S/O of article about dad doing homework.....ACT benchmark scores

[ElizabethB]

I saw this article and thought of this thread...

 

"This Year's SAT Scores Are Out, and They're Grim."

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/this-years-sat-scores-are-out-and-theyre-grim/279999/

[Farrar]

I think the solution should be not to offer an "AP" course if it is clear that students are not prepared for college level work. My solution would be to ditch the label and teach the most rigorous history course I can get these students to handle without grade inflation.

They should not be lulled into the delusion that what they are doing is "AP, i.e. college level - the school does the kids a disservice by leading them to believe that this is what they are doing. Call it "US History" and adjust the degree of rigor so that the grade distribution is a nice bell shape, with the top students getting an A, the maximum of the distribution being at a high C, and some student failing the course. This will set standards that adequately challenge the top students, gives dedicated students a chance of passing, and does not let the 20% unprepared/unwilling students pass who don't deserve it.

 

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I've seen AP history programs in schools where nearly all the students should make A, B or C grades and others where most students should be making D or F grades.  Some of this is the teaching, but a lot of it is just the kids (and the good or poor preparation they've had up to that point - which gets to the fact that calling a class "AP" really doesn't make it one, ie, college level, as you point out).

 

And while there may always been some students at the bottom, this seems to suggest that we should just cut 20% of kids out of the equation no matter what.  It seems to me that there's a passing benchmark and if you achieve it, even if you happen to go to a school full of kids who mostly exceeded it, you should pass.  Otherwise we're saying that 20% of kids will automatically fail high school.  That can't be what you mean though, right?

[at the beach]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I've seen AP history programs in schools where nearly all the students should make A, B or C grades and others where most students should be making D or F grades.  Some of this is the teaching, but a lot of it is just the kids (and the good or poor preparation they've had up to that point - which gets to the fact that calling a class "AP" really doesn't make it one, ie, college level, as you point out).

 

And while there may always been some students at the bottom, this seems to suggest that we should just cut 20% of kids out of the equation no matter what.  It seems to me that there's a passing benchmark and if you achieve it, even if you happen to go to a school full of kids who mostly exceeded it, you should pass.  Otherwise we're saying that 20% of kids will automatically fail high school.  That can't be what you mean though, right?

 

I agree with you. It seems wrong to say 20% of children will fail. Just as the top students deserve to have their instruction geared to them, so do the students who perform at the bottom. What factors into children being perceived as unwilling/unprepared? Some children at the bottom could be those who don't have their basic needs met. They cannot focus on learning higher order thinking skills. They are in survival mode. And sometimes this is because of their home life. Or sometimes the problem is in school. If children are bullied, for example, they are also in survival mode. Some of these children are the ones "failing," who may appear to be unprepared or unwilling to perform. If you are in survival mode, trying to get your basic needs met, US History or grammar or whatever are not even on the radar. You can have a great teacher in a classroom, doing her/his best to prepare students, and if the students are not having their very basic physical and emotional needs met, they will not be able to focus on anything beyond that. 

[regentrude]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

I've seen AP history programs in schools where nearly all the students should make A, B or C grades and others where most students should be making D or F grades.  Some of this is the teaching, but a lot of it is just the kids (and the good or poor preparation they've had up to that point - which gets to the fact that calling a class "AP" really doesn't make it one, ie, college level, as you point out).

 

And while there may always been some students at the bottom, this seems to suggest that we should just cut 20% of kids out of the equation no matter what.  It seems to me that there's a passing benchmark and if you achieve it, even if you happen to go to a school full of kids who mostly exceeded it, you should pass.  Otherwise we're saying that 20% of kids will automatically fail high school.  That can't be what you mean though, right?

 

Two quick thoughts (before I have to run to teach):

1. in every high school, you'll have a certain percentage of kids who simply won't do the work to pass any course that has decent standards. And yes, they should fail. Period. (Whether it is 20% or 10% is not the issue, but there will be NO school where all students are diligently putting in the work for success.). Those students do not have to fail high school, but they should have to repeat the course, over the summer, or stay an extra year, until they have earned their credit.

 

2. If there is only one single level of class in a subject, either it has to be ridiculously easy so that everybody who breathes will pass, and then the strong students are not learning anything and will certainly not receive preparation for college - or you have to have a course where the strong students learn something, too, and those who don't, fail.

It was my understanding that they were talking about a course intended for strong students who, alas, are not prepared for college level AP work. That does not mean there can not be a lower level everybody-who-works-at-least-somewhat-passes course in the same subject.

But if there is no differentiation of at least one level, the high school can not possibly be college prep.

that is, of course, a possible model adopted by many schools - but then we do not have to wonder that kids are not academically prepared for college.

Ideally, I would like to see strong tracking and a separation of college bound and non-college bound students at least for the four years of high school. Alas, that is politically not wanted in this country, where a mediocre one-size-fits-all education is preferred because it seems more "fair". Sigh.

[kiana]

Ideally, I would like to see strong tracking and a separation of college bound and non-college bound students at least for the four years of high school. Alas, that is politically not wanted in this country, where a mediocre one-size-fits-all education is preferred because it seems more "fair". Sigh.

 

This will happen as long as we continue to equate equality of outcomes with equality of opportunities offered by the school.

 

In addition to what you said, I would like to see strong vocational training for students who wish to apprentice during high-school age instead. For example, a student who wants to be a cosmetologist, or plumber, or carpenter -- why can't they start this in high school?

[8filltheheart]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't seem to make sense to me........

 

And while there may always been some students at the bottom, this seems to suggest that we should just cut 20% of kids out of the equation no matter what. It seems to me that there's a passing benchmark and if you achieve it, even if you happen to go to a school full of kids who mostly exceeded it, you should pass. Otherwise we're saying that 20% of kids will automatically fail high school. That can't be what you mean though, right?

I agree with you. It seems wrong to say 20% of children will fail. Just as the top students deserve to have their instruction geared to them, so do the students who perform at the bottom. What factors into children being perceived as unwilling/unprepared? Some children at the bottom could be those who don't have their basic needs met. They cannot focus on learning higher order thinking skills. They are in survival mode. And sometimes this is because of their home life. Or sometimes the problem is in school. If children are bullied, for example, they are also in survival mode. Some of these children are the ones "failing," who may appear to be unprepared or unwilling to perform. If you are in survival mode, trying to get your basic needs met, US History or grammar or whatever are not even on the radar. You can have a great teacher in a classroom, doing her/his best to prepare students, and if the students are not having their very basic physical and emotional needs met, they will not be able to focus on anything beyond that.

 

Not Regentrude, but here is my opinion, fwiw. I don't think 20% is the "right" number. However, grades should be attached to actual performance and learning and not distributed as passing based on social factors. If a student cannot pass US history or grammar bc of their personal situations, they need to be placed in appropriate remedial level courses that actually help them learn/meet them where they are vs passing them in courses that they didn't actually pass.

 

One of the problems I see with our system is the attachment to labels and strict adherence to pushing forward through the sequences vs. real concern on mastering concepts. Putting unprepared students in courses labelled AP and giving them As when they have really only mastered middle school level material is dishonest to the student.

 

Eta....I was typing when Regentrude and kiana were posting. I agree with both of them.

[kiana]

 

 

Not Regentrude, but here is my opinion, fwiw. I don't think 20% is the "right" number. However, grades should be attached to actual performance and learning and not distributed as passing based on social factors. If a student cannot pass US history or grammar bc of their personal situations, they need to be placed in appropriate remedial level courses that actually help them learn/meet them where they are vs passing them in courses that they didn't actually pass.

 

One of the problems I see with our system is the attachment to labels and strict adherence to pushing forward through the sequences vs. real concern on mastering concepts. Putting unprepared students in courses labelled AP and giving them As when they have really only mastered middle school level material is dishonest to the student.

 

+eleventy billion.

 

I don't think that a student should be failing because of being placed in a course they aren't ready for. I think they should be placed in a class they ARE able to pass. If they fail, it should be due to lack of work ethic, not due to being overwhelmed. That being said, I see no issue with allowing an underprepared student to ATTEMPT an out-of-level course -- but if they are not keeping up after the first grading period, they should drop back a level.

[8filltheheart]

I don't think that a student should be failing because of being placed in a course they aren't ready for. I think they should be placed in a class they ARE able to pass. If they fail, it should be due to lack of work ethic, not due to being overwhelmed. That being said, I see no issue with allowing an underprepared student to ATTEMPT an out-of-level course -- but if they are not keeping up after the first grading period, they should drop back a level.

Exactly.

[Farrar]

Two quick thoughts (before I have to run to teach):

1. in every high school, you'll have a certain percentage of kids who simply won't do the work to pass any course that has decent standards. And yes, they should fail. Period. (Whether it is 20% or 10% is not the issue, but there will be NO school where all students are diligently putting in the work for success.). Those students do not have to fail high school, but they should have to repeat the course, over the summer, or stay an extra year, until they have earned their credit.

 

2. If there is only one single level of class in a subject, either it has to be ridiculously easy so that everybody who breathes will pass, and then the strong students are not learning anything and will certainly not receive preparation for college - or you have to have a course where the strong students learn something, too, and those who don't, fail.

It was my understanding that they were talking about a course intended for strong students who, alas, are not prepared for college level AP work. That does not mean there can not be a lower level everybody-who-works-at-least-somewhat-passes course in the same subject.

But if there is no differentiation of at least one level, the high school can not possibly be college prep.

that is, of course, a possible model adopted by many schools - but then we do not have to wonder that kids are not academically prepared for college.

Ideally, I would like to see strong tracking and a separation of college bound and non-college bound students at least for the four years of high school. Alas, that is politically not wanted in this country, where a mediocre one-size-fits-all education is preferred because it seems more "fair". Sigh.

 

1. Yes, I agree. I guess my main point was that I don't think it should be decided on a bell curve.  Sometimes, alas, half the students or even more ought to fail.  I once failed more than half of a high school course I was teaching. :(  They simply did not meet the level of performance (or actually showing up) required.  But other times everyone should pass.  

 

2. I basically agree again.  But I don't think it has to be grade inflation or lack of challenge for all students to have done well enough to pass the course - not if it's about meeting a certain benchmark level of performance.  And I don't think that means that students weren't challenged.  If you have a class full of well-prepared students, all of whom are motivated, then I think it's reasonable to think that they might all achieve at least a C and still be challenged by the work.  And I think you're more likely to have a class like that if you track students appropriately in high school.

 

I have mixed feelings about tracking, especially in the younger grades.  However, for things like AP courses, it's absolutely necessary.

 

In many other countries there are two diploma tracks.  We have that at some schools to some extent, but the "everyone should go to college!" mania here in the US is one of the things I think is actually dragging our system down.  I think everyone should have the opportunity to prepare for college, but not everyone should actually go to college and no everyone should actually take advantage of the preparation for college.  On the other hand, the rigidity of the system in some of these other countries also bothers me.  Once you're studying for the non-college bound diploma at age 12, you're stuck on that path forever, which just seems problematic to me.  Which is to say, I'm not sure what the right path with tracking is overall.  The current system does track to some extent and it's clearly not working for kids in the lower tracks, which are presumably many of the kids scoring so poorly on the ACT and SAT scores that we're discussing here in the first place.

 

Not Regentrude, but here is my opinion, fwiw. I don't think 20% is the "right" number. However, grades should be attached to actual performance and learning and not distributed as passing based on social factors. If a student cannot pass US history or grammar bc of their personal situations, they need to be placed in appropriate remedial level courses that actually help them learn/meet them where they are vs passing them in courses that they didn't actually pass.

 

Oh, absolutely.

[kiana]

In many other countries there are two diploma tracks.  We have that at some schools to some extent, but the "everyone should go to college!" mania here in the US is one of the things I think is actually dragging our system down.  I think everyone should have the opportunity to prepare for college, but not everyone should actually go to college and no everyone should actually take advantage of the preparation for college.  On the other hand, the rigidity of the system in some of these other countries also bothers me.  Once you're studying for the non-college bound diploma at age 12, you're stuck on that path forever, which just seems problematic to me.  Which is to say, I'm not sure what the right path with tracking is overall.  The current system does track to some extent and it's clearly not working for kids in the lower tracks, which are presumably many of the kids scoring so poorly on the ACT and SAT scores that we're discussing here in the first place.

 

I would agree 100% about this. There should be enough similarity to allow a student to switch tracks, but dropping back a year or two may be necessary. It would also be a great idea to have transfer summer courses -- for students who want to jump up a track. Another thing that would be GREAT would be to allow students to track into college-prep english and non-prep math, or the reverse, instead of the whole-child tracking common in many places.

[RoundAbout]

 

My suggestion is that serious homeschoolers set as their goal trying to surpass the sort of education that happens in "good public schools," and not to consider doing better than failing schools a "victory." That is setting the bar to low IMO.

 

Doing better than good public schools is an "achievable goal," however it is a lot higher bar than some people seem willing to admit. I see it first-hand.

 

Bill

I, for one, am glad that you continually make this point. Even having attended one of those top universities and knowing what it takes, it is quite easy to be lulled by the constant negativity about public schools.

 

OTOH, one of the things I emphasize with my friends who ask about homeschooling is not how well we are surpassing PS but rather its *efficiency.*. I don't believe we are doing better than PS in all ways, but for the time spent on task we are definitely kicking ass, as you put it. I think this allows for significant growth in other areas (physical, emotional, character, etc.) and other benefits like travel and ability to pursue passions.

 

We are certainly a very academic oriented family, but I'm more proud of my son's ability to bicycle through a sudden hail storm last week in the Grand Tetons without crumbling than I am with being 2 years ahead in math. If somehow, he ends ups academically average in high school but has time to pursue a passion for say, rock climbing, I will still consider our homeschool a success. One thing I love about homeschoolers is they seem to care (or at least discuss more openly) development of the student as a whole person, not just a resume of grades and accomplishments and college acceptances.

 

But yes, I agree that looking at bad or average schools, and patting oneself on the back is a tendency that some homeschoolers have - myself included at times. *gulp* We can, indeed, do better.

[regentrude]

On the other hand, the rigidity of the system in some of these other countries also bothers me.  Once you're studying for the non-college bound diploma at age 12, you're stuck on that path forever, which just seems problematic to me. 

 

That is not entirely correct.

In Germany, tracking begins in 5th grade. College bound students go to school 12 (or in some states 13) years. Non-college bound students graduate after 10th grade with a recognized diploma (they are NOT  dropouts!) and continue their education in vocational training, trade schools, etc. BUT for "late bloomers" or students who changed their mind, it is possible to tack on a three year program that gets them to graduate with the college prep high school diploma that allows entry to university with only one year delay. My niece has gone this path; she attended a 10 grade school for disabled students, then did the 3 year program to pass her Abitur, and is not at university,

Aside from this straight forward path, adults can earn the college prep high school degree in evening classes, and any student may self-study and take an examination even if not enrolled in a college prep high school.

So no, the school they are placed in at age 12 does NOT determine their path forever.

[at the beach]

Not Regentrude, but here is my opinion, fwiw. I don't think 20% is the "right" number. However, grades should be attached to actual performance and learning and not distributed as passing based on social factors. If a student cannot pass US history or grammar bc of their personal situations, they need to be placed in appropriate remedial level courses that actually help them learn/meet them where they are vs passing them in courses that they didn't actually pass.

 

One of the problems I see with our system is the attachment to labels and strict adherence to pushing forward through the sequences vs. real concern on mastering concepts. Putting unprepared students in courses labelled AP and giving them As when they have really only mastered middle school level material is dishonest to the student.

 

Eta....I was typing when Regentrude and kiana were posting. I agree with both of them.

 

I agree we shouldn't be pushing kids through a system because of social reasons. :) That's why we have children graduating who are illiterate. What I was trying to say is that kids who are in at-risk situations are not going to be able to focus on learning academic material (remedial or otherwise) because they are focused on meeting basic needs such as the need for food, clothing, shelter and emotional security and it seems unfair to me that those kids would be held to the standard of having to master academic material when they are operating in a survival mode. No matter how great the teacher, you can't move kids to higher order thinking skills when they are trying to meet basic needs. It all begins in the home. JMO.

 

ETA: I agree with you about AP, too. In our local schools, few kids overall are taking AP-level classes. I know some very capable teens who choose to skate through and avoid taking classes at a level they could handle. Sure, I think it's bad when kids are overwhelmed with too much academic work, but I also see kids who do little. I know one who is shocked at how different the third year of her foreign language is (harder), and she will not take it next year. The first two years (no tracking) were a breeze. Some kids are uninterested in working hard. Some are, though. Some really do very well coming out of our public school system. Again, it begins in the home. I would almost bet that the very low number of kids in our large school system who are NMSF have families who know exactly what it takes to do THAT well on a standardized test. 

[Catherine]

One of the problems I see with our system is the attachment to labels and strict adherence to pushing forward through the sequences vs. real concern on mastering concepts. Putting unprepared students in courses labelled AP and giving them As when they have really only mastered middle school level material is dishonest to the student.

IMO, this is one of the breakdown points in our current system. Repeating grades doesn't work, probably because the factor that caused the failure has not been addressed, and in some cases, may not be "addressable". But I know that true remediation is rare. Students placed in remedial classes seem to get a slower version of what the regular classes get, which would BE remediation for some students, but for many, their actual LD, particularly if it is language-based, is not recognized or remediated, to the extent that remediation is possible. Compared to an asian style of school, where extra help is easy to access and frequently used, we do not provide much extra help\practice to the many students who would benefit from this.

[kiana]

IMO, this is one of the breakdown points in our current system. Repeating grades doesn't work, probably because the factor that caused the failure has not been addressed, and in some cases, may not be "addressable". But I know that true remediation is rare. Students placed in remedial classes seem to get a slower version of what the regular classes get, which would BE remediation for some students, but for many, their actual LD, particularly if it is language-based, is not recognized or remediated, to the extent that remediation is possible. Compared to an asian style of school, where extra help is easy to access and frequently used, we do not provide much extra help\practice to the many students who would benefit from this.

 

Last study I saw showed that they did better in the grade that they repeated, and then back to original performance in the next grade.

 

Honestly, I wonder if (in some cases) it is simply because the grade is going too fast for them, and if they would have been better off placed in a program (if available) with more flexible pacing. That way, if the most they can handle is (say) 3/4 of a grade per year, they can proceed forward and at least learn what they're being taught, even if they are learning less than others. This applies especially in math and english.

[regentrude]

Honestly, I wonder if (in some cases) it is simply because the grade is going too fast for them, and if they would have been better off placed in a program (if available) with more flexible pacing. That way, if the most they can handle is (say) 3/4 of a grade per year, they can proceed forward and at least learn what they're being taught, even if they are learning less than others. This applies especially in math and english.

 

That is pretty much the distinction between the college prep track and the non-college prep track in German schools. Students in the non-college prep track still have all the subjects, but the pace is slower, less material is covered per year, and the student is not expected to be as independent. The net result is that students have covered less material when they come to the end of grade 10, which makes the extra year necessary for students who decide to earn the college prep diploma.