Exactly-- just hothousing to appear ready isn't the same thing as being ready.
Testing only identifies the appearance of the thing. Ergo, it is subject to "gaming" the system, which skews things markedly on the side of high SES and test-prepping insanity. Which is why I strongly suspect that the situation is actually far worse than CB's statistics would indicate, since that test is quite coachable and since those stats blur the picture produced by the practice of super-scoring.
Allowing open access to high-rigor programs is fine on the one hand, because it removes the prestige associated with acceptance, and it's an important step toward a more equitable arrangement with low SES students and those from circumstances that have limited performance...
But not so fine on the other, because it really does water down the instructional/learning environment if 1 in 4 students has no business in that environment to start with.
Kids taking AP English really should not need 2 weeks of instructional time on formatting and course policies, KWIM? And no, that is not a hypothetical example. That is from a real AP syllabus.
My major problem here is that ultimately, meeting demand probably is intrinsically operating at odds with meeting NEED. The two things are definitely not the same.
Last edited by HowlerKarma; 09/26/13 09:59 AM.
