I came across an article about the Federal Way Public Schools (where I had my first job, and I must add, also had a very positive professional experience) which described the current practice of automatically enrolling into AP or IB courses all students who have met minimum state standards.
Thinking back to my childhood, I remember hearing Garrison Keiller's recounting of Lake Wobegon from Prairie Home Companion. At that young age, I didn't follow the satire. Now, that simple line about how all "the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are above average," keeps echoing in my mind as I look at what is happening in some districts as they recoil against cultural perceptions that schools are failing, and in their response, create a situation where they can claim all their students are above average. Federal Way Public Schools are not alone in this movement. I see the seeds of it in my own district as well.
The reasoning behind this movement often seems to be that (1) kids ought to be challenged, (2) AP and IB courses are challenging, ergo (3) all kids should take AP or IB courses. Unfortunately, whenever any opposition is offered, that logical fallacy is then too quickly followed by others: "Don't you think all kids deserve a good education? Don't you think all kids can learn?"
In talking to some of my friends and colleagues who teach AP courses in my home district and in other districts, there is tremendous reticence about the enrollment en masse policies which stack AP kids to the rafters regardless of readiness. Several teachers lamented how they were forced to move more slowly, cover less material, and deal with greater and greater numbers of students entering without the necessary skills preparation, dispositions, or work ethic demanded in an effective Advanced Placement course, all of which resulted in less effective preparation of the students who actually were advanced.
Somehow, it feels to me that the mantra of "all students can learn" is taken to obscene proportions with movements like the one described…with all this stemming perhaps from what is referred to as the "Lake Wobegon Affect" or "illusory superiority" where we tend to overestimate our own or our group's capacity or talent by comparison to others ("We're all above average! We're all advanced!"). I am familiar with a few high schools who require all students to enroll in at least one AP class–and I seriously doubt that is the best educational decision for each and every student. The article about compulsory AP or IB enrollment detailed how around a quarter of the students forced to enroll ended up dropping the courses–likely after damage to their GPAs (and thus their post-high school prospects) and perhaps their morale as a scholar. While there parents can choose to opt their child out of the compulsory program, some parents indicated that it had not even been communicated to them that their child would be enrolled in the advanced programming–let alone that there was a way to opt out.
In our fears of falling behind, and perhaps because we fear being ostracized for seeming to imply anything other than "all students can learn," it seems we're now deluding ourselves into believing that not only can everyone learn, but everyone can be the best learner (or at least that all students can be above average).
I'm all for high standards–but the missing modifier in this "everyone is an advanced student" approach is reasonable; I'm in favor of high reasonable standards. In Federal Way, all students who have met state standards are enrolled into advanced courses; when I look at my students who have met standard and passed the HSPE in reading and writing, I see the kids who have met the minimum standard, not necessarily kids ready to take on the rigorous challenge of Advanced Placement Language or Literature–courses wherein I see even my very best students struggling to earn high marks.
If the program in Federal Way works–that is fantastic. But in analyzing whether it works, it is important that people consider statistics beyond simply the number of AP enrollments and tests taken, which coincidentally (or not) is a primary component of certain prominent "best schools in the nation" lists.
@Math Tutor… I don’t disagree. But I’m sure you see my point that not every kid is best served by being in “advanced” classes. After all the label itself implies relativity: if one group is advanced, they can only be so because another group is not.
To assume that every kid cannot learn or deserve a good education is a mistake.
Every kid, any where deserves the best education and a chance to learn. Of course it is later their choice to chose their own path but they still need and deserve the best education.
Our profession is to help them because they do learn in the same pace or way as each other but their own specific ways.
I’m guessing they don’t equate “meeting standard” with “advanced,” but are identifying kids who aren’t at standard yet as kids who need some remediation or who are still English language learners who would be overwhelmed by the pacing of an AP class.
And I just reread my comment and saw a million and five errors I wish I could edit, but can’t. Sorry. I had to hit “post” and race to feed two starving five-year olds who spent the whole day in the sprinkler. Summer!
I think the biggest issue I have with it is that the measurement they seem to be using (in Federal Way, at least) is the state standards/test–which to me, is not intended to identify “advanced” capacity…it is intended to measure that a minimum standard has been met. There is a big difference between “meets minimum standard to pass” and “advanced.”
Don’t you think all kids deserve a good education? Don’t you think all kids can learn?
Just kidding.
You make some great points, and I’d be right there with you except for a few things.
Right now, at least in Seattle, children get on the advanced track as early as first grade. You are not allowed to enroll your child in advanced learning opportunities unless your child hits certain marks on a skills test. If your child doesn’t hit those marks, you can pay $200 to have your child tested by a psychologist.
The person who determines whether a child gets tested for advanced placement as a kindergartener or a first grader is the parent. Not the teacher. Guess who’s more likely to push that their child be tested, a mother of four who recently immigrated from Somalia or someone who is highly educated and knows that kids in honors classes tend to get the best teachers, are pushed the most, and have a better transcript when it comes time to applying to college?
I have yet to hear of a child who failed the school test and also failed the independent retest – all of the children who take the costly restest test as “gifted.” Are they gifted? Probably, but I’m sure there are plenty of children who aren’t tested who are gifted. Unfortunately, by the time they hit high school they’ve had nine years of being seen as “average,” while little Jimmy whose parents tested him is seen as “above average.”
So as early as first grade we see that access to more rigorous instruction and higher expectations of a child’s intelligence is determined by the education and affluence of a child’s parents much more than the child’s intelligence.
My daughter is now in first grade. Until she was in kindergarten and all the parents started talking about advanced placement testing, I assumed this placement and testing was mandated by a teacher who saw in a child above-average intelligence. It’s not teacher-driven, it’s parent driven, and it’s not widely advertised. You have to be tapped into the system to know how to do it.
In middle school in Seattle, children can’t take advanced/honors classes unless they had that elementary test. I don’t know if they can take the test in middle school.
In high school, for whatever reason, any child who signs up and is willing to do the work is welcome to take an honors class. Maybe some high schools have some sort of entry requirements – mine does not.
My department is following FW’s lead in requiring every child to take either standard level International Baccalaureate or higher level International Baccalaureate English/Literature courses.
Why? I guess it’s because we’re a little fed up that the children who test into advanced learning in elementary school are predominantly white and middle or upper-middle class, so the children who end up taking AP or IB tend to be predominantly white and middle or upper-middle class. I guess my department and Federal Way are trying to right the wrong that happened 10 years before in a child’s education.
Will it work? I don’t know. I think it’s worth a shot.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to stop the elementary “gifted” testing, or have the school test every child and try for a “gifted” population that looks a little more demographically true.