<p>the problem is in HS you can't look at a small period of time because there is no way the teacher can be an expert on every small piece of history. College professors can concentrate on their certain area, but high school teachers are not afforded the same opportunity (nor do high school teachers do research and such in their area of interest).</p>
<p>Teaching to the test means that students memorize what a very small group of people feel is important, and sure those people are teachers, educators, etc., but they are hired to do a job and a corporation does the higher and who is to say that it is truly free and open process</p>
<p>for instance, literature, how boring would a college class be with everyone reading the exact same books, the joy of college is meeting other kids who have read and had different experiences in learning</p>
<p>and who is to say the corporation that creates the test is correct in what they are teaching? </p>
<p>some issues in my Ds AP History class are discussed in depth, with often to concensus of what is "correct"</p>
<p>and do we need a bunch of robots? ask the kids in those schools if they themselves feel better prepared...</p>
<p>we have seen what teaching to the test has done to some Japanese students</p>
<p>"Teaching to the test means that students memorize what a very small group of people feel is important"</p>
<p>Depends a lot on the test, doesn't it?</p>
<p>Actually, many/most of the textbooks used for AP classes are intended to support "teaching to the test" so a teacher is going to "teach to the test" even if that is not their intention. And even if you think a teacher is not doing so.</p>
<p>Loved the articles point about teachers who make up their own exams obviously "teach to the test" That is a point I have been making to the detractors of standardized tests for years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Teaching to the test means that students memorize what a very small group of people feel is important
[/quote]
well the alternative is that students memorize what only one person thinks is important - their teacher. That is not necessarily better, especially if the teacher is into those "read my mind" questions.</p>
<p>texas: great point. The bottom line is that every teacher teaches to whatever she thinks is important -- whether it is what she alone thinks is important or what she thinks academia thinks is important.</p>
<p>Teaching to the (standardized) test often does not mean "memorizing". It means teaching the CONCEPTS (math skills, criticial reading skills, etc) that are needed for success. That is not mindless memorizing.</p>
<p>there are talented, creative teachers who can bring their subject alive and challenge their students to great academic heights, and there are teachers who cannot do those things. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are following an AP curriculum. I personally love AP. We homeschooled. My son was able to self-study and make 5s on ten AP exams precisely because the curriculum is well defined and there are plenty of materials written to support it. The test score documented his mastery of defined material at some standardized level. That doesn't mean that we would have designed a course the exact same way. He thought a lot of the AP stuff was "stupid". But having a "packaged" curriculum to follow and standardized exam to prepare for freed up the majority of his time to pursue the same or other subjects in ways of his own choosing. In some subjects, he went way beyond the AP curriculum. In other subjects, he did the absolute minimum necessary to get his 5 and that's it. The same thing would be possible for teachers in classroom settings - the AP curriculum simply provides them with a framework. How they build the house is up to them. But having a standardized framework handed to them to get them started seems like it would be infinitely preferable to having thousands of individual teachers trying to invent the wheel. It makes a higher minimum than would otherwise be the case, without placing any limits that I can see on what is the maximum that an individual teacher or student might choose to do.</p>
<p>the problem I see with letting everyone who wants to take an AP course is that schools, teachers, and parents are not prepared to let children "fail" in large numbers. If AP courses are open to anyone, and 100 kids sign up even though only 50 are prepared, there will be more failures than will be acceptable to "the system". The result is going to be tremendous pressure to water the course down so that the majority of students in it can pass. Some sort of selection process to try to identify the 50 who are prepared will necessarily omit a few kids who could succeed if given the chance. But the alternative - either having half the kids fail or watering down the course - isn't good either.It is easier for schools to hold the line on a selection process that keeps kids at risk for failure out of AP classes than to hold the line on high standards when poorly prepared students and their parents are squawking about the course being "too hard" or having too many low scores on the exam.</p>
<p>or the alternative could be that we retain the rigorous course, but we give the less prepared students support to succeed.
It is important that we have challenging courses, and it is true that some students don't necessarily have the background to take an AP course without extra support, but that does not mean we should not have rigor in classes for ALL students</p>
<p>At my kids' school, they are "somewhat" selective but they do allow "non honors" kids to sign up and if the parents complain then anyone is let in. The problem is that some kids are just not willing to do the heavier work level required (there is more homework, more essay writing, more "critical thinking", etc.) and that can interfere with their sports and other ec's. Usually, within the first quarter, 3 - 6 kids drop to the non AP equivalent. The option of being able to move to the non AP course after several weeks is an alternative more schools could offer. </p>
<p>What many don't realize is that AP classes are often more difficult than the actual college classes that they replace.</p>
<p>I just attended a discussion last night with Bill Schmidt prof at Michigan state and who has been touring the country sounding the alarm that our schools are not educating students to the level of the rest of the world ( the only countries apparently that are lower than US are South Africa and Guyana?)
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/schmidt.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/schmidt.html</a>
In Europe apparently students are not given a choice what level of class to take- in the US we might have students taking 4 years of math in high school- but to use one of prof Schimdts examples- it might be algebra A algebra B algebra C and Algebra 1, when they should have had algebra in middle school to get to the math that they need in college. 40% of math courses in public universities are remedial. THat blows my mind, and I think it is because students aren't given enough challenging course work.
My daughter who was in special education just two years ago, is now in 10 th gd taking an AP euro class and a marine science class that easily is at an AP level. She needs tutoring every week, but she is up for the challenge.( and I know that if she had, had, more challenging work before high school, she would have been much better prepared, her science in middle school, was elementary level)</p>
<p>Then you have "teaching to the test" for the younger kids, which involves things like hours of class time "teaching" second graders how to bubble the answers correctly, for example. What a waste of time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the alternative could be that we retain the rigorous course, but we give the less prepared students support to succeed.
[/quote]
even if a child is willing to do the extra work to succeed in a course they are not well-prepared for (a big "if"), the "support they need to succeed" may not be possible in an institutional school setting. They may need to take the subject alone, as their only course. Or they may need 2 years instead of 1, or they may need some odd amount of time that has no relationship to the school year at all. Homeschoolers can make those sort of adjustments easily if they want their child to have some subject that is going to be a reach for them. But that sort of support doesn't fit into a traditional school schedule and would require a much bigger shift in the way schools operate than simply whether or not to offer APs.</p>
<p>My daughter attends an urban innercity school- it has the most national merit scholars of any public school in the state. Our states class sizes are among the largest in the country- our per pupil spending is among the lowest-but the teachers are strong- and community support is growing every day.</p>
<p>It is true that the student needs to be motivated to do well- however we are giving students "too many" choices- they need to have a certain level of education to succeed in life, and we are doing a grave disservice( I would so far as to say that I think social promotion in many cases is unethical) if we allow students to leave high school knowing that they don't have the skills to do so.</p>
<p>My 6 siblings and I started taking "Iowa Tests" (standardized tests) in the first grade (many stone ages ago). We did NOT "spend hours learning how to bubble". Bubbling is NOT a hard concept to learn. We had a practice one and that was it. My kids also started taking standardized tests in the first grade. It is a gross exageration to think that schools across the nation are spending hours and hours teaching "how to bubble". Plus, now many teachers use scantron tests for regular tests so kids are very familiar with the process.</p>
<p>Emerald: I agree. When my kids were little, our teenage babysitter went to the local high school. Instead of taking "college prep" courses, she was allowed to leave school at noon and go to the "beauty school" next door for "hair classes". Sadly, after all was said and done, she realized she "hated" doing strangers' hair and had now lost her opportunity for a real high school education. She had to go to community college to "do high school"! It is ridiculous to let kids make such decisions. "Doing hair" (or nails) sounds like fun to a teen, but it can get old real fast.</p>
<p>That college professor is right. We need to have higher standards and make sure kids have a strong math, science, and reading foundation so that they can handle the "college prep" classes.</p>
<p>the fact that many state colleges have had to remediate their students in basic subjects is a sad statement. After all, if these kids can learn these very BASIC concepts at their state college than they are smart enough to have learned them in junior high or high school. </p>
<p>AND, many community colleges have simply become places for people to "redo" high school. </p>
<p>All the tax dollars spent on all of this remediation would not be necessary if things were done correctly during K-12.</p>
<p>In defense of the teaching of bubbling...when they test for the first time you do have to practice with them. (although some of the tests don't require below third grade to bubble) Granted, you only have to teach them once or twice. It's not a daily portion of your day like math or anything.</p>
<p>I thought it sounded stupid until many years ago I was a naive first year teacher of second graders in a low socio-economic area. I gave them a test that required bubbling. I explained how to do it and demonstrated it. I passed out the test and let them go to it. Pleased with myself, I initially didn't look that hard at what they were doing...and boy was I surprised when I looked around!!! What I see as such as easy concept was apparently not to them. They were reading the questions and choosing their answers and then bubbling that letter on whatever random question number they chose. They were all over the place! I finally had to stop the entire process and go over it again and do some practice bubbling on the board with them.</p>
<p>So as silly as it seems, it's a skill they do have to learn just like using scissors and holding a pencil correctly in preschool or kindergarten.</p>
<p>(It's like the first time I asked a question that year such as....it's four o'clock now. What time will it be in one hour? They said things like 6:30, 8:00, 2:15. I learned quickly that sometimes we forget that we had to learn things that seem so obvious to us now!)</p>
<p>well considering that adults when voting occasionally have trouble- either not filling in the bubbles/filling in more than one bubble...
it is no wonder that kids need some instruction
With voting at least- you know right away if there is a problem because the box won't accept it- kids don't get another chance to fill out a new card, they have to just turn it in.</p>
<p>jlauer--There is time being spent on this at my kid's school. I consider it a waste of time, having to test prep in second grade, but I also consider most of these tests for younger kids a waste of time. I've looked at some of them, and they are beyond stupid. Your school may be different. Which sounds like a good thing.</p>