Last week we sketched some data on AP testing and closed by asking: how does it all add up?  This turns out to be difficult because a key number is missing: the percentage of students who actually took exams.  That is important for me, because I am centrally concerned with whether AP courses are being offered to meet the needs of students or of school systems.  It is possible that only 3.5 % of the students took an AP course and that each of them passed the exam.  But suppose 25 % of the city’s students are taking AP courses.  Since 3.5 % passed at least one exam; that means roughly 1 out of every 8 in those classes got a 1 or a 2 on the exam.  In other words, 7/8ths of the students in  AP courses would have failed the exam.  Why would we do that?  Isn’t that just hitting these students over the head?  If they are strong enough to be seen as potential for an AP course, give them a course that meets their needs…one that will strengthen their analytical skills and expand their horizons.

Perhaps we are convinced that that AP stands for excellence and that it is important to make excellence available.  Fair enough.  If our students are failing at this opportunity, then we need to re-examine what excellence means in our communities and we especially need to re-examine why we think AP stands for excellence.

The National Research Council (NRC) is not convinced AP is the right way to go.  The NRC is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences designed to help the Academy meets its formal obligation to advise the government on relevant issues.  The NRC has produced research-based documents on issues ranging from nuclear arms to environmental problems, from the state of the national electrical grid to standards in science education.  It also produced a study of advanced study programs, called Learning and Understanding.  This study was sharply critical of both AP and the International Baccalaureate program, chiefly because they tended to take students across far too much material in a superficial manner.  It recommends, instead, that courses use inquiry opportunities to enable students to come to a deeper and fuller appreciation of material.

So here is the central irony.  Our schools are pushing AP study when the research suggests it is misleading our students, failing to give them a solid appreciation of the material.  On top of that it would appear that far too many of the students taking these courses are failing to master the masses of material they involve.  It strikes me as much like fast food or processed food…the bulk is there, but not the quality.  So, is it progress if our students do well?  No. But that they are not doing well is not a good sign either.  We have to change the diet.