<p>Our school district has now taken out honors classes where an AP exists in grades 10, 11 and 12. (This is 10 - World History, 11 and 12 - english and history). I had read many of you had similar situations - some have honors and AP only which was being fought at the Board level. My advocacy group, after numerous meetings with 'the next guy up the chain, has finally reached the Board level and still we are stonewalled. We believe there should be at least 3 levels of learning to cater to all students - they believe this will close the achievement gap. Unfortunately they have started this trend from the top down which has made life tough for those in the middle range who were not in the advanced classes thru middle school. What say you? Anyone have research data?</p>
<p>The three-level plan actually widens the achievement gap, based on my experiences. There were ‘regular’ courses, ‘college prep’ courses, and honors/AP/IB (depending on your grade level). The kids in general courses took college prep, and the kids who were on the verge of dropping out took regular. Either way, the AP/IB/honors/etc tier was always looked at as the ‘top’ tier; the college prep courses were look down upon, although the regular ones took a harsher beating.</p>
<p>I find the TJHSST model the best – all courses are taught at an honors level from the start, and students that show promise are moved on to AP and university courses.</p>
<p>In my school, we only have AP/Regular history in 10th, 11th and 12th and AP/Regular English for upperclassmen. Really not a big deal, at least for SS, because if there was an honors level, the work would only be slightly below the AP level and really unrealistic to do (ie, if you are going to do 30 minutes a night for honors and 45 minutes for AP, it really isn’t that big of a difference in work)</p>