Re: "Biology test shouldn't prevent students' graduation" (Viewpoint, 5-28).
I agree with the superintendents regarding the need to end high-stakes testing. No Child Left Behind was more a punishment of schools and teachers than an incentive for education improvement.
But their analysis that somehow biology is unnecessary suggests that what students know as they enter the world of work is less important than the graduation rate. And then they as much as said that.
As a former science teacher in Tacoma, I can guarantee that students failing biology probably did not pass chemistry or geology and certainly not zoology, a branch of biology. And why isn't science taught every day in every grade?
The superintendents state that "rigor is good" but imply that for graduation requirements to be realistic and fair, they need to be easier. So rigor is not good.
Given the current emphasis on STEM (science, technology, engineering, math), it would make sense to require students to know some biology.