AP and a “Smart Parent’s” Response to It July 26, 2007
Posted by aquiram in APUSH, advanced placement, parent.trackback
I subscribe to very few RSS feeds on education from major newspapers–it is just one more thing to read and I figure if it is really worth talking about someone else in the blogging world will let me know through a post on their blog. However, I do subscribe to Jay Mathews column at the Washington Post. I catch up on reading it once a month or so and usually just let it be a simple reading. But, Monday’s column, dealing with Advanced Placement courses, is one I felt needed to be expanded on.
The article can be found here: A Smart Parent Criticizes AP
Now, right away, I was intrigued, as I am currently undertaking an AP US History course for the first time and have just completed a summer seminar in teaching an Advanced Placement course. I was looking forward to seeing real issues and how the same issues might play out in my courses. However, as I read further into the article, I found flaws in some of the complaints and question the parent’s intent.
Garrison: The class was as large as every other class and included every kind of student.
From this quote, in her first answer to one of Mathews’ questions, the idea of a “perfect” AP course was planted. She does not believe classes should be as large as others (as an AP teacher, I don’t think so either, but when everyone else has large classes it is hard for me to justify having a smaller class). What troubles me most about this statement, though, is her “every kind of student” label. What does this mean? Just students like her two gifted children?
Garrison: Since the NCLB-mandated AP expansion, the numbers of students “encouraged” to take AP classes and the number enrolled have both rapidly grown.
When or how did NCLB mandate AP expansion? Except for the College Board’s Equity policy–which demands equitable representation of sub-groups in AP courses–I am unaware of any NCLB mandate. Mathews points this out near the end of the article. The rise is not due to NCLB, but to the desire of teachers and administrators who want to open the opportunity to more students. And, I am confused by this question?
Garrison: By the way, when did AP or IB become the only game in town for advanced opportunity in public school? A hint: since NCLB.
Now, at this point it is pretty clear the parent is not exactly a NCLB supporter, but blaming the lack of rigor in AP courses on NCLB? I am not a big fan of NCLB, but I am aware of the fact that many AP teachers are not all that concerned about higher stakes testing outside of the AP test a student gets to CHOOSE to take at the end of the course. (Unless the students are required to take the AP exam, like mine are, because the district pays for it.) The parent then goes on to describe AP course work as teaching to the test:
AP classes, in the context of NCLB are more likely to teach basic skills, and underemphasize problem-solving and complex thinking skills that are not well assessed on standardized tests.
Now, AP courses do teach to a test, however they are not simple skills tests. Even the multiple choice exam is an exam of knowledge and understanding–not a simple factlet question. Students are taught how to do well on the M/C section, but not at the expense of learning content. After the last comment, Mathews asks about Document Based Questions and I begin to wonder (as I am sure Mr. Mathews does) if the parent truly understands the concepts and contexts preparing for DBQs involve. Every DBQ involves ANALYZING and SYTHESIZING information in answer to a prompt. Each new document is new knowledge and should lead to further understanding of the basic concepts. But, Ms. Garrison seems to believe
the focus is on becoming better at answering tests in a manner that reflects the generally assumed style of the test scorer. What is taught is that content is not the priority if you can use a certain set of test tricks or methods that appeal to the test-scorers methods.
Mathews follows up this statement with a question about DBQ and higher order skills versus test trickery. And Garrison follows up with:
A good answer on an AP test DBQ is more of a trick than you would like to believe.
This is the point in the article where I felt I had to respond. I just sat through a week of study on how to teach kids content–NOT how to pass a test. However, ONE of the end goals of the course is to pass a test, so we must prepare our students to do as well as they can. But–writing an answer to a DBQ is not as easy as Ms. Garrison would lead us to believe:
requires little depth of knowledge of the subject, not too much writing ability beyond the basic BCR or ECR format
The instructor for my workshop and one of the other participants (who has taught AP for many, many years) talked extensively about the reading (scoring) of AP exams that happens every summer. It is not unusual for students to PASS the AP test with a horribly written DBQ, but I think that is a problem not discussed in the article, nor is it easy to fix. Ms. Garrison would have you believe anything you wrote, that at least mentioned the topic would get you a good score. The exam readers, however, will tell you what really needs to be there–knowledge, understanding, and analysis. I do believe AP Euro and AP US History are two different beasts entirely and Euro may have a different manner for the DBQ, but for US History the student CANNOT merely list every fact known about the topic or era and expect to do well. They are required to analyze the documents and include outside information to form an essay around a well written thesis. Again, Ms. Garrison states AP is “not really about learning to analyze complex materials” anymore. What exactly does one do with those documents, then?
When Mr. Mathews asks how she would change things, her answer is less than convincing. There is no real suggestion, except to get rid of NCLB, which upon research seems to be her stump. There is also another hint at her elitist attitude, which the College Board itself is trying to overcome:
The schools might consider an accelerated academic track for students wishing to take advanced classes.
This bothers me. The whole reason the College Board seeks open enrollment is to get students into these courses, who for whatever reasons, would not normally end up in these courses. Do not get me wrong, not everyone needs to, nor should take AP courses, but there are more reasons to take them beyond the college prep or college credit reasons. What if I just like US History? I can’t take it because I am not “prepared” for it? In the ideal world (which doesn’t exist for a reason), all AP courses would be pre-loaded by a pre-AP course. It doesn’t work out that way, though. There is also fault in the following argument:
In college, students generally take a load of four classes, in high school, they generally take seven or eight.
If you are talking per year–both take 7-8 courses. The difference–college students take four courses per semester and high schoolers take the entire 8 all year. I do agree with her argument of limiting the number of AP course a student takes per year, but in reality it is normally the parents who are clamouring for their kids to be in as many as possible. Then Ms. Garrison seems to back pedal and offers up–all students who want to pursue an advanced experience should be able to, but they should also have preparation for it through programs such as AVID. I agree, but it is not necessarily available everywhere and good AP teachers will plan ways for ALL their students to succeed. For instance, I plan on assessing ability levels early in the year and providing seminars in readiness and skills to those who need it to succeed.
Garrison: the AP exam tests rote memorization more than in-depth understanding.
Oh, how I wish this were true–my kids would knock it out of the park. They are very good at memorizing, but the AP exam tests understanding–not knowledge. Anyone who doubts this can go to the College Board website and view past exams. It is not as simple as: This man was the first president, A) George Bush, B) Thomas Jefferson, C) Lyndon Johnson, or D) George Washington. I do agree there is too much content to cover, but unless the CB changes the emphasis of the course or schools start offering two years per course, there is not much to do about this.
In the end, I find it a sad and honest critique of AP programs, when there are no data to back up her claims. If you are an AP teacher, a parent of an AP student, or an educator who cares about this topic, please feel free to engage in a discussion in the comments section.
Hopefully, what I have to say adds to the conversation, but I’m mainly covering my opinions about AP. I teach English in a private school with the pretty typical approach to AP- a step above honors in which kids must apply and pass some sort of entry exam. Before last year though, I was the school director for a charter school.
I taught AP level students in the regular classroom and differentiated content to get them ready for the exam. Although the “smart parent” in the Post column might be horrified, this is the way I think it should be done. Perhaps I rehashing very old arguments against tracking, but in my experience, strong kids tend to become self-satisfied in classrooms of their peers. I won’t say that these kids will do well anywhere, but if the purpose of school is to prepare them for life beyond school, that life in college or career includes working with people of varying degrees of intelligence, skill, and interest. A strong teacher interested and experienced in differentiation can offer more opportunites for a larger range of skills AND understanding while also preparing AP kids for the exam and college-level work. The differentiated classroom can offer teaching opportunities for AP students that will enrich their learning, but clustering is available to make sure that the AP kids don’t lead every group or do most of the work.
Certainly, my approach takes work, but when there is waning interest in AP or funding different programs, this is a method to make sure students have the opportunity to take the exam if they want. Also, bringing up the level of work in the regular classroom better prepares other students who may have never stepped foot into an AP classroom.
From this quote, in her first answer to one of Mathews’ questions, the idea of a “perfect” AP course was planted. She does not believe classes should be as large as others (as an AP teacher, I don’t think so either, but when everyone else has large classes it is hard for me to justify having a smaller class). What troubles me most about this statement, though, is her “every kind of student” label. What does this mean? Just students like her two gifted children?
This means the smarter students. Gifted, one assumes.
Look, schools (and NCLB) are all about playing catchup for the low and middle students. that’s why they call it “no child left behind” as opposed to “no child allowed to perform below their maximum potential.”
AP was sort of a saving grace. They weren’t always super speedy. But they had far, far, fewer students who simply couldn’t do the work. And god, it was a goddamn relief.
Schools don’t track as much now, remember? So you have a much higher percentage of smart students twiddling their thumbs while waiting for the “differentiated instruction” to get around to them–while their teachers, driven by the mandates of NCLB and pass rates, are focusing on the slow ones. (again: note the focus on PASS rates, as opposed to, say, ’score better than 90%’ rates.)
Alternatively, it could be the wrong teacher focus. AP scores from 1-5. A true AP class is supposed to be, like college, a fast and challenging class. It is NOT supposed to be a particularly equitable class (welcome to college, boys and girls!)
Teachers who instruct AP classes should be teaching to the “fast half” of the class (read: students who are likely to get 3, 4, or 5 on the AP) and should not be slowing down the class to help students at the low end. If they need that much help, they shouldn’t be in AP.
mdocwu-
It is funny how your comment combines the two areas of interest I examined closely this summer. I first attended the ASCD summer conf on differentiation and had been working hard at planning lessons using differentiation where and when I could. Then I went to my summer institute for AP and could easily see where differentiation could be worked through the curriculum–what books students read–what primary sources are read–what kind of groups are used for certain projects. It is nice to know there are others out there who think AP does not necessarily mean kids who don’t need teachers in the first place!
Sailorman–
Are you suggesting differentiating the instruction slows down the class?
Sailorman–
Are you suggesting differentiating the instruction slows down the class?
Yes, absolutely. I don’t think there’s really any doubt about it.
Any mixed-ability class will be faced with three choices: Either teach only to the smart kids (and let the slow ones fail); teach primarily to the slow ones (giving up on part of the smart kids’ capabilities); or try to split the difference. Nobody chooses the first option, particularly not in public schools.
Differentiation is only possible by splitting teacher time/work/attention (collectively referred to as ‘teacher time”
between various groups. At the lower levels of education (which is what we’re talking about–I have different opinions w/r/t grad students) teacher time is quite valuable.
Do you think that in a 60 minute class, a teacher can reliably teach 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade math to a mixture of 10 students (from each grade)? Do you think that the teacher will do it as well as, and that each student in the class will progress as fast as, if the class had 30 students at the same level for aq 60 minute class?
And that 3/4/5 split is not too far off. If anything, it’s minimal.
To take a good example, I’ll look at my old AP Calculus AB and BC classes. In BC, we (theoretically) learned a year of college calculus in a year. Other students took a year-long AB course (learning a year of college calc in a semester).
Now, this was in a private school with multiple classes. The math curriculum was essentially tracked. But even in the fast track, there was a huge difference in the students. Some were capable of learning–literally–twice as fast as the others.
Those differing abilities didn’t magically appear in 12th grade.
Oh yeah: The way that many teachers work with differentiated instruction is by using a significant # of in class projects and drills. In theory (so it goes) those hypothetical 3rd graders would be getting 20 minutes of direct instruction, and be doing 40 minutes of vaguely-supervised work. That leaves 40 minutes of instruction time for the other grades.
Again, in practice this disadvantages the smart kids. Becase in practice, the slow group needs more than 20 minutes, which means the smart group gets less.
And of course it only gets harder.
Say you start the year in 4th grade with some kids reading at 3rd grade level, some at 4th, and some at 8th.
Where are they by the end of the year?
Did you do a good job for the 3rd grade level kids if they’re now at 4th grade level? Sure: they’re done with 4th grade, they performed as expected.
Did you do a good job if your 4th grade level kids are now at 5th grade level? Hard to tell, but maybe not. You don’t know if they’re faster learners, in which case you’ve failed them by only teaching them a year’s worth of work.
And did you do a good job if your 8th grade kids are now at 9th grade level? Almost certainly not. These kids are clearly able to learn at a rate approaching twice as fast as normal children.
I’m concerned especially with a few arguments here: one regarding NCLB’s role in AP promotion and the other regarding differentiation.
Now, Ms. Garrison is not completely wrong that NCLB pushes AP harder. Those enrolled in AP courses and the number of AP courses offered (generally contingent on those enrolled) does play a role in the NCLB “score” a school gets. Therefore, students who are not of the privileged elite ARE being encouraged to sign up for these courses under NCLB.
As for differentiation, it is patently untrue that the swift students have to twiddle their thumbs while the “slow” ones catch up. What happens, in my Spanish classes for example, is while we are reviewing before the quiz/test, the so-called slow students finally catch on to the basic concepts being addressed; the “super students” are then familiar enough with them to extrapolate and, if enlisted to help those not getting it, they begin to delve into metacognition, actually thinking about how to explain and understand what they know from different angles, thus more firmly and permanently embedding their knowledge. I have observed this process in myself and in my speedy students.
So, yeah, AP is not what it used to be, but it hasn’t changed a heck of a lot since I was in it (and we had a 4×4 schedule, like college, lo’ these 9 years ago).
That’s a common and incorrect defense of differentiation.
In essence, you’re noting that the smart students learn more than the slow students.
But you’re changing the focus, and thus failing to address the question. Even if your claim is true this is only partially related to the question of whether the smart ones learn AS MUCH as they would in a nondifferentiated class.
A reasonably way to analyze it might be this: in theory, the normal progression of learning represents the order in which we think things “ought” to be learned. Obviously this is a very broad statement. Still, is metacognition a skill that is normally taught? Is it a skill that is normally taught in class? Is its instructional use at this level (or in general) supported by research?
Because if you haven’t addressed those questions, then you are cherry picking your analysis. You’re cherry picking because you’re failing to provide for the smart students*, and you’re looking for a mode of analysis that allows you to claim otherwise. So you adopt a a priori argument based on cognitive dissonance:
1) I am a good teacher.
2) Therefore I do a good job teaching my students.
3) The smart students are not doing what my other students are doing.
4) However, I am not failing my smart students.
5) Therefore, what the smart students do is what smart students should be doing.
*Not that this would be your fault, if you teach in a public school.
There is an inherent misunderstanding or maybe, misprepresentation of differentiation here. Let’s take the AP discussion out of the equation. Even if you consider all of the students in a class on the same level and therefore decide you can provide the same material to them, differentiation for learning style or learning processes is a sound instructional choice. In any class, whether the students are strong or not, it is best to attend to the needs or even interests of the individuals in the class and not plan based on some preconceived notion of what a course should be.
Differentiation is not necessarily done for skill level but for the approach that works best for a given student. Varying up lessons within each class period and among the weeks means that a teacher can hit all of the students some of the time. It is not practical in class or in life to provide one mode of instruction, so the visual learner may not be happy all of the time, but that same person is not going to be able to interface with other situations the way he or she wishes all of the time. Even in college courses and AP classes, instructors are now encouraged to vary up the techniques in one class period, and these instructors are utilizing service learning and project based learning in addition to traditional lecture. Direct instruction is not the sole choice for a teacher; it should be one of many.
Differentiation for assessment, or “product” is another way to teach to the strong and scaffold down. It doesn’t mean that anyone is getting ignored, as no class should be 100% lecture on any one level anyway. Students should be pursuing independent and small group work at times to enable the teacher to gifferent different attention to whomever needs it. Perhaps completing a different essay or project is what would be best for that student. It’s not just the “smart kids.” Regardless of skill level, all students need chances to construct their own knowledge and to do so in ways that make sense to them. Most of today’s students are consumers, and they expect immediate gratification. We can’t always give it to them, but we have to be aware that this is a problem that must be addressed, so we plan for the ones we have, not just to adhere to a pre-set curriculum or syllabus.
In defense of metacognition:
Metacognition isn’t a skill taught in class; it’s a skill used in class to teach other things. The process of thinking about how one learned what he or she learned is engaging the material on a higher level, something we want for all students, and it ensures comprehension and usefulness across a variety of situations. And yes, its utilization is supported by research. Here’s one that offers an overview:
Theory Into Practice, Autumn, 2004, by Deanna Kuhn, David Dean, Jr. :http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_4_43/ai_n8686064
OK, here’s my proposition. Perhaps you’re right–I’m willing to be convinced. I don’t think so, though. I’ll present the general arguments specifically, one at a time; you can address them likewise. I’m going to use a very simplistic argument at this phase. After the initial exchange, we can get into the more complex stuff.
1) Teaching time (includes attention, etc) is a limited resource. It cannot be expended beyond some arbitray point atht varies by teacher.
If you look at all the various metrics–personalization, attention, supervision, conversation, eye contact, etc, then you will eventually realize that you cannot give more to Student A without giving less to Student B. Obviously, teachers can work more effectively and increase the size of the pie. But (see #3 and #5) there is never enough pie for everyone to eat their fill.
2) Teaching time is valuable and there is a correlation between receipt of teaching time and student advancement.
I’m hoping not to spend too much time arguing this one. If you’ve ever taught (or taken) private lessons, you probably are familiar with this factor. The more that the teaching is a “fit” for the student, the faster that they learn.
3) The graph between receipt of directed teaching time and benefit surely has an asymptote. However, In a normal public school, children do not generally approach the asymptote.
There are probably some children who simply are at cognitive overload. Those kids don’t really benefit from additional attention. But I hope we can agree that these kids are rare. As an example: If you chose any random student from your class and gave them one-on-one attention for a full class period each day, how many of them would fail to advance more rapidly than they had before?
4) Children have different learning styles and speeds.
We seem to agree on this one.
5) There is incomplete overlap between the teaching methods that are ideal for each learning style and/or speed.
This is part of the “limit on pie” mentioned in #1. Given limited teaching time, you cannot infinitely expand teaching output because of inefficiency.
6) As a result, the greater (and more different) the # of teaching methods used, the less teaching time is available for all students, across the class.
this follows from #5.
7) Because less teaching time is available (see #6), because students generally benefit from teaching time (see #2), and because students generally do not fall into the no-benefit category (see #3), this results in a detrimental effect.
Haven’t you ever noted that th the ones who always push for mixed-ability classrooms are the slow kids’ parents? They’re no fools. I’ve read plenty of articles showing that some degree of exposure to people or ideas that are ABOVE your level is beneficial. i’ive never heard the reverse to be true.
#1: True
#2: False (based on my experience)
#3: False (based on my experience)
#4: True
#5: False (true, I suppose, for highly inefficient teachers)
#6: False (based on my experience)
#7: False (because 2, 3, and 6 are false)
As for your last statement, true mastery of content and concepts arrives when an individual teaches them to another person. When high-performing students teach or coach their peers, their own mastery increases. Therefore, heterogeneous classes benefit all levels of students.
I’ve taught AP English on a block (90 min) for five years and had no problem differentiating for my students. Maybe I’m just better than you?
to pass the class, because we all know that a large majority of AP classes revolve around memorizing unpractical, tedious facts, as opposed to trying to develop the child into becoming a critical thinker. From my experience, most AP classes seem like nothing more than a breeding house for parrots. For that reason combined with the large, futile amount of work neccessary, I have decided that AP classes (save calculus) are not for me. But if your kid is solely interested in being “ranked” in the top 5 or 10 percent of their graduating class, then I say “go ahead, take that AP class, Jr. Einstein!”
AP classes aren’t designed for intelligent kids, but rather for those who are willing to put in the large amount of time and effort needed to pass the class, because we all know that a large majority of most AP classes revolve around memorizing unpractical, tedious facts, as opposed to trying to develop the child into becoming a critical thinker. From my experience, most AP classes seem like nothing more than a breeding ground for parrots. For that reason combined with the large, futile amount of work involved, I have decided that AP classes, save Calculus, are not for me. But if your kid is solely interested in being “ranked” in the top 5 or 10 percent of their graduating class (or getting into one of the top colleges), then I say “go ahead, take that AP class, Jr. Einstein!”