<p>I’m not saying there aren’t any; I’m saying the film makers didn’t bother to find any and that that’s a mistake on their part.</p>
<p>@Youdon’tsay I haven’t seen the film, but I suppose the budget for this type of documentary is low as far as travel expenses go. I might give them the benefit of the doubt on the states between the coasts. </p>
<p>Moms who are clueless about their role in creating overscheduled kids (post #37) are probably part of the message of the film, not a poor choice of who to film. It seems that one of the questions we need to examine is what contributes to the over-stressed culture: parents, colleges, high schools, or the kids themselves?</p>
<p>@beyondtx Your school sounds similar to ours with the elimination of the middle track. I don’t see how that is supposed to serve the kids who are trying to improve and move up to more rigorous classes than what they may have been tracked into in middle school. It seems like they are making it harder for low-income URM kids to move up, rather than easier as was the intent.</p>
<p>My son’s school give three-tenths of a point to students in regular classes. That punishes honors and AP students, decreasing their class rank.</p>
<p>This is 100% about rich people getting their kids into better colleges, by having a 4.3 maximum unweighted GPA vs. 4.0 unweighted GPA.</p>
<p>It’s PHC, all the children are above average.</p>
<p>Interesting conversation. I can agree that the film may not have been particularly well made. I don’t remember how funding was found to make the film but generally speaking, those who are trying to call attention to these issues are working with very limited funds.
The film highlights an important perspective. This culture of high achievement does seem to be increasingly pervasive, and it does not only affect the students who would always have fit the high achiever description. Now it begins in elementary school. Schools are now graded, based on students grades on standardized tests and based on the number of students placed in gifted and advanced courses. Often students are placed in (or encouraged to sign up for) advanced courses they are not prepared for. In elementary school, our standardized test required a score of 3 in order to demonstrate on level work, but students could score up to a 5, so that became the score to strive for. Students hear/think that they have to take the advanced math in order to qualify for the ‘best’ programs once they get to high school, and they want that opportunity. To expect kids, or even families of the kids) in elementary school to understand the realities of what is required to get into a ‘good’ college (however they might define that) is unrealistic. They can’t know how they will define best for their child at that point, and as we have seen, the college admission scene can change quite a bit over time.So, they try to take the classes that they think will afford them the most options down the road.
It’s natural for parents to want their kids to aim high, and for schools to push students. But it is paramount that kids find balance, and this film is pointing out that we may have tipped the scale on that balance, and it’s something that needs to be addressed. </p>
<p>Perhaps the observation that some schools offer a “overachiever” advanced track and an “underachiever” regular track (see reply #35) with nothing for the solid but not super-advanced student in between is relevant. Parents don’t want their kids to fall behind by putting them in the “underachiever” track, but if the only other option is the “overachiever” track, that can mean inappropriate placement of students in that track.</p>
<p>I will be going to the “Replace the Race” meetings they plan here this year sparked by the “Race to Nowhere” movie. I haven’t really decided what I think, partly since I don’t know what will be proposed. So, I’m happy to have this discussion here, so that I can figure out what I think. </p>
<p>It is sometimes difficult for me to speak at these meetings, because DS17 is kind of an outlier, at least when it comes to STEM AP classes. He is one of those who <em>needs</em> whatever extra challenge we can find for him. The STEM APs (Chem and Calc BC and unofficially Physics C) are working well for him this year, he doesn’t spend a huge amount of time on homework, and has time for ECs and relaxation. But, I don’t want to be indifferent to the amount of time other kids spend, which I realize is substantial (especially in the history APs, which he isn’t taking this year).</p>
<p>Also, I’m on the school board for a local elementary-only district, so to some extent I need to speak for kids in general. </p>
<p>I do want to provide a voice for the kids who do need the extra challenge level of the AP classes, but I support some sort of middle path for kids who are currently taking more APs than they can handle because there is only a very high and a very low option for each subject. I’m a big proponent of teaching kids in their zone of proximal development – where they have sufficient challenge to grow, but not more challenge than they can handle.</p>
<p>Last year’s action items included some good ideas: one-day homework delay passes, encouraging teachers to have not all tests on Fridays, a support group for depressed/stressed kids, and the new bell schedule we are trying.</p>
<p>@mathyone A 5-day study hall plan was the first one proposed here, though the classes would have been shortened rather than one period eliminated. Until this bell schedule we are trying now, the other plans that were proposed failed to be adopted for various reasons. First, not enough instructional minutes to meet very specific state requirements. Second, failing to get a labor contract waiver approved by 2/3 of the teaching staff. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but I aint’ buying that for a second. The headlines purposely lump the UC & CSU numbers to conflate UC.</p>
<p>UC (and CSU) are extremely generous with AP credit. A 3 is all it takes for most credits. (Not saying that a 5 in Calc BC will ensure readiness for upper division math, but that student surely does not need remedial math. Moreover, SD (and Davis?) will not even allow a student to ‘repeat’ a course for which s/he has a 3+.</p>
<p>btw: the California Legislative Office report clearly states that readiness for UC has increased in “recent years”, not decreased. (Well, with the exception of Merced – which never should have been built --where remedial coursework is needed for 64% of the matriculants. In contrast, at Cal it’s less than 8%.) </p>
<p>And of course, Cal State still accepts ~60% of students who require remediation. But that is a different issue. (Perhaps if those kids had taken some AP courses, we taxpayers wouldn’t have to subsidize the students to repeat high school level course work in college!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on the HS. My son’s hs Calc class prepared him well enough to take and pass the math assessment test at an Ivy, obtaining full course credit for their version of Calc… (The reason that he missed the AP test is a long story.)</p>
<p>“I support some sort of middle path for kids who are currently taking more APs than they can handle because there is only a very high and a very low option for each subject.” Yes, this is a problem if there is nothing between the regular level and the AP. On the other hand, offering more levels of each class also limits the number of available sections of each class, and the number of available seats. I suspect that part of the reason why our school seems to have a great track record of kids getting the AP classes they want is that we have multiple sections of nearly all of them. I’m not saying this justifies not having the intermediate level of class, but it may make eliminating AP sections in favor of honor or other sections less popular than you might expect when the complaints about why Johnny has to choose between AP Gov and AP Chem or why there isn’t a seat for Susie in AB calc start rolling in.</p>
<p>I suspect that unless your school enacts strict standards for getting into AP classes, what you would find is that the honor alternative is not that popular. The same kids that won’t take a study hall to alleviate the pressure they are feeling aren’t going to choose an honor over an AP. They’re too worried it will look bad to colleges, or someone else from their school will look better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the real problem is that the regular course is too dumbed-down to be considered a worthy college-prep course. When I was in high school, the regular course in core college-prep subjects were considered worthy college-prep courses. While the top students in the subjects took the honors courses (which were AP courses at appropriate levels like calculus BC in math, level 4 in foreign language, etc.), there was no shame in being in the regular courses. If students and parents now feel that regular courses are inadequate to prepare students for college, then they will want to enroll in the honors or AP version, even if the student is not a top-end student in the subject. Of course, some “AP lite” courses are easy enough that the non-AP version of the course is typically even less worthwhile.</p>
<p>^^it’s also a resource allocation issue. Our HS used to offer Honors Chem, for example, but dropped it (unfortunately, IMO). The Honors Chem class only had 20+ students in a couple of sections, to the school moved them up to AP Chem to “fill” the AP classes. College Prep Chem was just too easy for those desiring a college at a higher level than a Cal State. Moreover, College Prep Chem was poor preparation for a UC (other than Merced).</p>
<p>@Ynotgo, I am glad that your district is working on addressing these issues! </p>
<p>I imagine different solutions will work in different places. Limiting the number of AP course a student can take each semester might be an option, block scheduling -done so that students take fewer classes each term…I’ve read here on CC about schools that simply do not weight their classes, having teachers require a final project or a final test, but not both, requiring that teachers hand out a syllabus of required assignments and due dates, asking teachers to avoid handing out unexpected homework that is due the next day…hmmm, I’m thinking ideas on how to reduce the stress of school might be a good thread to start here on CC. 
I know one thing that would have been helpful for my D is to not have teachers who would belittle the overworked kids, telling them they weren’t working hard enough. :-w </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, that would be the kind of solution that penalizes the top-end students who can handle the most rigorous possible schedule without excessive workload and stress, similar to the “mandatory study hall” solution. But perhaps that is the actual motivation – the parents of the good-but-not-great students want to make it difficult for the true top-end students to excel beyond what the good-but-not-great students can handle, so that the top-end students won’t be as obviously better than the good-but-not-great students from the college admissions readers’ point of view.</p>
<p>Perhaps it really comes down to the idea that, no matter how good one is, seeing someone else do better makes you feel like a failure (perhaps this is accentuated by the use of class ranking in college admissions). Hence the pressure to either try to achieve beyond what one can reasonably achieve, or hold the higher achievers back so that it will not be as obvious that they are higher achievers.</p>
<p>“Perhaps the real problem is that the regular course is too dumbed-down to be considered a worthy college-prep course.” Many of the kids in our regular level classes are not going to college. Some of them aren’t going to graduate from high school. If regular level is college prep, what do you offer these kids? We do have remedial level classes, but I think those are mostly for special-needs kids or kids performing well below grade level.</p>
<p>I just checked and we do have “advanced” level classes available but honors classes are generally not offered at the grade levels where there is an AP available. AP is considered the honors track in the later years. Also, when you get to precalc, it’s honors only. For the honors students, it would be a drop down in level to choose advanced instead of AP. </p>
<p>I doubt there is a perfect solution. On limiting the AP courses… perhaps an alternative would be to limit the number of AP course that will be weighted, so that students won’t be motivated to take more of those courses just to increase their GPA, but those who truly need or want to advance their knowledge in a subject would be able to. I wouldn’t want to hold a student back from doing what they are capable of, but those students who actually need a much more advanced curriculum should be the exception, not the rule, at most schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Back when I was in high school, even non-four-year-college-bound students were expected to meet some standards for learning subjects like English, math, science, US history, and US government. It so happens that these subjects are also part of the college-prep curriculum. The assumption that non-four-year-college-bound students are automatically too stupid to learn the material in a course that is also suitable for four-year-college-bound students seems like an excuse to dumb down the courses and curriculum in general. Of course, many of the non-four-year-college-bound students do not stop their education at high school graduation; for the better jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree, additional education of some sort is often needed.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, there are standards they have to meet to graduate from high school. I know the pass rate on those tests isn’t 100%. I think it’s more like 80-90%, though I don’t know how many manage to pass on re-takes. But those tests are not very rigorous, to put it mildly.</p>
<p>I am not assuming that the kids are too stupid to learn the material. We do have remedial classes at the high school level for kids with significant cognitive issues, and there is a special diploma they can earn. However, when kids have no interest in learning, don’t do the homework, don’t participate in class, expect other students to do any group projects for them, spend class time texting friends, have their earbuds in listening to music during class at a volume that is easily audible to other students and clearly not compatible with hearing what the teacher is saying, etc, there is only so much they are going to learn. The assumption is really that if these students aren’t interested in helping themselves, they aren’t going to accomplish much.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s appropriate for schools to limit the number of AP classes a kid can take. I know some schools do that, since I’ve seen reference to that here. This would have been terrible for my daughter. She <em>wanted</em> to take AP science classes as her electives. She liked her AP classes much better than her honors classes, where she often complained that the pace was way too slow and boring. </p>
<p>A kid who takes on more AP classes than they can comfortably handle in order to increase their class rank is trying to game the system and represent to colleges that they are a better student than they are. They are the ones with the problem. Any solution to their self-inflicted problem should not adversely affect other student who have no problem. Eliminating class rank altogether is one way to address this. Grade inflation is another way. Both these approaches hurt the top students because it makes it more difficult for them to stand out. But, that’s the goal for some people. </p>
<p>My younger daughter will have a lower GPA than her older sister, despite a history of getting higher grades. I know this even in the first month of her freshman year because her elective interests are more heavily in the arts rather than the sciences. She will take fewer AP classes. I would never push her into all the APs her sister took just for the purpose of inflating her GPA. If other people do that, they have chosen to make their child unhappy. Parents make their kids unhappy in all kinds of ways all the time. Should we ban sports programs because pushy overly-aggressive sports parents are making their kids stressed with too much pressure? Perhaps those parents need family counseling. It’s not appropriate to forbid the kids who love to take science from doing so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But should high schools dumb down the regular courses to accommodate these students? That seems to be what some high schools are doing, leaving other students the choice between low level underachiever courses and high level overachiever courses.</p>
<p>I found out very recently that there is a “taking calc in 12th grade” geometry class in 9th grade, and a “taking pre-calc in 12th grade” geometry track. My son is 2E and due to his disability, did poorly in 8th grade algebra. He needs co-teaching, but the co-teaching geometry was on the “taking pre-calc in 12th grade” track. So he does not have co-teaching so he can take calc in 12th grade if he qualifies. </p>
<p>From what I understand, for 9th graders they have:
- Honors Geometry
- Geometry on track for calculus in 12th grade
- Geometry on track for pre-calculus in 12th grade
- Algebra on track for pre-calculus in 12th grade
- Algebra on track for trigonometry in 12th grade
- Some course called “math” which is a combination of pre-algebra and early algebra (what my 6th grader is getting in her advanced class)</p>
<p>At least six tracks. English on the other hand has three tracks - regular, honors, and AP (only available in 11th and 12th). Science has two tracks mostly - regular and AP, although Physics has honors because that is the 9th grade science, and AP is in 12th grade.</p>
<p>Rather confusing, especially when parents and students don’t understand where each class leads them. IMHO, I thank my son’s GC for realizing he should not be in the 3rd level of geometry, but the second.</p>