Ethnic studies resolution updates

by David Safier

The Star's editorial came out in favor of the resolution TUSD Board President Mark Stegeman will present at the Tuesday Board meeting. The spirit of the editorial is reasonable, but there is a huge flaw in logic similar to Stegeman's — the idea that you simultaneously downgrade the MAS history courses to electives while you begin the process of making the standard American History courses more inclusive. The result: the changes to MAS go into effect in September, and the proposed changes to the American History courses go into effect . . . whenever. They will happen in dribs and drabs over the years, moving through study committees and public hearings. The quality of the results is far from guaranteed.

It makes no sense to gut MAS, with its proven record of success, based on a loose promise of better core courses sometime in the undetermined future.

In a separate article, Alexis Huicochea presents an accurate picture of the current situation with MAS and Stegeman's resolution, and it lends an insight into Stegeman's flawed logic regarding the negative impact of making the MAS history course an elective. He admits fewer students will take the class as an elective, but he believes the students who need it will still take it.

Though Stegeman admits there will likely be a decline in enrollment as a result, he doesn't see it as the demise of the program.

"We've heard from all kinds of students how wonderful these courses are," Stegeman said. "If the students believe that to be true, those who really are getting something out of it will choose to take it."

My sense from that statement is, Stegeman is far removed from the thought process of less-than-academically-inclined high school students. That's not surprising, since he's a university prof and was likely a conscientious, high achieving high school student. So let me shed some light, based on my experience teaching low achieving students and struggling to motivate them, on the differences between the UA students Stegeman interacts with and the struggling students "who really are getting something out of [MAS]."

University profs often complain about the poor motivation, study habits and skills of their students, yet they are drawn from the top ranks of high school grads. When you move to students who graduate with reasonable grades but don't have the academic ability it takes to go to UA as well as those who barely graduate and those who drop out, you're talking about problems with motivation, study habits and skills university profs have no concept of.

To imagine students who need an academic and motivational boost will choose to burden themselves with extra work in the form of a second, elective history class shows a lack of understanding of these students. A major problem for these students is, they are not making good educational choices. If they were, they would be paying careful attention in class, doing their homework and generally maximizing their academic potential — more like the students who make it to UA. The first task with low achieving students is to place them in a situation where they are given that extra motivation, that extra push, to help them come closer to realizing their potential. If you put an obstacle in their path by making MAS an elective they have to take on top of the required history class, you're going to eliminate many of the students who would most benefit from the program.

Stegeman is an educator, but he works with a different group of students than the garden variety high school student, let alone those who struggle to pass AIMS or to graduate. He and other Board members should consider the value of the MAS program as it currently stands and the damage they will do if they vote to turn the history courses into electives rather than making them core courses. They should vote against the resolution.