What is an "honors" course? I'm talking about a course where there is a "regular" version, and an "honors" version.

What are the good ways an honors course can be different from a regular course?

What are the bad ways an honors course can be different from a regular course?

Typically, in my experience, an honors course is similar, if not the same as, a "gifted" course. Honors courses were usually geared at high achievers, though, and I realize that not all of these students may necessarily be gifted. I suppose this could be a drawback in some peoples' eyes. In my experience, an honors course should be more challenging, covering more advanced material, at a quicker pace. Honestly, most of the "honors" courses I took in high school and college were also more often taught by teachers passionate about the subject.

Actually I hadn't thought of whether an "honors" course was aimed necessarily at "gifted" students. So I guess a course could differ in being aimed at the top 0.1%, or the top 3%, or the top 20%, and that would be something you'd want to know about a course.

But then I'd phrase my question; for a course that is supposed to be aimed at the top X% of students, what are the ways it can do that well, and what are the ways it can do that badly?

for a course that is supposed to be aimed at the top X% of students, what are the ways it can do that well, and what are the ways it can do that badly?


In my experience, MOSTLY the modern incarnation of "honors" coursework accomplishes this badly. These courses have been modified over time so that they are more "accessible" to all students, and in the process, they have been given short shrift in terms of resources, thoughtful development, curriculum, and staffing. They tend to be afterthoughts, administratively, and are often just the regular course with a few "bonus" items added on. They do come with grade weighting-- which is both a good thing and a bad one, frankly. It's good in that yes, it IS harder to earn top marks in one of these courses, and they ARE more work, which should certainly earn some kind of differentiated reward-- but on the other hand, this grade weighting makes them more appealing to TigerParents, which then often includes ever-more-strident appeals to administrators and teachers to make the courses "not so crazily hard." It's not too difficult to see where that particular train goes from there.


Honors courses in a virtual high school tend to be about:

MORE* coverage, more** work, differentiated*** assessment.

* often one or two units not included in the "standard" course-- which may meet with the honors class for instruction, let me also add, which means that the INSTRUCTION that accompanies the class may have huge gaps that the student is expected to fill on his/her own with nothing but the textbook and a few badly assembled slides for support... this is how my daughter learned organic chemical nomenclature and advanced grammar, for whatever that is worth-- neither of which was covered at all in the "regular" English or physical science course that was taught in tandem with the honors offering. So the regular class got instruction that aligned with the syllabus, and the honors kids didn't-- they got instruction on about 75% of what they were expected to learn.

** extra projects, extra lab exercises, extra research papers, extra writing, extra problems in homework sets, basically-- you'll do EXACTLY what the "basic/regular" class does, and then you'll do the more appropriate work as well. Without instruction, as noted above, since these are "bonus" items for the "honors" courses only. No additional materials are really provided, though-- the student is on his/her own for much of that.

*** think-- more writing, and more "critical thinking" questions on assessments-- but the problem is often that those assessments are written by (and graded by, as well) those who simply have little understanding of the differences in "higher order" thinking skills. So expect that some of this is going to be aimed at things like eidectic memory, which is apparently a proxy for "advanced learner" in someone's mind. The assessments often align VERY poorly with the curriculum that honors students have seen, btw.


OFTEN: the differentiation is in content coverage (there may be the extra one-off topic here and there) and in the number/extent of assignments, not in the depth/breadth of content, assignments, or instruction.

If you want genuinely more DEPTH/BREADTH in coverage, you'll probably be much happier with AP offerings. That's been our experience, anyway. They are genuinely faster paced and cover more material with less repetition. I do think that this is a function of the self-apparent reality that "Honors" coursework isn't really intended for the most able of students, but those who are willing to WORK the longest hours at relatively simple tasks. Unfortunately, differentiation aimed toward that goal has eroded their suitability for many GT students, who are not really served very well by "more-more-more" as a differentiation strategy.


We have definitely worked out some tricks/tips to making this kind of course more suitable for truly GT learners-- and IMO, most of the parents on this board will need to use that kind of strategy.


Let me end by saying-- PM me if you want the nitty gritty details of how this seems to work with the public virtual school providers. (I'm recalling that you also use a virtual school, yes?)

Okay-- that's the bad and the ugly-- that is, instances in which the regular and honors classes are "blended" and in which a single teacher may have charge of a class comprised of (for example) 35 "regular" students, and 2 or 4 other students who are in the "honors" section (at least on paper-- in reality, they sit with their "regular" classmates during class time).

The GOOD mostly revolves around teacher implementation of a rather sorry or shabby beginning framework. DD has experienced a few of those:

1. Additional instructional time devoted to those "extra" topics that the honors class covers.

2. Grouping the honors students with one another for in-class work that is a group effort (discussion, games/thought exercises/labs).

3. Letting the honors students do BOTH the "regular" exercises (and participate with those classmates who are in the majority, say, to discuss a particular novel or topic) and ALSO to meet/work as a smaller group in breakout sessions on the more advanced material TOO.

4. Allowing students to come up with more open-ended assignments that still meet instructional goals, and/or allowing the honors students to out and out SKIP some of the more inane "regular" assignments so as to devote more time/energy to the more meaty honors assignments like term papers and student-inquiry based labs, etc.

Thanks HowlerKarma for the detailed analysis. I am interested in the virtual school situation. I'm also interested in all other school types, since we may not always be in virtual school (and it's an interesting general topic). I am interested in experiences of what honors courses are and aren't, and opinions about what they should be or shouldn't be. I want to fine tune my radar to help look out for a quality high level education.

I didn't understand the comment about choosing between honors and AP. From what I see, all the high school courses (and some middle school courses) have honors versions, but AP courses only appear at the end of the sequence. So as you move through the sequence you choose regular or honors. Then if you get far enough you can take an AP course. I don't see honors or AP as a choice that arises.

In my own schooldays, we didn't have courses called "honors" but we had ability tracking, so I was always in the top class which would typically be top 20% or so. So these were not "gifted" classes, but the difference between top 20% and bottom 20% class was absolutely gigantic. I do not remember homework or voluminous work at all. I did feel that I was learning.

The only honors like class available when I was in school was Advanced English, the biggest difference discussing with regular track students was significantly more student driven discussions. And tests always had open-ended bonus credit questions.

I'd be looking for a significantly higher proportion of whys versus whats.

I think this is very much a YMMV situation. My experiences are limited to B&M schools. In H.S., "honors course" A's had a higher G.P.A. than "regular" A's, you had to be "invited" (and you could opt for "regular" and say "no thanks"), and yes, they probably were more work. There were also AP Classes, but these were supposed to be less challenging (at this particular school), and the honors classes did an excellent job preparing a student for the AP exams.

In college, there was no such perk (G.P.A.-wise), but grad schools seemed interested in the fact that my "Honors Degree" meant I'd taken grad-level courses as an undergrad - something I believe you could only do if you were in the Honors Program at this particular university.

Overall, I enjoyed the challenge of most of these classes and felt the reward was having smaller classes with absolutely excellent teachers.

Back in my day there were Basic, Regular, and Advanced (or sometimes called Honors), and AP classes.

My son just finished middle school. They wiped out Basic classes because no one wanted to teach them and no one wanted their kids in Basic. So they renamed the classes to Advanced and Honors (advanced now has all the Basic and Regular kids in it and was supposed to be a more rigorous Regular class). And Honors became what used to be Advanced. Then this school had for each grade level one class of gifted that moved from class to class together (rather than the other kids that had randomized schedules). They were also considered Honors but they were a special honors group.

In my district "honors" classes start at the junior high level. In 6-8th something labeled honors would be for gifted &/or high achieving kids.

At the high school you have to earn your way into the class. Ie.. get certain grades on per-requisites including 8th grade clases.

It depends on subject manner how they are different. But the one big difference is the honors classes have a lot more homework. In math for example, the same text book will be used. But the grade is bases more on testing, homework will often not be graded just checked for completion. And the teacher will assign more of the hard problems, expect the student to do what I call 2 or 3 step problems, and learn to write proofs. Science is similar. In English/Social Studies students are expected to be writing well without much help or direction, more complex texts are used, and more class time is spend on class disscusion rather than teacher lectures. An example of the text is that the 9th grade non-honors class read the Abridged version of Tale of Two Cities and the honors the regular one.

There are pro's and con's on the honors vs. non-honors classes. Basically those labeled "honors" are really prep for taking AP classes in 10th,11th, 12th. There is a LOT more homework in the honors classes at my school, but the homework is less busywork. The teachers expect that the honors kids can keep track of their homework, turn it in on time, and in general don't need a lot of babysitting.

I didn't understand the comment about choosing between honors and AP. From what I see, all the high school courses (and some middle school courses) have honors versions, but AP courses only appear at the end of the sequence. So as you move through the sequence you choose regular or honors. Then if you get far enough you can take an AP course. I don't see honors or AP as a choice that arises.

Yes, but.... this is a result of the phenomenon that Cookie and I are talking about. That is, more "above average, but not all that bright, even" students are being shuffled into college prep (and "Honors" coursework)-- and also into AP coursework.

When my DD entered high school, I was frankly stunned to discover that she was (evidently) expected to complete a year of "honors" US History as preparation for the AP US History course. When I questioned this sort of arrangement-- that is, that AP coursework frequently had "prerequisite" coursework associated with it-- namely, a year of the "honors" course...

I was told in no uncertain terms that this was a set of prerequisites that were intended for-- um-- less intrinsically ABLE students, shall we say. They quickly reassured me that in no way was this prerequisite business intended to apply to students like my DD-- and it didn't.

Frankly, my DD took AP coursework without the prerequisites in most instances, and suffered not at all for it, tyvm. In the one instance that she HAD in fact completed the "prerequisite" course, she found the AP course laughably easy-- to the point of triviality, almost. I'm very glad that she didn't have to endure that kind of repetition more than once.

We also found that course construction was significantly better than standard providers in the AP coursework, and textbooks were often better too. I've heard the same thing from both Connections and K12 families, so I suspect that it is quite common in virtual settings.

The AP courses are more or less standardized externally by College Board, as well-- so you definitely have a better idea going into those just what you're getting out of them. Yes, the test-prep aspects are a major irritant, but the courses themselves have been at a higher level (and more coherent, frankly) than the Honors versions that my daughter has experienced, which are FAR more dependent upon good teaching to work well.

When I was in high school (80s), honors courses were completely different from other courses. Thus, in Honors English, we read more novels and other books that were not generally the same ones the other kids read, and we were expected to write more. So, in 9th grade, we read Great Expectations, The Count of Monte Cristo, and Julius Caesar (this list is not exhaustive). We had to write annual term papers starting in 10th grade (20 pages minimum), as well as shorter papers. That kind of thing. Our books were generally harder to read than the non-Honors material. These courses weren't prerequisites for AP courses. They were completely different courses for more capable students.

Also, at that time, in the two high schools I attended, there was no such thing as "Honors Algebra II" and "Algebra II." Either you took Algebra 2 or you didn't, and the course resembled what's called "Honors" today.

I think it's fine that schools offer easier math classes. What I don't like is that the easier courses are still accepted as being real algebra 2, which they aren't.

Which reminds me: my math professor sibling observes that precalculus as a course exists only because of the lack of rigor in alg II/trig courses, as there is no additional material required to access calculus. This sounds like a related effect to the dumbing down of alg II courses.

Wow. I'd heard someone mention that before, and I'm curious. I'm not from the USA, and my kids are young, so I don't know much about these courses other than their names. I don't want my kids to spend an extra year on a nothing course (or to need to do it due to weakened earlier courses).

On the other hand AoPS has not only a precalc course, but also an Algebra 3, course in their course sequence, and they claim they're not redundant. So I'm confused.

Well, the conventional sequence in high schools in the US is for one year (32-34 weeks, or thereabouts) of coursework as follows:

1 yr Algebra I
1 yr Geometry
1 yr Algebra II
1 yr Precalculus
1 yr Calculus

"College Algebra" is also sometimes rolled into that Precalculus course, and this is often the first time that students see some of the trigonometry that they'll need for advanced calculus topics. For the first portion of calculus, bright students shouldn't NEED anything more than Algebra II.

I have no idea how the scope and sequence compares with AoPS.

Like a previous poster when I was at school we had streaming and that was it. Now I think most intermediate and high schools have a class you can test in to. The problem is if you are 2e or have a weakness in one area and do poorly in one aspect of the test you get nothing. And the classes are extension only so you get interesting busywork rather than academic rigour.

When I was in high school it was...
Algebra I
Geometry
Algebra II
Trig Semester/ Analytical Geometry Semester
Calculus

I started Algebra in 9th grade and ran out of years after Trig/Analytical Geometry and then only needed College Algebra and Statistics in college to get my degree in Psychology.

My PG brother took Algebra and Geometry in the 9th grade (as in 2 different classes of math and the geometry was a gifted section of it) and was able to take AP calculus in 12th grade.

In some districts that have both IB and AP the "honors" program is no longer designated or may be designated as "Gifted" and the weighting may occur for IB and AP. In math the series may be:
Algebra I
Geometry
Algebra 2
Precalculus
IB Mathematics SL/AP Calculus AB (combined course)
IB Mathematics HL
IB Further Math HL (this may be taken as a two year course combined with Math HL)

In our district they also offer AP stats, AP Calculus, and advanced calculus. Other districts offer Differential equations, linear algebra, or calculus II for those going on beyond calculus. Here the "gifted" designation mostly seems used in middle school and generally the courses had more in depth material.

HK, I loved your tips on virtual-school courses. If you have any more experiences to share, especially on improving curriculum, I'd love to hear them. We're in a situation in which some of the Honors courses are quite good out of the starting gate -- someone with time and insight (and a love for the subject matter) designed them, and they're completely different from regular (which I see because my other DC takes some regular, grade-level in some subjects and is accelerated in others). But on occasion we find an Honors course that seems to be what you describe: regular plus more writing and more work. Luckily, the school will enrich/alter curriculum if asked, and they're very open and nice about it. But we have to step forward and ask and it can only help to come in with our own ideas. They have a good population of gifties in a focused program, but they're all different. So I'd love to hear anything that worked for you!

My understanding is "Precalculus" and "Trig Semester/ Analytical Geometry" are roughly the same course just with a different title. The H.S. I went to when I was at that level called it Trig/Pre-Calc.

My son is just completing Algebra II and the last two chapters are trig. Next year Pre-Calculus will include more trig, and other topics to prepare for Calculus. And some beginning Calculus at the end of the end of the year. He will be taking Calculus in 11th grade and he will be far from alone.

As to how it compares to AoPS. There books do not line up with the standard sequences. According to them the Algebra I books is what is covered in Algebra I & most of Algebra II (except the trig) courses.

As for if the AP class is a 2nd class in the subject, at my son's school it totally depends on the subject matter. Math there are prerequisites, one can't take AP Calculus without Pre-Calculus. AP History classes are less straightforward, one doesn't have to take for example US History at the High School level but it's assumed they have taken US History in 8th grade. The AP Language Course is really broken into two years course, Honors American Literature and AP Lit (that covers the English Literature). Thus 10th grade H. English is a requirement for the course. Science is a mixed, AP Chemistry and AP Biology both require a previous high school science course. But other science courses such as AP Physics and AP Environmental Science don't. And there are lots of courses like AP Computer Science and AP Music Theory that have requirements but it can be the first time you have seen the subject.

Okay-- but recognize that some of this is idiosyncratic and based on my DD's particular strengths/weaknesses. She has a probable connective tissue issue that prevents fluid/extended writing-- and that is a HUGE impact on the modifications that we tend to seek/employ.

1. MORE reading material-- this is where we do massive extensions even to AP coursework, and very definitely to honors ones. If there are three reading selections to "choose" from, she reads all three and then picks based on which one will be best to write on, if that makes sense.

2. LESS repetition-- and this is sometimes tricksy in math, in particular, because while you want your child to get sufficient practice with new skills, you also want it to be meaningful without being a phoning-it-in exercise, and that can be a fine line. With math, we had her do the "challenge" problems-- and made sure that the course instructors KNEW that we were doing this. That way, yes, they could hypothetically ask to see her notebook at any time (never did, though)-- but they simply couldn't expect that she would have actually completed "pp 102-104; problems 1-156, evens" but something more like "pp 103-104; problems 142-156, evens" which amounts to the same skills covered in the single-step problems at the beginning of the homework set, but also makes them more challenging by embedding those skills in more engaging/applied problems. We also worked on a white-board a lot, because this is easier on my DD's hands.

3. More depth in work-product-- if a "powerpoint" was sufficient, and the rubric indicated points a, b, and c needed to be covered in it, DD would do that of course-- but then she'd also add citations, animations, look through Library of Congress image banks for illustrations, etc. The biggest difference in "assigned" versus "what DD did" was in the level of outside resource material. When most of her classmates were looking at about-dot-com articles, she was searching databases at the university. I have to say, however, that most of the high school teachers seemed woefully unaware that there WAS much of a difference in work produced with differentiated sources. {sigh}

4. Time-limits. Because mostly there WAS no way to mitigate the fact that this was busy-work, not engaging learning opportunity (by and large, I mean)-- our strategy was to compress the amount of time that DD had available to complete the work-- that way she was forced to do "good enough" work and it also kept things at ROUGHLY the expected level/intensity of work output for the teachers in those classes. Research paper? Well, you don't have 100 hours to work on this. You have 25. Go. In 25 hours, a PG student can readily produce what a "bright" one can in 80-100, so this worked out nicely.

5. LOADS of don't-ask-don't-tell went on throughout DD's career with her virtual school. We also utilized the principle that it is often way better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. I'd urge caution with that approach, however-- it might not be the best strategy with MG or HG kids, because virtual schools see a fair number of those students. (It's an enriched environment, certainly, so you might have a population of students in a virtual school which is as much as 10% MG-- and maybe close to 0.5% EG/PG in some states.) Those PG kids are still rare enough that schools will pretty much do as YOU please if you push hard enough-- because (being cynical for a moment) most of these are companies that greatly desire to hold up such kids as their poster children, along the way implying that the school is the "secret sauce" that makes them that way. Not true, of course, but if you're willing to keep your mouth shut, they'll let you do a lot of what you please. Unless "the system" demands something in very specific verbiage, there is usually a way around it.

6. Learn who's who with course providers-- avoid things with no textbook. Trust me on this one. Also avoid teachers that you KNOW are rigid/inflexible, or who dislike too-smart kids. I learned early on that some of the course-writing from "valued curriculum partners" was pure garbage, and the ONLY way to make those better was a match and gasoline, frankly. KC Distance Learning, Virtual Sage, and the like are horrible virtual sweatshop contractors who use low-contract bidding with any tech writer who is willing to shoulder the load. The quality of the end product is about what one might expect from a time-crunched tech writer being underpaid significantly and having no subject expertise whatsoever. {sigh} The teachers are make or break with a course like that-- and the problem is that mostly the teachers will treat them with all of the enthusiasm usually reserved for roadkill, too-- leaving students to flounder through it all on their own, more or less (and, as noted-- with little in the way of reasonable resources to assist them-- these courses almost always lack textbook support).

Thank you so much, HK. Really helpful, and I (and, I'm sure, others) appreciate it! :-) The math is tricky, and your explanation is terrific.

#5 made me smile but also reflect on our B&M experience in a "fancy" school district, where the game was a little different: the school trumpeted how fabulous the curric was but omitted the substance. So the "three times a week of Mandarin instruction!" turned out to be an underpaid contract teacher who tried and failed to keep order in class and managed only to teach the kids (in three years) not much more than a Chinese song to sing for the parents at assemblies! Or the "enrichment" math program that involved insanely complicated crafts projects like hundreds of tesselations drawn with precision but without really explaining the math of it -- the kids were supposed to "intuit" that bit! :-)

Yeah, one of my least favorite things about the (apparent) thinking surrounding "honors" (or GT, at all) offerings in secondary education is the myth that autodidactism is the norm for the cohort of kids in those classes.

In fact, while HG+ kids may exhibit significant autodidactic tendencies in their areas of passion... it's often far from global, and I got really sick of administrators telling me that a lack of instruction was "enabling" autodidactic learning. {barf}

There was also a nasty whiff of "Ohhhhh... well, if you need help learning the material..." the implication being that if you expected ANY instruction at all, you must not actually belong in the course. Toxic, that one. "You're an honors student-- figure it out" is a not-uncommon answer to student queries.
I suspect that much of this nonsense probably transcends virtual settings, and GF2's post backs that hypothesis.

The bad part is that at least in a regular classroom setting, the assessments are tailored to what IS happening in the classroom, as lackluster as that might be. In a virtual setting, those assessments aren't controlled by the course instructor, and may be based on... well, things that are not being covered. At all. Students are still responsible for them, however. Yes, this is a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it?

How true.

In general, honors courses have consisted of covering more than one year's material (compacting/acceleration) and extensive reading lists from which students choose a preset number of titles to complete and report on through essay, presentation, or long-term project. There may also be a capstone project of independent research utilizing source documents. High level of class discussion may often distinguish an honors class. These are good ways in which an honors course may differ from a regular/basic course.

Some negative ways in which an honors course may differ from a regular/basic course may include busy work, rote memorization, reading lists of dystopia genre -vs- reading lists which include inspiring, encouraging material.

Because you have also recently initiated a thread debating home school vs virtual school, are you contemplating creating honors level courses for home schooling your children?

If so, you may wish to consult the common core guidelines for a subject for your child's grade level and the next grade level or two, choosing materials and lessons which allow you to lead your children through the steps required to satisfy more than one year's standards.

The question is, how well or badly does the virtual school design an "honors" course. For a math course, they claim the honors course has harder assessments and assignments (could be okay if designed well), but they also have an "honors project" on math in sport (ugh!).

Some may seek advanced instruction which is deeper and/or faster paced, covering more material in an honors level class... rather than "harder" task demands or producibles based upon the same instruction as provided in the regular classroom.

As a parent, what do you believe your gifted and/or high achieving student would be motivated by and benefit from?
For example, would harder assignments/assessments keep a spark of learning alive for your child?
Would presenting and/or explaining more material feed their curiosity and thirst for knowledge?
Would a compacted/accelerated pace avoid boredom and maintain a sense of learning something new each day?
These are not mutually exclusive and children may encounter a mix of strategies throughout their education. That said, parents may be able to advocate and influence the mix, to a degree.

Some have encountered learning environments in which gifted students do not receive advanced instruction but have the bar set higher for their task demands or producibles, resulting in punitive grading policies. This may skew GPAs and class rank, influence college admissions, and demotivate gifted students.

indigo, I agree that when a child is highly academically capable, then the first priority should be compaction/acceleration.

In our case we have got the right amount of multi-year acceleration, and don't need higher or faster, but instead want depth/challenge/complexity etcetera, but certainly don't want busywork or other rubbish.

first priority should be compaction/acceleration

Why?

It's an honest question-- I'm just not sure that I understand what goal this accomplishes in and of itself that makes it PREFERABLE to depth/challenge/complexity. I understand that acceleration is a strategy which can help to ease a poor fit given asynchronous development, but I'm curious to know if there is some larger benefit that I've overlooked. I tend to see it as a least-worst issue, not as a good goal by any means. If anything, we've come down squarely on the other side of this issue (surprise, surprise, I'm sure, in light of DD's 3+ years of acceleration)-- it's just been our experience that more SUITABLE instruction is better by far than more "advanced" instruction, which usually comes with expectations which may be something less than age-appropriate or developmentally suitable in other ways. (That is, a 7yo may not possess the attention span expected of even "average" 12yo children, and it doesn't seem-- to me-- to be a good idea to treat a 8yo PG student as if s/he were interchangeable with a 16yo NT one.)

Of course the cynic in me suggests that one possible answer to my question is that this is a strategy which limits the child's years of exposure to educators, particularly at the primary and early secondary levels, where pedagogy may be particularly ill-suited to such children.

To clarify, this is not the view I presented. Please accept my apology for any confusion.

In speaking of advanced instruction which is deeper and/or faster paced, there was not a preference indicated for higher/faster over depth/challenge/complexity.

That said, not a fan of courses in which honors level consists of differentiation in more rigorous task demands, assignments, assessments (foregoing advanced material/instruction), and this is due to negative impacts upon gifted students which have been brought to my attention. YMMV.