Educating our young is one of those rare topics that virtually everyone feels passionate about, with universal recognition of its societal importance.

Those who have not had the opportunity to benefit from extended schooling themselves are often the most vigorous at urging their own children to succeed, acutely aware of the benefits that accrue to the well-educated and the limitations invoked on those who do not. Those who had a solid education are equally determined to ensure their children have at least the same opportunities they had.

In this increasingly competitive world, education is the single, over-arching key to growth and long-term success. Small wonder, then, that scrutiny of public education is both regular and highly influential. All the more reason, then, to be equally rigorous in our assessment of what those studies actually mean.

Queen's University researcher Alan King was commissioned to document the transition from a five-year high school program (with Grade 13) to four years, with specific attention paid to the effects of streamlining on students caught at the leading edge of the change -- the double cohort.

A key conclusion of his study was that roughly one-quarter of the students from the first cohort were unlikely to graduate, principally because of "low levels of achievement in Grade 9 and 10 courses, especially mathematics."

As one might expect, this finding caused great concern. Education Minister Gerard Kennedy called it unacceptable, emphasizing his commitment to "a good outcome for every student." The study's authors concluded key courses "must be modified to be consistent with the needs and abilities of the 25 per cent of students who take them."

I find this response troubling. Of course, the prospect of an education system in which massive numbers of high school students are dropping out can only be regarded as a failure and must be remedied. But is the remedy simply to push students through to gain a diploma independent of their command of basic material?

I don't know what the specific changes to the Grade 9 and 10 mathematics curriculum are, and I don't know how the new material was presented to teachers or students. I don't know how trained the teachers were to present it, or what further resources were available for them or students.

Perhaps even more relevantly, I don't know how this material compares to other programs around the world for students at this age.

But I do know that these are the questions that matter most. And I also know there is a widespread concern among most university professors that a growing number of undergraduates lack basic numeracy and literacy skills, despite extremely impressive high school marks. And these are the kids who "made it."

At the end of the day, it is all about content. If a high school diploma is to mean anything, we must ensure that all graduates possess a thorough knowledge and awareness of basic skills. Then we must redouble our efforts so the highest percentage of them can get this meaningful diploma. Having a 100-per-cent graduation record is hardly, in itself, a success. Having an educated and literate society is.