This article is garbage, plain and simple. All the arguments the author makes about math, one could easily make about every single academic subject. Vet techs never use algebra. You know what, they probably never write argumentative essays, either. Should we throw out rhetoric as a requirement, and just make sure that individuals can read technical instruction and fill out forms properly? Let's call it "applied language". I'm all for vocational training. No one should have to go to college to get a career they enjoy. But then how about argue for more vocational training, instead of the lowering the bar at the academy? Algebra forms the basis for all problem solving. How can we teach statistics without calculus, as this guy argues? And without algebra there's certainly no calculus. The guy is attacking the wrong thing. Let kids decide in their late teens if they want an apprenticeship, and then don't encourage them to go to college if they don't want to. Don't buy into the idea that everyone should go to college, and then say college is too hard for most people.
Furthermore, the author's argument that taking out algebra would increase graduation rate is exactly the kind of statistically pleasing nonsense that sadly seems to be the norm and might appeal to the US government. It reminds me of the NY state testing change that happened a few years ago to some tests, where high scores would be curved down and low scores would be curved up, so that the state could claim- backed by statistics, of course- that they created a test that increased the percentage of students who passed without making it too easy for higher scoring students.
What do you expect from a political scientist? My buddy recently moved to Denver and got a job as a biology teacher in a high school. I saw him last week and he was griping about how he's not really allowed to fail students. They have a standing policy that if an assignment is turned in, it must garner at least 50%. No Child Left Behind is destroying education under the guise of fixing it.
Some of the clauses in No Child Left Behind just seem to be poorly thought out and hidden from the public. A friend of mine who teaches at the local high school informed me that teachers are evaluated, partially, on the improvement that a student makes throughout the year. Teachers who lead AP or IB classes with higher-scoring students are, under this clause, going to get a lower evaluation simply because these students do not have much room for improvement that can be reflected score-wise. Which means there's now an incentive for teachers to create impossible tests at the beginning of the year and then give an easy final to get a good evaluation, regardless of how well they actually teach.