The Role of Rigor

Earlier this month, the Huffington Post reported that "AP Exams Surge As Tools For High Schools Raising Standards." Having taught in a school where students were often placed in AP courses far beyond their demonstrated academic abilities, I am glad to see some reporting on the issue of who is, and should be, taking the AP.

Here is the familiar story of a disparity in AP achievement, in a nutshell:

Nationally, 56 percent of AP exams taken by the high school class of 2011 earned a 3 or higher, but there are wide disparities. The mean score is 3.01 for white students and 1.94 for blacks. In New Hampshire, almost three-quarters of exams earn a 3 or higher; in Mississippi, it's under a third. In the District of Columbia, more than half of exams score a 1. 

At Detroit's Mumford High School last year, none of 62 AP exams earned higher than a 1. But at the nearby Renaissance magnet high school, a quarter of the 113 AP exams earned a 3 or higher, and the school had the second most black students scoring 3 or higher in literature in the country.

The disparity in AP achievement is a reflection of the class disparities between rich and poor families, as well as rich and poor schools. Students in poor communities arrive in high school many years behind in basic academic skills. While every student should have access to rigorous courses, the rigor sought for struggling students should be growth, not a superman's leap.

I believe the AP serves as a useful tool for teachers to evaluate their local standards and align their courses to rigorous, relevant content and skills. I also believe that all students should face serious academic rigor (such as an AP class) during their high school years, even if they aren't ready for it. Having one or two extremely challenging classes, where students have to reach beyond what anyone thinks is possible, does help establish a clear benchmark for what college work looks like, and gives all students a chance to achieve an unlikely, but meaningful goal.

At the same time, disadvantaged students gain no advantage by suffering through multiple courses they are not prepared for, under high pressure conditions, only to score a failing grade on the exams. While failing can be a valuable learning experience, it should only happen when a reasonable chance at success is tied to the risk. Why isn't there more strategy playing out in high schools that bring AP tests to underprepared students? Doing this successfully requires investments in curriculum, remediation, innovative teaching methods, excellent teachers, excellent resources, student counseling and parent investment. Otherwise, we are leaving students to drown.

Playtime!

Erika and Nicholas Christakis argue that play is critical to good education. With standards as they are written today, can teachers incorporate more play in their classrooms? If not, how should the standards be changed?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/29/christakis.play.children.learning/

The Question of National Standards

Should the United States move towards national standards? A few weeks ago the NY Times reported that nearly every state in the nation had declared intentions to participate in the crafting and adoption of national standards, and many voices, from Arne Duncan to Randi Wiengarten, have expressed their support for the move. While some supporters qualify their support, including the aforementioned union leader (Wiengarten), over the past several years playmakers from all different dimensions of education have come to acknowledge the sense the US developing and adopting national standards. If the Europeans and Japanese do it, and they get better test scores, shouldn't we?

I support the development and adoption of national standards for most of the reasons commonly cited: uniform measures of accountability for students, teachers, and schools across the country; coherence of basic core skills and knowledge for all Americans; "economies of scale" in terms of developing instructional materials and curricula that can be transferable across state-lines; and feasibility of teachers to move without their experience loosing a its value due to considerable changes in content.

And then, the other shoe drops, the long expected "but." In our conversations about national standards, I sometimes hear opponents mention the loss of autonomy for schools and teachers (and states), and the related limitations national standards might place on local communities as they try to accommodate local challenges. These are valid concerns, and actually point to a larger issue, which could be converted to an opportunity: as we move toward national standards, we ought have a national conversation. If we as a nation are to adopt national standards, now is the time for people at all levels of society to speak up about what is important for the next generation to learn. How should schools look in the 21st century? What are the challenges that the next generation will have to solve? How can we impart them with the skills and knowledge to face these challenges and prevail?

I'm not hearing this conversation, and the fault for that is widespread. We should adopt national standards, but that should occur as we as a nation come to some kind of agreement about the manner and priorities our education system should embody. Inevitably, Americans will agree that some level of autonomy for schools and teachers should be maintained. Where we draw this line, however, (as well as many others), should emerge out of a vigor debate. So far, I'm still waiting to hear.