<p>
[quote]
I don't know how you could come to that unsupported and unfair generalization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>JB, clicking on the link I provided in my post number 44 might have provided you some of the answers. You do not to taking MY generalizations, but I think that the "Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools" might have the credentials to offer a supported ... opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pages 8 through 10 of report</p>
<p>Principled conceptual knowledge
Although the AP and IB programs espouse an emphasis on concepts and key ideas, this intention is largely unrealized in the sciences. Excessive breadth of coverage (especially in 1-year science programs) and insufficient emphasis on key concepts in final assessments contribute significantly to the problem in all science fields. Although emphasis on learning concepts and key ideas is more evident in mathematics, further improvement is needed, particularly in the assessments, which frequently focus on procedural knowledge at the expense of conceptual understanding. </p>
<p>Curriculum
Students can study topics in depth and develop conceptual understanding only if curricula do not present excessive numbers of topics. Currently, AP and IB programs are inconsistent with this precept. In their written materials the College Board and the IBO acknowledge the importance of depth and focus, but the breadth of topics covered in their curriculum guides and assessments conveys a different message. Additionally, the College Board models AP course outlines on typical college introductory courses, rather than on the best college courses or educational practices based on research on learning and pedagogy. Since college-level courses vary substantially in content and pedagogy, this approach limits the potential quality of AP courses.</p>
<p>Instruction
Individual teachers have substantial leeway in implementing AP or IB courses. Therefore, the nature and quality of instruction vary considerably from classroom to classroom. AP and IB programs depart from the model of instruction outlined above by not providing adequate guidance concerning excellent teaching practices in advanced study.</p>
<p>Assessment
The central principle for designing assessments that foster deep conceptual understanding is that they must be aligned with learning goals and with curriculum and instruction derived from those goals. Because AP and IB assessments exert a powerful influence on curriculum and instruction, it is especially important to ensure that they are designed to foster deep conceptual understanding.</p>
<p>A striking inadequacy of the AP and IB programs is the lack of detailed research about what their examinations actually measure, including the kinds of thinking that the examinations elicit. This concern touches on the tests’ validity and the appropriateness of the inferences drawn from test scores. For both the AP and IB programs, certain kinds of validity research are lacking, including attention to the broader social consequences (or consequential validity) of their assessments.</p>
<p>Because high-stakes assessments strongly influence instruction, it is imperative to understand the connections between assessment and instruction in both programs. If instruction is to enhance understanding, assessments should not be predictable from year to year, nor should their content or form be capricious. Assessments in some AP and IB courses are relatively predictable.</p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>