-graders to take Algebra 1 and allow them instead to take a somewhat less rigorous course covering algebra touched off a minor flap between those who saw this as dumbing-down standards and those who noted that the less rigorous course was better preparation for new state standardized tests.

But what’s needed is a far broader debate on the wisdom of having high-school graduation requirements that largely reflect the thinking of the mid-20th century.

This is the official California Department of Education list of the 13 year-long courses that students must complete to graduate:

* Three courses in English;

          * Two courses in mathematics, including one year of Algebra I (EC Section 51224.5);

* Two courses in science, including biological and physical sciences;

* Three courses in social studies, including United States history and geography; world history, culture, and geography; a one-semester course in American government and civics, and a one-semester course in economics;

* One course in visual or performing arts, foreign language, or commencing with the 2012-13 school year, career technical education. For the purpose of satisfying the minimum course requirement, a course in American Sign Language shall be deemed a course in foreign language;

* Two courses in physical education, unless the pupil has been exempted pursuant to the provisions of EC Section 51241

Suppose this year we saw a California commission start from scratch in assembling a list of mandatory courses for high school graduation. It would have faced near-universal incredulity from any bright person of any age and everyone under 30 if the list didn’t include a year of computer science.

‘Veneration’ for past or devotion to teacher status quo?

Computers are so central to work, society, our personal lives and more that it is hard to fathom that computer science isn’t a mandatory emphasis of K-12 public education. In an April 2011 joint interview with retiring San Diego State University President Stephen Weber, I asked him about the insanity of not requiring computer science and whether he shared my view that graduation standards were badly outdated.

“Absolutely. One of the frustrations of my life is that it’s so hard to move embedded systems. I can’t imagine anybody if you sat down with a blank piece of paper that would invent the high school curriculum that we have now,” said Weber, who won high marks for turning SDSU into the star of the CSU system and a place with a stronger freshman class than several UC campuses.

Weber credited the inertia to what he called the “strange human veneration for what was done in the past.” Yet there is another reason why California high school graduation rules reflect the values of the Golden State of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years: Changing graduation requirements threatens to put not just a few thousand but tens of thousands of teachers out on the streets.

This is not far-fetched. This is how teachers unions think. Even after the evidence grew overwhelming that bilingual education was a failure that handicapped many students, teachers unions in the Northeast fought bitterly for the retention of the programs. What was best for students wasn’t their priority.

If California high school students were required to take one yearlong computer science program to graduate, that’s a lot of displaced teachers. If state high schoolers were required to take two — which is the strong recommendation of highly successful Del Mar high-tech entrepreneur and school activist Michael Robertson — the displacement would be immense.

But whether the mandate is for one year or two years of computer science, it would be good for kids, good for California, good for America. Everybody seems to agree about the need to promote STEM — science, technology, engineering and mathematics — education. Yet few seem to connect this desire for a highly capable STEM workforce with the option of using high-school graduation mandates to promote such a workforce.

When I interviewed Weber in 2011, I asked the San Diego State president about the game-changing “A Nation at Risk” report issued by a federal commission in 1983 that kicked off the education reform movement with this instantly famous description of the U.S. school system: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Weber said he was deeply frustrated that resulting reforms failed to live up to the vision outlined in the report.

‘Nation at Risk’ report touted computer science requirement — in 1983

And what did “A Nation at Risk” grasp was critical in 1983 that still eludes California educators and leaders 30 years later? The importance of computer science and a technologically literate workforce.

The report called for a half-year of computer science to be a high school graduation requirement. The 1983 status quo of limited emphasis on science, technology and math was unacceptable, the authors warned:

“These deficiencies come at a time when the demand for highly skilled workers in new fields is accelerating. … Computers and computer-controlled equipment are penetrating every aspect of our lives . … Technology is radiaclly transforming a host of … occupations. They include health care, medical science, energy production, food processing, construction, and the building, repair and maintenance of sophisticated scientific, educational, military, and industrial equipment.”

If all this was obvious in 1983, it is 1 million times more obvious in 2013. And yet instead of making computer science a high school graduation requirement, here’s what the state that gave the world Silicon Valley, the iPhone and so much more frets about: what sort of algebra class to make students take.

In so doing, California joins Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia on the list of the 41 states that do not allow computer science to count toward completing high school math or science graduation requirements. Supply your own punch line — at least if you’re not too depressed about the latest confirmation of the horrible stewardship of our leaders.

By Chris Reed

Gov. Jerry Brown likes to dress up his speeches with quotes and literary references, so here’s one for Jerry: Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I bring up good old George Santayana’s chestnut because of the governor’s State of the State speech in which he once again suggested local control is the key to improving schools.

“This year, as you consider new education laws, I ask you to consider the principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the idea that a central authority should only perform those tasks which cannot be performed at a more immediate or local level. In other words, higher or more remote levels of government, like the state, should render assistance to local school districts, but always respect their primary jurisdiction and the dignity and freedom of teachers and students.

“Subsidiarity is offended when distant authorities prescribe in minute detail what is taught, how it is taught and how it is to be measured. I would prefer to trust our teachers who are in the classroom each day, doing the real work – lighting fires in young minds.”

This is absolutely bizarre. Local control of public schools — and the stagnation, complacency and deference to the interests of adult employees it typically yields — is what drove the two big moments in U.S. education reform history. How can Jerry not know this?

The first pivotal moment came in 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Excellence released “A Nation at Risk,” a report on the state of public schools with an instantly famous admonition on its first page:

“If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

The report powerfully and at great length detailed the inertia and resistance to new approaches, technologies, standards and measurement of student and teacher performance in local school districts.

But of all the report’s recommendations, the one that was adopted most enthusiastically was the call for higher education funding. Why? Usually because of inertia and resistance to change. More money? Good! Higher standards, higher expectations, measuring student and teacher performance? Bad!

Public school inertia — then, now and forever

By the late 1990s, education reform was again a hot topic, and in both parties. After George W. Bush’s election in 2000, the president worked with Sen. Ted Kennedy on a new federal push for education reform, which ended up being the No Child Left Behind legislation. That NCLB has had a mixed record doesn’t discount the motives driving it. What were they?

The single biggest factor was the sense that public schools were stuck in a time warp, with far too many school districts delivering unchallenging, substandard educations suitable for a low-skill workforce in a low-tech economy. This is from a 2004 academic study of NCLB:

“Staff members [in the Bush administration] concluded that many present-day educational systems were still attempting to serve a population that has not existed since the 1950s. In 1950, the U.S. workforce consisted of 20% professionals and 20% skilled laborers. The remaining 60% consisted of unskilled labor (Sclafani, 2002). For this 60%, academic success was not a prerequisite for life success. Students who dropped out of school or who failed to achieve basic competencies could still expect to find gainful employment and, basically, enjoy the American dream.

“By 2000, such was not the case. In 2000, 20% of the workforce was still composed of professionals. However, only 20% was composed of unskilled labor; and 60% was composed of skilled labor (Sclafani, 2002). A substantial increase in immigrants to the U.S. during this same time span created a job market in which competition was fierce for low-paying unskilled jobs. Clearly, US students who sought the American dream could no longer leave school without a diploma or be socially promoted from grade to grade without demonstrated improvement. Education and success now had become officially linked.”

Against this backdrop, it is mind-boggling that Jerry Brown thinks local control is the recipe for empowering schools. Instead, it is the recipe for (further) empowering teachers unions, which are almost always the most powerful force at the local level.

You’d think the oldest powerful politician in California would have the best grasp of history on this issue. But not our Jerry.

George Santayana would not be impressed. But then Harvard grads like to look down on Yalies.