The goal of schools shouldn’t be to set course requirements to make it easier for students to pass.

Even if local school board members can blame the changes on the federal No Child Left Behind law, they should fight the urge to water down curriculum requirements in an effort to raise test scores or graduation rates. Having more youngsters graduate from high school is a good goal, but not if it comes at the expense of a solid curriculum.

This issue was raised last week by the Lawrence school board’s consideration of curriculum changes that would eliminate completion of classes in biology and consumer science as requirements for graduation. One of the goals of the shift, according to district administrators, is to allow struggling students to devote more time to math and reading, the two areas in which districts must deliver adequate test scores to satisfy the new federal law.

But accomplishing that goal by decreasing the emphasis on science and other important parts of the curriculum is the wrong priority.

Some of the board’s discussion of the science changes is eye-opening. Ninth-graders currently are required to enroll in biology. Because they must pass the class for graduation, said Lynda Allen, the district’s director of math and sciences, “We have some students who are seniors in high school still trying to pass biology.”

The district could take that on as a challenge to improve or adapt its biology teaching methods, but instead the proposal is to offer a different class called “Science Exploration.” Allen said students with a weak math foundation might find this course easier to pass as they work toward the three science credits the state will require for high school graduation by 2009.

So the federal mandate is to improve math skills, but Lawrence is going to drop the biology requirement and offer a new science class for students who aren’t doing well in math. If they can raise math achievement in the district, maybe students would be better able to handle science classes. If students don’t have the math skills to handle biology, how will they ever handle physics? The district will have to create a whole science curriculum geared toward accommodating underachieving students.

It’s a mistake not to set high expectations for our public school students. A curriculum that guarantees student success, but not student achievement, serves no one. It lets lower-achieving students slide through school and offers less of a challenge for higher-achieving students.

Perhaps the changes being considered by the board will add needed flexibility to the curriculum, but on the face of it, they seem to be aimed at making sure students succeed by lowering the standard of success. If that is the case, the nation is in danger of educationally leaving all of its children “behind.”