Support, college prep, honors, dual credit, AP/IB. So many class options, designed to meet kids where they are and prepare them for where they want to go. But do they serve their purpose for now and later? The "now" can be as simple as earning credits to get a diploma. The "later" can be as complex as earning college credit and closing lifetime earning gaps between demographics.
Support classes are built for students who have shown a deficiency in achieving at the “normal” rate, so they are in classes with lower expectations. Or, they are deemed to be too immature to handle more rigorous school. The intentions of these classes are good, often focused on building the technical and behavioral skills students need to meet grade-level standards. For many students, these classes are their lifelines to earning graduation requirements. But these classes often lack experiences to foster critical thinking, application, innovation, and motivation. Support classes may help get kids across the graduation stage, and can be developmentally appropriate for students, but they rarely prepare students for post-high school life. Many of these students are heading into the workforce, trades, or military, where they need to be independent problem solvers, but have never been expected to do so in school. They are bored and disengaged, and it’s easy to see why. If they do aspire to attend college, these courses are not readying students for the expectations of being an undergrad. The demographics in these courses generally overrepresent students of color or from poverty, and do not prepare them well to advance beyond high school.
College prep classes (or “regular level”) are built for students with average academic skills and are considered more rigorous than the support classes. These classes are not co-taught or aid-supported, and there are higher expectations for students completing their own work. But one common complaint I hear from teachers is that these students resist being thinking on their own. These students are mostly asked to repeat back what they have been told, and are unwilling or unable to put in the harder work for application-based problems. While these courses generally have more depth and breadth than the support classes, they still do not create the independent learners we all strive for. I wonder if the problem is that students can't or won't do the work. I think they have never been challenged to, and so are unprepared when asked to do more than the minimum expectations. These classes tend to more closely mimic the student population at large, but still skew toward the underrepresented college groups. While considered core or regular level, I argue that they are not fully college prep when independent thinking is underemphasized.
Honors classes take the breadth of the college prep level and add depth to it. One of the main differences between college prep and honors is the increased independent thinking required. Students are still presented with information to learn, but are expected to discover more applications or make greater connections than simply mimicking back what the teacher told them. There is a fundamental knowledge base needed to think at a higher level about the content, but ingenuity and tenacity can overcome an initial knowledge gap. It is hard to argue that people who are disadvantaged financially don’t find ingenious and tenacious means to make ends meet. But honors and above are where the underrepresentation begins. So some of the best problem solvers, with the greatest need to earn an actual post-high school prep experience, rarely receive one.
The final tier in most schools is the college credit-bearing Dual Credit, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate coursework. These are the most rigorous academic classes high schools offer, and they serve dual purposes. One is to provide high school students with an opportunity to experience collegiate expectations. The second is to provide students with a chance to earn college credits. These credits help students build strong high school transcripts, receive GPA boosts, save time and money in college, and give preferential course selection over freshmen with fewer college credits. First-generation college students and students from poverty benefit the most from these outcomes, but are the least likely to be in these courses.
So what are possible solutions? This answer is as complex as the problems.
De-leveling or De-tracking: Some schools and districts have de-leveled courses, and students of all abilities are lumped into the same class. Rationale for this includes eliminating the option of placing students in low-expectation courses, and that all students can learn from each other when taught in the right way. In order to have the spread of support-level through honors students in the same classes, teachers have to be creative in their instruction and assessment practices. Districts must provide teachers with ample professional development and resources to teach these mixed-level classes, and be comfortable with going slow so as not to overwhelm teachers with too many preps to master. Class sizes and mixes must also be considered so that teachers can differentiate instruction and students are not unintentionally grouped by like ability levels. What limited research I could find shows that when done well, these attempts have overall improved the ability of lower-level students while not significantly impacting the higher level. But when schools change too many courses too fast or don't train well enough, or there is a major community uproar over the elimination of higher levels, then these efforts usually don't last long, and leveled systems are reinstated.
Tapering "support:" Like tapering for a race, as the race gets closer, the training becomes lighter. For support, that means reducing the amount of extra support provided as graduation becomes closer. That title sounds worse than it is; no good school ever "ends" support. But many schools will create scenarios where support level classes end after freshman or sophomore year. Knowing this reality, teachers in those support classes need to focus on building the academic skills and habits students will need to succeed in regular level courses. For general education students, this means some will struggle more than others, but spreading out the academically challenged students among the higher achievers can raise their ability. What this might also mean for special education students is more moving into direct instruction classes as they move toward the "real world." This is a step backwards in a least restrictive environment, and could be a difficult discussion with parents. And the teachers who teach the first class post-support classes do not exist, need to scaffold support into their Tier 1 instruction to help transition students in.
Creative Course Offerings: Traditional coursework may not be the answer for students who traditionally struggle. How can courses serve multiple purposes? A course such as Geometry in Construction exists to tie the standard concepts of geometry into constructing sheds, bookshelves, small homes, benches, and other creations. For students who struggle in a standard math class, the connection to building creates a totally different opportunity for students. There are auto mechanic classes that count toward English credit, as students read technical manuals and write out procedures for changing oil, spark plugs, and rotating tires. Culinary classes count toward science credit as students explore the chemistry of cooking. Making the core courses part of elective opportunities creates engagement opportunities for students who are often disengaged in class. These will not be honors or college credit, but they can move toward certifications on pre-work experience.
Where Do I Fall? I believe that de-leveling classes ultimately leads teachers to lower expectations to meet the needs of the neediest, and that asking teachers to fully differentiate the content for a classroom of 28+ students is not a feasible long-term approach. I like the idea of tapering support, but I don't know that support can ever be fully removed. What about the students who are leaving direct instruction classes and support classes are their stretch class? What about the students who may be unidentified as special needs, but have real academic struggles due to their ability, life circumstances, or both? That's where I lean on creative course offerings. Classes that still stretch kids, but offer them the support they need to build a better future. I don't need my mechanic to be able to write a thorough 15 page research paper, or find the hidden symbolism in Lord of the Flies. But I do need them to be able to diagnose my car's problem, communicate to me the issue and fix, be able to calculate an accurate estimate, and get the work done well. So maybe, the answer in closing gaps doesn't come from manipulating levels in traditional classes. Maybe the answer is in creating untraditional classes designed to help students succeed both now and in the future.
Image Source: https://www.educationnext.org/black-white-achievement-gap-makes-little-progress-since-1960s/
Comments
Post a Comment