Setting a standard on essential knowledge

I am in favor of having the state board of education setting a standard on “essential knowledge”. It is of my opinion that to be citizens of this world (let alone of the United States) people need to have a certain level of knowledge and understanding to relate with whomever they come into contact. However, I think setting a standard for all students is very optimistic, impractical, and impossible.

As an aspiring mathematics teacher, I would like to see all students take two years of algebra. From personal life experiences, to function in current middle-class society, people need to have basic algebra skills to look over their taxes, calculate sales tax, and keep various types of inventory. Granted, most people would think that the listed matters can be accomplished through add, subtract, multiply, divide, and technological devices. On the other hand, algebra is about grouping like items and developing logical skills. These logical skills are used in life outside of applied mathematics.

There would be another group of people who would want to raise the bar above my expectations and say that trigonometry should be a required skill for all citizens. They may state that trig is necessary for communications and traveling/navigations. It is true that trig is used to help people develop logical skills and is used in the mentioned activities, but trig’s logical skills are based in algebra and these activities do not require trig anymore. With the advent of the modern cell phone, trig in communications is not needed for citizens. Modern maps and GPS eliminate the need to use trig to calculate routes of travel. Being able to read a map is important, so should that skill be a standard for “essential knowledge” in social studies?

Setting up a standard on essential knowledge seems practical for middle-class students who have normal (and +1 standard deviation) IQ scores and no special educational requirements, but so many students fall outside these parameters. They should not be set to this standard. Students who do not fall within this parameter should have a different standard. They may need a higher or lower standard, depending what is being required of them. People of all levels of intelligence and income levels play an important part in society, whether they are a brain surgeon or a trash collector. Society needs these people, but I do not think society would place the same basic educational standards on these people.

With that being said about creating different levels of basic educational standards for different people, why is our state government making students take the same standardized test and requiring them to have the same basic levels of skills. State leadership knows that there are varying levels of class, intellectual capacity, and language skills in its residents, so why is their one I-STEP? That is a stupid question, it is money. I-STEP requires approximate $30.2 million annually to administer the test (http://www.ista-in.org/display.cfm?articleid=103). The price tag could reach in the billions if every student was to be evaluated, given a standard, and given an appropriate revision of the I-STEP. This type of assessment is impractical. Therefore, one standard is set for all students.

Would it be great that all students could be held to the same standard? Sure. Would setting a specific standard affect the individuality of the student? No. Does individuality make setting a standard impossible? Absolutely! Issues regarding race, class, gender, and mental capacity make it impossible to set the ideal standard. It would be great if this could happen, and it seems that government officials would like for it to happen, but to do so would be optimistic, impractical, and impossible.