Only a year and half to go–no point moving now, and can’t afford to fix up the house enough to sell it. The school board actually has very little say about academic policy, oddly enough. They mostly deal with budget issues. Besides, H works in the state and where would we move to, when the surrounding area is full of WWP- type schools?
@ucbalumnus the AP lite classes you refer to - is that your opinion or something official? I looked at both my state flagships, Rutgers and Ohio State University and all of them offer credit for human geography. My kid’s intended degree plans allow for it to be used to fill the social sciences requirement.
At our school human geography is a pretty fast paced tough class designed to weed out those students not really willing to fo AP level work- at least that is my perception of how it is taught.
@mom2and - First of all, I’m not Asian. I’m just irritated at racism.
It’s actually not relevant that every non-Asian family doesn’t have legacy; I was pointing out that the old guard had its unearned admissions privilege, and when new immigrants worked really hard and figured out new ways to get ahead, suddenly the new ways are “cheating”.
I think we need to unpack your language “everyone that strives to be successful has to follow suit,” and “smart, studious, well-prepared kid cannot do well in an AP class” - so:
- What would be your definition of success in a class, or in HS in general?
- What would be your definition of smart?
- What would be your definition of studious?
- What would be your definition of well-prepared?
I suggest to you that when parents define “success” as only a certain, high grade, or a certain, highly-ranked college or set of colleges - and define their own children as smart/studious/well-prepared despite evidence to the contrary, then of course it looks like an intractable problem.
When we tell kids they can take an advanced class in my district, we are telling them that with a good effort (at least as much time outside of class as class-time, per week), that they can expect to earn a C or better. Many of these kids have selective hearing, because they’re not going to be happy with a C, but they assume the placement means that the school thought they could get an A.
@CardinalFang - ordinarily I think you are very sensible, but it seems like a huge leap to blame the schools, much less the AP curriculum, for kids’ problems that could very well be caused by parenting. High-status American families/parents do crazy things in an effort to make sure that their socioeconomic privilege passes intact to the next generation. However, it ends up being almost entirely unnecessary, as we have almost no social mobility here and now.
The people for whom the elite college degree matters in socioeconomic privilege along the line, are indeed the immigrants or newcomers, or those who suffer from racism and microaggressions.
I highly recommend reading the letter that started this kerfuffle.
http://www.west-windsor-plainsboro.k12.nj.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=30680884
On reducing the number of AP classes? No such thing. Changes were made during the 2011-2012 school year that put in place new enrollment criteria (see below, seems reasonable to me) and removed “Parental Overrides”. The end results is more students than ever, taking AP/Honor courses, not less.
@Gator88NE - thanks for the link!
Regarding “right to squeak” - I am hopeless at music, but aren’t good musicians upset about the provision that kids can no longer be restricted from playing in performances? What if there were a “right to play badly” and Varsity Football had to take anyone who wanted, to play in games?
The removal of Parental Overrides seems wise, but seems exactly opposed to “right to squeak” in philosophy, doesn’t it?
My dd and ds took the AP class in 9th grade and both got 5’s (I think). It’s used as a transition course from the much less rigorous middle school to the much more rigorous Cambridge AICE (similar to IB) program.
Some AP classes seemed much easier (and are much less time consuming). However, keep in mind that not all AP classes are taught at the same level of rigor (which ends up being reflected in the test scores for the class). An AP Human Geography class at one school could prove to be a much more rigorous class than the same class at another school (it’s really based on the students and teacher). We see this in our own district, where the highly rated public high school would earn plenty of 4’s and 5’s, but the lower rated high school struggles to get 3’s.
@Coolweather “This study shows that taking too many college-level courses in high school may not benefit much in college.”
I don’t think it does. It shows that GPA is not improving, but the students who took more APs may, on average, be in more difficult majors, and taking more difficult courses.
The problem of stress and suicides among kids in prosperous suburban school districts, I contend, is caused by the academic system that the high-status parents induce the school system to create. I certainly agree that those high-status families want to pass their privilege on to their children. But the high-stress schools are exactly how the high-status parents are passing their privilege on to their children, and it’s working.
I see two intertwined problems here. First, we have no social mobility. High ability kids from families not in the top income quintile aren’t moving up to the top quintile as adults. The elite colleges and universities are crammed with kids from high income families, who are set to reproduce their parents’ social class. I recall meeting a fundraiser for Brown, my alma mater, about ten years ago. She proudly told me that half of Brown’s student body got some kind of financial aid. “So half of the student body is from families that can write checks for $200,000,” I said. I don’t think that is something to boast of. The vast majority of families in the US could not possibly be full pay families for an Ivy, no matter how much they saved. Families not in the top quintile would have no hope.
Lack of social mobility is the first problem, and the second is the wasteful, stressful way the high-status parents are enforcing their children’s hold on the high status, high income cohort: by this ratrace, this academic treadmill. The high status parents want their kids to be equally as successful, so they create this system for ensuring their kids admission to high-status, elite schools.
I contend that these are two sides of the same coin. Alas, I point out the problem without offering a solution, because I don’t know what the solution is. I’d like to see elite colleges use a different system for admissions, but I don’t know a different system that rich parents wouldn’t game, just as they are gaming the current system. I’d like to see Palo Alto schools reduce student stress so kids stop killing themselves, but I don’t know how.
@proud3894 “My point still stands that if you cannot handle taking 12 or more AP classes in high school that a student cannot handle a more rigorous STEM program in college.”
There is some truth to this.
The pervasive cc: myth that STEM programs are the same at all schools is a problem. DD is a sophomore CIS (for simplicity) major, at Penn. One single course this term was consuming 30 hours per week, consistently. They seem to be very serious about weeding out all but the best of the best from this program. 1/3 of the class received a C or worse, and many Fs were given. The curve may be similar at other schools, but here the students uwgpa in high school were 3.9+ with 2200+ SATs. When you put that level of student on that severe of a curve, the competition is going to get rough. At Thanksgiving she came home and worked on homework projects for 8-10 hours every single day for all four days. You need a very particular set of skills just to survive it. In her program at least, if taking many APs in high school caused you stress, you should not be there at all. If you are, you have been set up for failure.
@fretfulmother Lets take a look at the policy:
This policy supports the “whole” student policy and doesn’t add “stress” to the student. It’s seen as a positive, even if the student proves not to be musically inclined. Of course, students that struggle in music, are not likely to stay in the program till 8th grade (unless the parent is forcing it on them), but the new policy will give them a chance to try it out.
On the other hand, the AP/honors strategy supports placing the student in the right level of instruction. If they can’t make a “B” in the college prep/standard course, they likely will struggle in honors and taking that level of course will prove to be no benefit to the student.
Be honest, theGFG. You have lofty ambitions for your kids. Even your youngest who you describe as learning disabled and who I erroneously thought was special needs, the way you described her - you were looking at schools at the Bryn Mawr level for her.
At what level “down the ladder” would you have considered it a failure if your older kids didn’t get in? Anything below 20?
@earlvandorn “one would expect that overall high school test scores would improve. However, since test scores have remained static over the past few decades, what does that say for the rigor of the regular non-honors/AP classes?”
Yes, this is definitely a problem. We are challenging top students more than ever, but not the other 75% of the class.
Top students are increasingly taking schedules of all Honors and AP courses, while 50% or more of the class takes none. Not even one of the easier APs to try during senior year. Districts really need to do a better job of challenging the average student.
To me, it does not make sense that more and more top students are achieving 30+ ACT scores, while the average student continues to sit at a 20.
It especially makes no sense that the pressure to do better, and learn more, is on the student with a 30 ACT and not on the student with a 20 ACT. I think there is something wrong with that system. When a student does better, we give them more work. When a student does worse, the give them less work. It is crazy.
I don’t see a curve described here. And I don’t think there is a curve here. I see no evidence that the instructor is handing out Cs and Fs to enforce a curve. Rather, the class is hard and time-consuming, and some students don’t succeed in it.
I took a similar Stanford class. I took it online, and later TAed it, but I also know one of the students who TAed the in-person version and reported that Stanford undergrads found it equally time-consuming. It was difficult. I was spending 20-30 hours a week. But online or in person, anyone who completed the work got the grade. There was no curve, no requirement that a certain percentage of the class fail. I think it’s likely that the Penn class is the same: no curve, just a difficult class.
But the temperament/ability required to handle one time-consuming class in a semester is not necessarily the same temperament/ability required to handle six time-consuming classes. I’d be able to do the former, but not the latter. I would never have been able to handle the four hour a night sleep schedule of many of today’s high schoolers, but I know I have the ability to get a STEM degree from an Ivy.
@Gator88NE - thank you - my mistake - it wasn’t clear to me that “right to squeak” ended at 8th grade. 
@CardinalFang -
You might like this article.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-30/what-really-scares-helicopter-parents
By the way, every school district is different, and funding plays a major role in what can be offered in the public school systems (AP/Honors/Music/Sports whatever…).
In our school district, we have a single magnet middle school and high school for the visual and performing arts (in a school district with over 125,000 students). These have limited space, so enrollment is fairly competitive. Otherwise our other public middle schools/high schools have limited resources for the arts (and enrollment is not very competitive, if you want to be in the band, go for it!).
I guess my point is that what’s the best policy for a school district in NJ, may not be the best policy for someone else’s district. We have to make due with the tools and resources available, and base policy around those factors.
I fully support a “right to squeak” for younger kids. Or all kids, even. Our district begins orchestra and band in 4th-5th grade with everyone from beginners learning an instrument for the first time to kids who started Suzuki as 5 year olds.
Once in high school the band and orchestra divide into a sort of JV/Varsity. Within each group - who meet in different class periods and perform separately at the concerts - there’s first chair, second chair, etc. Such an arrangement allows everyone to participate but does reward kids who work harder to get better.
In that Bloomberg article, Megan McArdle makes exactly the point I was making:
Parents not in the professional class can’t afford to curate their children in the way that professionals do.
Yes, rich people can always do more than poor people. Film at 11.
We’ve always had rich people. But we used to have more social mobility. Instead of watching the film at 11, consider what might be the cause of the reduced mobility and whether we ought to try to reverse the trend.