*"Despite these measures, there are still difficulties in reconciling many AP courses with the Common Core. In particular, AP Calculus is in conflict with the Common Core, Packer said, and it lies outside the sequence of the Common Core because of the fear that it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared. The College Board suggests a solution to the problem. of AP Calculus “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science,” he told conference attendees. Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards."*I'm an apcalc and alg2 teacher with a b.s. in classical applied math. The statistics course that I took in college years ago was a calc-based course. Lisa Jones @proudmomom

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## 34 comments:

Back in the dark ages, when I took my AP Bio exam (1985,) AP classes were considered to be semi-college level classes. My score of 4 was accepted at my college as the equivalent of one semester of college Bio, and I had 4 credits credited to me because of it.

Has that aspect disappeared from the AP system? Is it now just a way to goose up your GPA, since AP classes start with a basis of 5 points instead of 4?

Don't colleges have any say in this? Are they still accepting AP courses as the equivalent of college-level work?

If not, that makes the community-college route to the last year or two of high school much more desirable. At least in that case, you might get some credits transferred and some requirements fulfilled before you hit your main college years.

College and universities still determine if they will accept AP subject courses, what scores are acceptable for their institution, and what course equivalents they determine the AP course content.

This "talk" was given to school superintendents though, not college and university faculty.

I cannot find anything on whether or not the College Board has worked with university faculty in establishing these broad statements.

It's disturbing misinformation imho.

To what college course would AP-algebra map? I don't expect it to be abstract algebra (as cool as that would be)?

-Mark Roulo

AP Algebra? How about AP Stupid?

I've been waiting for this; the conflict between AP and CCSS.

This is a "product" issue for the college board. They want to tap into the CCSS cash flow and CCSS specifically ignores STEM curricula in K-6. I've mentioned several times about PARCC's highest PLD level 5 ("Distinguished") that only means the probability of passing "College Algebra", and oxymoron. ACT is offering a (presumably) better correlation with their ACT college test, and I am waiting to see how the College Board aligns their "Pre-AP" sequence with CCSS.

"One measure cited by Packer is this: The College Board is removing extraneous details from the AP course requirements and making AP classes less about simple memorization and more about critical thinking and synthesizing information."

Yes, we know how much memorization fluff there is in APUSH, AP Calculus, and AP Physics.

"Plans are under way to modify the AP Chemistry and Spanish Language exams."

The models for these courses are defined by colleges, not the pedagogical dreamworld silliness of ed school thought. Ed schools are not the ones giving the the AP. The College Board can make all of the changes they want, and more colleges will stop giving advanced placement.

"...AP Calculus is in conflict with the Common Core, Packer said, and it lies outside the sequence of the Common Core because of the fear that it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared."

They are not prepared because there is no curriculum sequence for these kids in K-6. It's all over by seventh grade. That is educational incompetence. In spite of all of the happy talk of understanding and critical thinking in K-6, it's just cover for low expectations.

There is no way to merge AP with low expectations.

"The College Board suggests a solution to the problem. of AP Calculus “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science,” he told conference attendees."

What does "fidelity" mean; that there is at least some sort of mathy path from CCSS to AP. What about the fidelity of CCSS to a STEM career? How many still think that CCSS has anything to do with STEM? They are trying to talk their way between low expectations and college advance placement.

The College Board wants to play both sides of the aisle, but their big money comes from K-12, not the colleges.

"Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards."

If the College Board offers an AP Algebra course, they will become a laughing stock.

No high school adheres strictly to CCSS. That's the whole point of honors and AP classes. What they are confronted with (clearly) is that K-6 schools don't (and haven't been for a long time) strictly adhere to AP class standards. The solution is not to dumb-down AP.

"The AP program and the Cambridge International examinations, in particular, are partnering to pilot a diploma through an API Cambridge Capstone Pilot. This is being done to address teachers’ concerns that students are not being prepared to learn to commit to a long-term project."

Don't tell me this came from college teachers. The College Board has to be careful which teachers they consult.

Exactly!! => "What about the fidelity of CCSS to a STEM career?"

And I'm wondering why in the heck we would desire fidelity to an initiative having no research base showing success.

C-R-A-Z-Y!!

The College Board can't have it both ways.

CCSS has institutionalized (it's been there for many years due to reform math) low, non-STEM curricula in K-6. The smoking guns have appeared with tests like PARCC's highest PLD level. Their TOP LEVEL only means that a student will likely pass a college algebra course. That's the top level. When reformists talk about critical thinking and understanding, it's just cover for low expectations.

In the last year or two, the teachers in my son's honors classes have had to show how their material fits with the CCSS standards. (I haven't heard that yet for AP classes.) Some of the teachers are so pissed off that they dump it on the kids. Maybe they think they will get parents involved. Two years ago in honors English, my son's teacher had them put together a large portfolio of their work and they had to find the CCSS section (specific numbers)related to each and explain how the work applied. Completely stupid.

The College Board (and ACT and etc.) all want to hop onto the CCSS cash cow. But the College Board has a big problem. They cannot reconcile AP and CCSS because there is no curriculum path from CCSS to many AP classes.

With their Pre-AP offerings, the College Board could take the lead in offering a higher path (and tests) in the lower grades. They could acknowledge the CCSS curriculum gap and offer alternate paths in K-6. The article seems to indicate, however, that they want to pretend that CCSS is really a strong standard. They want to offer alternate AP classes or worse, change the regular AP classes to meet the fuzzy thinking and low goals of CCSS.

Apparently, many educators can't admit that CCSS is really a barely minimal college level standard. They talk of critical thinking and understanding and they bad-mouth rote learning (the same old strawman) as if they've found some better path to the same end point.

Most schools have always, and will always, start separating students in 7th grade in math. Some will get on the algebra in 8th grade track, and the rest will get on the 6-year path to try to recover from K-6 math enough to get them to pass in college what they should have mastered by 9th grade. PARCC calls that "distinguished".

As the College Board dumbs down AP tests, the scores will go up and more colleges will discount their meaning. Colleges will start ranking the importance of AP scores for admission.

I don't know why the College Board is talking about something like AP Algebra when they already have an "AP" called "AccuPlacer". Perhaps creating AP Algebra is a way to make CCSS-loving K-12 educators feel good about themselves. (ACT has COMPASS.)

AP Calculus is what has driven strong math standards in many high schools. Even integrated math curricula are forced to be honest to meet the requirements of the test. AP drives the sequence backwards through pre-calc, algebra II, geometry, and algebra I. Our high school's honors algebra I was used to get rid of our stinking bad (critical thinking) CMP math in middle school because parents demanded a proper path for those students who were ready for the material in 8th grade. Many more would be ready if only the higher math requirements could be driven back into the lower grades. Pre-AP could do that, but it appears that the College Board is wimping out. They are sucking up to K-6 educators and drinking from their cup of pedagogical Kool-Aid.

SteveH,

You are absolutely correct! btw-your previous comment prompted me to post "What about "fidelity" to #STEM fields? #HigherEd #APCalc #Math #EdReform" on my other blog and to twitter... Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts and experiences on this issue.

College Board's could be "wimping out" on APCalc vertical alignment as a result of David Coleman being at the helm...

I've been waiting to see which way David Coleman goes on this issue. He says he wants to tie CCSS in with AP, and I thought that their Pre-AP was going in the right direction. I thought it meant that they saw the need to provide a proper curriculum path back to the lower grades. Now I'm not so sure.

Now that everyone is on the same page with CCSS, it should be clear to everyone that it is a minimal standard where even the top level is barely college ready. CCSS does not offer any guidance or feedback for anything beyond preparing kids to succeed in college algebra. It specifically does not offer a K-6 math curriculum that prepares kids for a STEM career.

"One measure cited by Packer is this: The College Board is removing extraneous details from the AP course requirements and making AP classes less about simple memorization and more about critical thinking and synthesizing information."

He says that CCSS math is a slower process that is more aligned with a final AP statistics or AP programming course. He also says that there will still be paths for those who wish to end up with AP calculus. He ignores how K-6 CCSS kids are supposed to cross the curriculum gap.

"...less about simple memorization and more about critical thinking and synthesizing information."

Critical thinking (etal.) is used to hide lower expectations.

This: " it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared." is one of the most damning things I have heard about CCSS yet. Demonstrably, there are students who learn math faster and understand better sooner and are ready for calculus in high school. To claim that we are pushing students into things they are not ready for is to say that you are committed to not giving these students the educational opportunities they need and are ready for. Adopting CCSS as a minimum standard is one thing--suggesting that no students are ready to go beyond CCSS is an appalling overreach.

"suggesting that no students are ready to go beyond CCSS is an appalling overreach."

They don't deal with this issue even though CCSS now has everyone on the same page and it's staring them in the face. They just talk about how bad traditional math is in terms of rote understanding. They talk about how understanding and critical thinking is better, but at the same time, they are not providing a proper curriculum path (reform or traditional) for many students capable of reaching AP calculus. Anyone can slow down a curriculum to produce better results for some, but they also have to provide a path for those who are willing and able to do more.

The PARCC test clearly states that it does NOT deal with STEM preparation issues. Their HIGHEST level only tries to ensure that students will most likely pass a college algebra course. All students start getting algebra in seventh grade. How many years does it take to get students prepared for College Algebra?

I'll call it "the big lie". K-6 reform math pedagogues talk about how what they are doing is better for understanding and critical thinking, but all they are doing is slowing down the process and providing no curriculum path to AP calculus. They know this. They hear parents tell them about the help they have to provide at home. They just don't want to deal with their cherished assumptions of full inclusion and group, discovery learning.

This is educational malpractice.

Wow!! You two are speaking truth! It's so refreshing! (I hope you don't mind if I link to it in my little sphere...)

SteveH, I don't agree that "everyone is on the same page with CCSS" but I definitely agree that "it should be clear...it is a minimal standard where even the top level is barely college ready. CCSS does not offer any guidance or feedback for anything beyond preparing kids to succeed in college algebra."

Lsquared is right on target with "there are students who...are [currently]ready for calculus in high school. To claim that we are pushing students into things they are not ready for is to say that you are committed to NOT giving these students the educational opportunities they need and are ready for."

That is really my main "concern" re CCSSI. In a few years...under Common Core math standards...will ALL students have the educational OPPORTUNITIES they DESIRE, NEED, and ARE READY FOR?

https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/exploreap/ap-and-your-future/apcourse/ap-calculus-ab

So, here's my crazy theory. A couple of years ago Dr. Stephen Wilson of Johns Hopkins reviewed the SBAC specs for math. His review stated that the SBAC would be testing communication skills and Mathematical Processes over content knowledge. (http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2011/guest-post-sbac-math-specifications-dont-add-up.html) This is what critical thinking means to many in the ed reform. They have to be able to communicate and think, but actual fact isn't necessary (Investigations and CMP are touted as producing 'critical thinkers' even if the kids can't do math). So, for the AP,SAT, and ACT to align with Common Core would mean that testing would be more about communication skills and processes (doing something the right way) and less about concrete knowlege of math and science. If so, then those who are successful on those tests will be those who have been trained to answer correctly. You won't be able to have a private-schooled or home-schooled kid who understands mathematical concepts pass these tests as clearly. So, you then control the flow of those who get into STEM in college by those who took the Investigations and CMP in school, as well as prepped for the SAT et. al. with things like PARCC and SBAC. In short, we create a single path to higher education, based on CCSS. So, David Coleman and his CCSS buddies control education K-16.

"I don't agree that "everyone is on the same page with CCSS" "

By this I mean that all states are looking at the same standard. In the past, many states had their own standard, and that did not allow for a common base of discussion. There might be many different views of CCSS, but we can look at how the one standard is implemented by PARCC, ACT and the College Board. When PARCC states specifically that they do not deal with a STEM curriculum, it's meaningful to many more states and more people will focus on that one thing. We can look at ACT to see how they test and interpret the results. Their "college readiness" is tied to a college level ACT of 17. CCSS is forcing these groups to be specific and to calibrate their results to other numbers that are known and meaningful. This is forcing them to deal with things like mismatches between K-6 math and AP calculus. They might try to force colleges to adapt to their educational philosophy (see all of the K-16 initiatives for state-controlled colleges), but most colleges will just stop offering advanced placement.

However, everything they do points to low expectations, in spite of how PARCC calls their top level "Distinguished". At some point they will have to deal with these issues without trying to find some other sort of critical thinking process or test to make less seem like more.

I hope.

I dare the College Board to define an AP Algebra test. Go ahead. Make my day.

Regarding the possibility that US home schooled students with real math and science knowledge will be at a disadvantage on potential future college entrance exams built around content-free nonsense: If this were to happen, foreign students would be at a similar disadvantage. You would see foreign students significantly outperforming US students on international tests while being unable to compete with them for US college admission.

You would also find the US students who passed based on "communication skills" unable to handle university STEM classes. Since you can't fail everyone, those STEM classes would have to be watered down to the point where US universities would be held in the same international esteem as the US K-12 system.

My observation is that major US universities care a lot more about their international reputations than about the College Board or Common core or education reform or anything at the K-12 level. If the College Board's test ceased to be effective at maintaining Stanford's international prestige, Stanford would switch to something more effective, which College Board realizes.

"During the 2012-13 school year, the College Board has reformed the AP Biology, Latin and Spanish Literature exams. Plans are under way to modify the AP Chemistry and Spanish Language exams."

Does anyone know a link that explains what these changes were and will be?

How about the AP - Cambridge Capstone Pilot? Here is what I found:

"1. The AP | Cambridge Interdisciplinary Investigations and Critical Reasoning Seminar, taken in 11th grade, focuses on developing inquiry skills — through writing, researching and team projects — by exploring specific topics of global relevance. Topics are selected by individual schools and are drawn from a list that includes such subjects as:

alternatives to oil

endangered cultures

global climate change

integration and multiculturalism

medical ethics and priorities

Students in the seminar course are assessed through a written exam, a presentation and a team project."

"Team projects"? Why does it have to be related to "global relevance"? I guess you can see what topics they think are important, and the topics are selected by the schools from a list that someone else provides. When I was in my old "traditional" high school, we had to do a large paper in our junior year of English and a "source theme" in our senior year. Mine was on the aerodynamics of sails - not very socially conscious, but we had to do the projects individually.

They say that this is for your junior year, and they show a picture of how the seminar course and the research tie into your AP classes, but how many AP classes can you take in your junior year? And how would those courses tie into research for your "globally relevant" project? For each of the topics they list, which AP courses have a direct connection, and will you have covered that material by the time you need it?

Right. Colleges are going to value a class where your grade is mostly a group grade? These people need a good dose of critical thinking.

""At MIT, we seek to develop the next generation of creative thinkers and leaders in this global society. Students who have challenged themselves with a rigorous curriculum, developed strong critical thinking skills, and have experience in interdisciplinary learning in a global context will be in a good position to take advantage of our educational opportunities. Based on what I’ve seen, I believe the AP | Cambridge Capstone Program will be an excellent preparation for success."

— Stuart Schmill, Dean of Admissions, Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

Even though Mr. Schmill got a degree in mechanical engineering from MIT in 1986, after a year of work at GM, he came back to MIT and worked in anything but a content job ever since. ("including the College Board, University of Cambridge International Examinations, ...")

This is disturbing and related to a bad trend that I see at the top colleges. College admissions people now have way too much power to decide who gets accepted. Some colleges might bring in content experts from the departments to make the intangible admission decisions about students, but it's rare from what I can figure out. With the incredibly high demand for places like MIT (and even Northeastern!), the best you can hope for is a 1 in 5 chance of being accepted, even if you are in the very top bucket academically. One might think that a high AIME math score might stack the odds in your favor, but you still have to pass the sensibilities of people like this who might be influenced by group capstone projects or what you write in your essay.

My son gets to run this gauntlet next year as a senior. When people say that colleges are looking for certain things from high school graduates, you have to look carefully at who is doing the talking. For the AP/Capstone program, they are ALL admissions people.

In my info sessions and tours recently at top colleges, the admissions people consistently send out the message that many students show the academic ability to do well at their colleges. They clearly covet their position as gatekeepers of the intangibles, and this is now in the 1:5 to 1:10 region.

Take Two=>

I was checking out the College Board's "Chart an AP Course to Your Future" website, just to see what fields and degree areas they say are supported by Calc AB, Calc BC, AP Stats, and AP CompSci. I tried to post it on KTM, but the formatting was all messed up.

You can find it here:

http://improvingmathed.blogspot.com/

Many of those degrees require much more than Calc I or II. Engineering generally requires differential equations, and each department will have it's own additional unique math needs. Then again, some comp sci programs are dumbing down math requirements, and some are even dumbing down programming requirements.

One would like to think that students who are successful in Calc are at a base camp for college math, but some of them might be reaching their peak. Back when I taught college math and CS, it was common to see student switch majors because they reached their limit in math. This limit was not necessarily based on IQ or tolerance for the material. It often had to do with all of their gaps finally catching up with them. Where I taught, the killer math class that caused many degree program changes was statistics. I never taught it so I can't say how it compared to the current AP Stat class, but it didn't require calculus.

How difficult is it to publish the specific math requirements for all colleges and all departments? Each department should put a link to all of the math courses (in their online catalog) required for each degree program. High school students should have a resource that directs them to the specific course information for each type of degree, and each college/department can link their degrees to the types of jobs that their students get.

I only considered those 4 AP courses because they was the focus of the main post and misinformation regarding them is my concern.

You posed a wonderful research topic "specific math requirements for all colleges and all departments"

I've posed the issue to a few people that may have the resources

to look into that.

I don't have the ability to even touch something like that, but I figured it was at least a start to use the College Board's website. It is "THE College Board" so one would think that they have the research completed to back up their claims.

I'm just a teacher who would like to see the general public have access to "easy to use" and "factual" information regarding mathematics education.

Lisa Jones

@proudmomom

stupid human here :D

I only considered those 4 AP courses because they WERE the focus of the main post and misinformation regarding them is my concern.

I recommend (as most probably do) that my hs students/parents go straight to their prospective colleges/universities and review the specific course requirements for each degree, assuming that they've already researched which degree(s) are needed for the job/field that they desire.

The problem I am concerned about is that if they attend a school that strictly adheres to Common Core Math standards and they wait until hs to do their own research, they will find that they are underprepared for Calculus.

Actually, they will find that there is no way that they/their child can take calculus in highschool.

Why does this matter? There are two main reasons that I definitely DO NOT agree with the College Board representative's statements in the original posts.

Students who are not prepared for calculus during the senior year of high school

1) will miss out on an opportunity (that exists today, but may not in the near future) of saving a whole lot of money on college tuition. (these are just estimates based on local MO public universities)

$85 for an AB Calc exam vs. $300/credit hour for 5 credits of Calc I

$85 for a BC Calc exam vs. $300/credit hour for 10 credits in Calc I and Calc II

2) will be at a disadvantage freshmen year in college because they have had a one year lapse in their "preCalc/CollegeAlg" math content study, if they opted for taking AP stats or AP CompSci senior year in hs. This is why it is so important to consider whether or not they desire a degree/field that AT ANY TIME requires Calculus.

Suppose they take the college board's recommendation given above to opt for AP Stats or AP CompSci rather than AP Calculus because it does not "reconcile" with Common Core math standards and they are not prepared.

Sure, these students will still have an opportunity to earn college/univ. credit for that course via an inexpensive exam, but they will have missed a year in the progression to the study of calculus. If their degree/field requires ANY level of calculus, they will now need to take CollegeAlg/PreCalc before they can start the calculus sequence.

I believe that the likelihood of success in college level math courses is very slim for any student seeking a degree which require calculus, who has taken the College Board's advice and opted for APstats or APcompsci senior year as a result of lacking progression toward calculus in Common Core.

That angers me.

Most of our Calc students (AB and BC) have taken APstats concurrently with PreCalc/Trig during junior year, or take it concurrently with Calc senior year.

Most of their degree fields will still require a calc-based stats course during college.

It is even worse than that -- many STEM-focused institutions (including Harvey Mudd where I went) basically require calculus in high school or over the summer. Mudd did so explicitly, in that they didn't offer differential calculus at all, but other places, if you aren't ready for the honors calculus track, you aren't really ready for majors like physics or engineering, since you aren't ready for calculus based physics in the first year.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

"require calculus in high school or over the summer"

It would be interesting to know how many colleges (departments) are like that. This is the sort of information that NSF should be paying for - defining the exact curriculum path (content and skill level) for all majors at all colleges. This is not difficult research. It's just collecting information that already exists.

High school math is really just a base camp for your college math and science climb. Not only do you have to have calculus in high school, but you better be pretty good at it. Maybe you can be a strong pre-calc student at some schools, but if you didn't get to algebra in 8th grade and calculus as a senior, then the odds are stacked against you. K-6 are the key years in math for setting kids on a proper STEM track. CCSS specifically does not define that path and no CCSS group offers any path that even encourages it. They just talk about critical thinking and understanding for cover.

This is nothing new. CCSS just codifies it for all to see. Some schools offer tracks in the lower grades and they will probably (I hope) continue to do so. Our schools use Everyday Math and then sorts kids in 7th grade based on some unknown criteria (I've tried to find out) into a proper pre-algebra track to algebra in 8th grade and a slower track (to nowhere) for the rest. I remember parents who were shocked when the reality of that 7th grade tracking split hit their kids. Some parents fixed the problem; some didn't.

These levels can be quantified and demonstrated, and that information would be so much better than all of the fluff being putshed about 21st Century skills, critical thinking and understanding. Schools can be clear and open about their math tracks in the lower grades or their 7th grade split. It should never come as a surprise to parents. They have to know that that is a critical point where many career doors close, and schools have to stop their blather about critical thinking, understanding, and problem solving.

sorts kids in 7th grade based on some unknown criteriaHas to be standardized tests. What else could it be? Maybe 80% standardized test percentile and 20% teacher nudges up and down based on her subjective assessment of a student's ability, which will be entirely based on conscientiousness (AKA willingness to please superiors), and which, considering we're discussing 12 y.o.'s, puts boys at a severe disadvantage.

Posted on Bill McCallum's website:

http://commoncoretools.me/2013/07/24/statement-by-cbms-presidents-in-support-of-the-mathematics-standards/

Statement by CBMS presidents in support of the mathematics standards

In a great act of foresight for this nation, most of the states have now adopted a consistent set of expectations for school mathematics, called the Common Core State Standards. Building on long years of work, the Common Core State Standards are an auspicious advance in mathematics education. They define the mathematical knowledge and skill that students need in order to be ready for college and career, and provide the basis for a curriculum that is focused and coherent. If properly implemented, these rigorous new standards hold the promise of elevating the mathematical knowledge and skill of every young American to levels competitive with the best in the world, of preparing our college entrants to undertake advanced work in the mathematical sciences, and of readying the next generation for the jobs their world will demand. Much remains to be done to implement the standards, in curriculum, assessment, and teacher education. But we now have, for the first time in our history, a common blueprint for this work across state lines. This is not the time to turn away from our good fortune. We, the undersigned presidents of the following member societies of CBMS, hereby express our strong support for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

I haven’t seen any evidence, SteveH, that “CCSS is forcing these groups [PARCC, ACT] to be specific and to calibrate their results to other numbers that are known and meaningful.” Do you have a reference that you could share? And it doesn’t seem to me that ANYONE is dealing with “things like mismatches between K-6 math and AP calculus.”

I don’t think they will be able to “force colleges to adapt”, I agree with Glen that “if the College Board's test ceased to be effective … [in meeting the colleges/univs needs] they [will] switch to something more effective, which College Board realizes.”

Definitely Agree=> NSF should provide useful, factual information on “the exact curriculum path (content and skill level) for all majors at all colleges” in America. Seems reasonable to me, SteveH, they are funded by our tax dollars afterall. And we’ll make the job easy for them... they need not bother explaining or interpreting it for us, just provide some truthful information that students, teachers and parents can use.

(If it’s already out there, please feel free to share!)

Concerned: There's an old New England expression for that: horse apples.

concerned (Lisa Jones @proudmomom) said...

momof4, Could you explain your statement a little? (I know what horse apples are :D, but what did you mean by "that"...)

A conversation with David Coleman http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201307290.asp

ChemProf slightly mis-stated Harvey Mudd's current calculus requirements. They do indeed require a year of high-school calculus for admissions, but they do teaching differential calculus. They teach a one-semester course on calculus that covers differential and integral calculus—they don't assume that the high-school calculus necessarily stuck.

(Actually they have 2 different entry-level courses in calculus, with a test needed to get into the more advanced one.)

1. I am on the same side as you (honest) in terms of rigor and pedagogy, but I find it really hard to read this post. No paragraphs, long quotes not blocked apart, and the shift at the end (Lisa Jones) is unclear, who that is.

2. I took (and loved) AP calc BC, Chem, and Bio in the early 80s. It seems clear that they are watering things down.

3. Also, the whole idea of AP was to be a good match for COLLEGE. Not to invent their own HS curriculum, not to drive changes in college curriculum. So apologizing for not being part of Common Core (even if it were a good program) is besides the point.

4. Common Core has plenty of issues. Another standards based reform. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. How did NCLB work out.

5. David Coleman (a neoliberal McKinsey Rhodes type...yes this IS a type) is both the boss of College Board (which does the APs) and the Common Core advocate. Talk about conflict of interest!

Post a Comment