http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/education/26inflate.html
High School Classes May Be Advanced in Name Only
By SAM DILLON
New York Times
April 25, 2011

More students are taking ambitious courses. According to a recent Department of Education study, the percentage of high school graduates who signed up for rigorous-sounding classes nearly tripled over the past two decades.

But other studies point to a disconnect: Even though students are getting more credits in more advanced courses, they are not scoring any higher on standardized tests.

The reason, according to a growing body of research, is that the content of these courses is not as high-achieving as their names � the course-title equivalent of grade inflation. Algebra II is sometimes just Algebra I. And College Preparatory Biology can be just Biology.

Lynn T. Mellor, a researcher in Austin, Tex., who has studied the phenomenon in the state, compares it to a food marketer labeling an orange soda as healthier orange juice.

�Like the misleading drink labels, course titles may bear little relationship to what students have actually learned,� said Dr. Mellor, who has analyzed course completion, test records and other student data in Texas �We see students taking more and more advanced courses, but still not performing well on end-of-course exams.�

The 2009 results � the most recent available � of the federal test that measures change in achievement levels over decades showed that the nation�s 17-year-olds were scoring no higher in reading and math than in 1973. SAT scores have dropped or flat-lined, too, since 2000.

But a federal study released this month of 38,000 high school transcripts showed that the proportion of graduates completing a rigorous curriculum rose to 13 percent in 2009 from 5 percent in 1990. Arnold A. Goldstein, a director at the department�s National Center for Education Statistics, which administered both the federal test and the transcripts study, suggested possible causes for this apparent contradiction.

�There may be a �watering down� of courses,� he said. Also, high school seniors may not try hard when they take the federal tests, since there are no consequences based on how they perform, he said.

Schools apply vaunted names to courses in part, researchers said, because administrators want to help students satisfy tougher requirements for high school graduation in many states. They point to parents� interest in rigorous-sounding coursework for their children, and to administrators� vanity in offering ambitious coursework.

Some educators also argue that students benefit from being exposed to more difficult coursework, even if they do not perform well.

Mark Schneider, a vice president of the American Institutes of Research who headed the Education Department�s research wing under President George W. Bush, said the disconnect became apparent a decade ago, after two nationwide surveys showed that the proportion of high school seniors taking trigonometry, precalculus or calculus more than doubled from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

�Students were taking more rigorous-sounding courses, but there was no evidence they had mastered the content,� Dr. Schneider said. Researchers at Michigan State University began studying the issue for a 2001 paper that drew on the test scores of 13,000 American eighth-grade students who participated in an international math and science exam known as Timss.

They compared the schools� math courses � ranging from remedial through �enriched� to algebra I � with the content of the textbooks used in them. In about 15 percent of the cases, the textbook covered less advanced areas of math than the course name suggested, said William H. Schmidt, who led the Michigan research.

In 2008, Dr. Schmidt surveyed 30 high schools in Ohio and Michigan, finding 270 distinctly labeled math courses. In science, one district offered Basic Biology, BioScience, General Biology A and B � 10 biology courses in all.

�The titles didn�t reveal much at all about how advanced the course was,� he said.

Course-title inflation is easier to document in math and science, researchers said, but they suspect it is happening in English and other subjects, too.

<rest of article at link>

I think the basic problem is that only a minority of the population is smart enough to study at the college level, whether the subject is calculus or history (if such a course is rigorous and entails a lot of writing). In the book "Real Education" Charles Murray estimated that an IQ of 115 is needed to get a "real" B.A. Only about 1/6 of the population is this smart. When high schools are pressured to do the impossible, they start fudging.

That is why colleges are still using SAT, ACT or AP scores for admissions after year's of debate. You may argue that these tests are not true measurement of either achievement or intellegnce. I agree with that. But at least, this is one thing that can't be easily fudged by schools or brought by rich parents.

Our local high schools aim to have all students taking AP courses or to do dual enrollment (hs and college credit courses) in high school. I've long thought this makes no sense. Not everyone can take advanced placement coursework and do well so it either winds up with the work being not what is claims to be or kids getting poor grades. I suspect that the former happens as often, or more often, than the later.

I'm sorry to digress a little already but really 1/6th has a > 115 iq?

That should be about 16-17% of people. Since about 68% of people fall within 1 SD of the mean, that would put 32% of people more than 1 SD outside of the mean (on both the low and high end) or 16% more than 1 SD above the mean and 16% more than one SD below the mean. 115 falls right at the 1 SD point so that # should work.

IQ tests are typically normed to have mean of 100 and standard deviation of about 15. About 68% of the observations in a normal distribution are within 1 SD of the mean. Therefore only (1 - 0.68)/2 = 16% are at 1 SD or more to the right of the mean. One-sixth is between 16% and 17%.

Thank you for the stats refresher. For some reason I was a little stunned by how small that number is. I guess I've been hanging around this forum for too long

I would think that the proportion of students with a measured IQ over 115 varies greatly by school and district, though. In some areas, I would guess that at least a third to a half of the students would score over 115.

A recent article describing how A.P. courses are being pushed on unqualified students is

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...4/25/a_lesson_in_advanced_mis_placement/
A lesson in Advanced mis-Placement
By Junia Yearwood
Boston Globe
April 25, 2011

...

For the four years I taught the AP English and composition course at English High, many of my students were victims of the AP mania that had invaded the system. Suddenly, officials had recognized the dearth of faces of color in AP classes and the drive to augment the AP minority population went into high gear. The College Board and sympathetic philanthropic rescuers rushed in to solve the problem by dangling the carrot of grant money, and the feeding frenzy was on. AP classes sprouted and multiplied across all disciplines. AP scouts scoured students� report cards hunting for qualifying scores; teacher recommendations were solicited for students with the �potential�� to do AP work, and the nominees were summarily conscripted.

Even though students had marked deficiencies in basic reading and writing skills, and little desire to work hard, and even though they made repeated requests for transfers, the dragooning of students into my AP course persisted.

My frequent reminders to school officials that students� reading and writing levels and willingness to work hard were more important indicators of AP success than their perceived academic potential were berated and ignored. Administrators and some teachers countered with the �data-driven�� argument that, not only does more exposure to AP courses and tests benefit students by preparing them for the rigors of college, but it signaled our high expectations of them.

...

Yes, this is all part and parcel of our national delusion that everyone should go to college. This philosophy is a failure and is particularly cruel to the students it's forced on. How many young people end up studying something they aren't interested in and spend four years learning little, after which many are deep in debt? To make matters worse, it's been increasingly difficult to find work since 2008, and many of them end up in low-wage jobs they could have done straight out of high school, minus the devt (e.g. Starbucks, security guards after short training courses). Just as bad, many that actually find jobs in "business" or "communications" or whatever they majored in end up being unhappy and unsatisfied. But no one told them any of this when they were 17. These poor kids all get spoonfed the idea that a B.A. is a golden ticket to a bright and shiny future.

Does anyone else see the madness here?

These days, the edumacational dogma is to push people into college as though suggesting anything else is some kind of major insult. Somehow this means we're being "equitable" or "fair." It's as though there's this perception that anything that doesn't involve a B.A. is somehow less than worthy. This entire train of thought is utter rubbish. And it homogenizes everyone even more.

I'd prefer a return to the olden days of about 20 years ago and before when schools helped kids find things they were good at and enjoyed doing, and encouraged them to go in those directions, regardless of whether or not a B.A. was involved.

Val

Although I agree with you in many ways, Val, there does continue to be a great deal of evidence that a BA vastly increases one's earning power. Of course, many underprepared students don't GET the BA, but no one starts off thinking they will drop out.

My feeling is that many problems stem from the fact that well-paid, secure maunfacturing jobs have basically vanished. I agree that not everyone is cut out for college, but realistically, there are now few jobs available where one can earn well without a degree.

Things may be different in the US but people in trades do VERY well financially here, or there is certainly the potential. My best friend just paid a plumber $25k for 3 days work, certainly he had costs to pay but we are both very confident he's running a very profitable business too!

Yes, that's it exactly. It's true that manufacturing jobs are moving overseas, but there are many skilled jobs in between manufacturing and white-collar jobs (which are also being shipped overseas). They include work for plumbers, electricians, entry-level technicians (e.g. glassware washing and care, etc.), auto mechanic, etc. etc.

I'm not convinced that the higher-earnings thing with a B.A. is always true (a highly skill plumber or carpenter will probably earn more than a mediocre sales guy). Plus, there is more to life than how much you earn. I kind of think that an economy with too many people who do their jobs just for money is going to have problems.
Val

If the same fraction of youths from all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds were "college material", it would be much easier politically to debunk the college-for-all delusion. That is not the case, however.

Standardized tests such as the SAT I (reasoning), SAT II (subject), ACT, and, A.P. can all help identify the youths who are "college material". The problem is that there is about a 1 standard deviation between whites and blacks on the SAT http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2010-total-group-profile-report-cbs.pdf , similar to the 1 SD difference found on IQ tests. The difference is about 2/3 of an SD between whites and Hispanics. Research has found that standardized tests are not biased against non-Asian minorities in terms of predicting college grades. Discouraging youths will low test scores from going to college means discouraging a higher proportion of blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians. Saying that very different fractions of various racial groups are "college material" is considered racist by many people, but I think it needs to be said. Then it should be acted upon but cutting off government aid for unqualified students.

A common rejoinder to the above argument is that achievement gaps reflect environmental differences, such as differences in school quality, but the differences are still large when students of different races going to the SAME school are compared or when adjustments for socioeconomic status are made. By the time students get to college, what matters is the existence of achievement gaps, not their origins.

Well, naturally, it's not *always* true. But I could cite many studies for you that show a very strong connection between holding a college degree and higher lifetime earnings, as a general rule.

I don't know the numbers on this, but I would guess that the number of jobs for plumbers, electricians, and skilled trades are absolutely dwarfed by the number of lost manufacturing jobs. Also, IMO, being a plumber, electrician, or mechanic requires above-average intelligence in at least some areas. I would hardly say these are obvious choices for someone with an IQ of 90. I'm pretty smart, but I suck at car repair.

Re: Bostonian's post...well...I have spent too much time here already today...

The non-college skilled labor jobs may require at least average intelligence -- an IQ of 100. What do the 150 million (at least) Americans with IQ < 100 do? The harsh reality is that they may have to take low-skilled jobs with commensurate wages.
Everyone is employable at some wage, so I favor eliminating or at least reducing the minimum wage.

Umm. The minimum wage is already below a living wage in many or nearly all places, so I'm not sure what you're advocating here (or are you just trolling, given the glib statement and lack of detail around why this is a good idea?). Are you saying that people with IQs less than 100 should work 80 hours a week and live 4 to a small apartment just so they can pay their rent? That people who suffer from too little income to feed themselves properly should accept their situations because of the circumstances of their births?

There is a huge difference between acknowledging that differences in talent exist and deciding that those who don't meet an arbitrary cutoff should be treated as though they're worthless (or nearly so, given that they'd get paid at least something).

Why is it that, among developed nations, this problem seems to affect mainly the US? Most people in, say, western Europe manage to earn living wages in spite of whatever their IQs might be. Those societies are all doing well and manage to have better schools, medical care, and infrastructure than we do. Our society's ruthlessness doesn't benefit us as a whole nation. Now that I think about it, it's possible that the everyone-must-attend-college idea could be, in part, a response to societal ruthlessness and an extreme me-first/who-cares-about-you attitude we have here in the US.

You make a lot of statements about IQ among races or abilities between genders, to the point where I've begun to see your arguments as being overly simplistic and lacking in thoughtful insight or creative extensions to someone else's ideas. I've read Real Education and The Bell Curve and think that both books were written carefully and documented carefully. But that doesn't make them the final word on the subjects they address. It also doesn't mean it's necessary to present the ideas in those books in every third message as though they're easy explanations for a complex question.

As an example of the fact that apparently simple statistics can be nuanced, Ultramarina made a really good counterpoint to one of your claims here and afterwards. I don't think you can argue that state tests don't test the right end of the bell curve, because the SAT doesn't either.

Val

Great point. I think you're quite right. People do see how hard it can be for low-income earners and feel bad about it to some extent, but rather than addressing it in some rather more logical large-scale way, their response is "You should go to college! That'll fix it!" (Or, "Start your own business! That'll fix it!") It's the whole American pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps thing. What's always confused me about this whole argument is that there is no denying that SOMEbody has to pick the tomatoes, make the hamburgers, clerk the stores, and clean the hotels. If all these low-income, low-wage workers magically become college-educated entrepreneurs, who is going to do that work? Teenagers? There really aren't enough of them.

There is always going to be a working class. We NEED a working class. They should be paid a living wage, or we disrespect and ignore the basic fact of human variability, IMO.

Confuses correlation with causation, IMO.


Just as ridiculous as noting that neighborhoods and socioeconomic outcomes improve with home-ownership relative to non-homeowners. That doesn't mean that all of those socioeconomic ills are cured just by granting loans to people who otherwise don't qualify for mortgages. (As we've now seen, I sincerely hope.)

In other words, maybe fixing the problems that led them to be poorly qualified for mortgages might have been a better (real?) solution.

Same thing with college-for-all. Okay, higher earnings are associated with college degrees. But maybe that isn't causative as a relationship. Maybe it's correlative instead.



_____________________________________

Back to the original topic here-- I have been floored by this phenomenon in my DD's coursework. It's high VOLUME-- so students, teachers, and parents feel that their kids are "working REALLY HARD!!" The phenomonon there seems to be about window dressing and not about reality, however.

Or, in to steal a quote from Christmas Vacation:

(In reference to the expense and trouble of all of the-- nonfunctional-- Christmas lights)

Francis (Clark's MIL): Talk about p***ing your money away. I hope you kids see what a silly waste of resources this was.


Audrey Griswold: He worked really hard, Grandma.

Art (FIL): So do washing machines.

Maybe I'm just naturally flippant and irreverent, but I so often find myself looking at my DD's schoolwork and thinking... SERIOUSLY?? This is high school?? NO. WONDER. This explains so much about those poor students that were woefully unprepared for college chemistry. Er.. college anything, truth be told.

Washing machines. That's what schools are all about now. <nodding>

Yes! Yes!

Correlation vs. causation was once explained to me in a wonderful way (paraphrasing from someone, but the details are all correct):

Sociologists have observed that increased murder rates in the New York metro area are correlated with increased sales of ice cream.

Question: Does this mean that eating ice cream makes you more violent???

Answer: No, it's a correlation without causation. Both increases are due to increased temperatures/heat waves. When it gets hot, some people want to eat a cool snack. Some people (not necessarily the ice cream eaters) also become more easily agitated when they feel overheated.


Okay, I love that one. I'll store it in my mind next to the ice cream conundrum.

Love that-- and yes, the ice cream analogy was one that I used to use in teaching forensic science and chemistry at all levels to explore the fallacy of causation as extrapolated from correlation.

In that case, however, I used ice cream sales as correlated by home burglary rates-- the solution is that people leave their windows open for ventilation during warmer weather. Same exact idea.

'Those societies are all doing well'? Talk about simplistic! A debt crisis affecting an entire continent is hardly the definition of 'doing well'.

I meant relative to ours. They don't have nearly the disastrous kinds of problems that we do. Healthcare is a right. University educations in most of these places are free (e.g. Ireland) or affordable or free (e.g. Switzerland). The roads aren't full of potholes and the Dutch dikes won't give way in a hurricane because the people who built them thought ahead and cared about quality. you can take public transportation to almost anywhere you need to go, and fares are heavily subsidized to encourage its use.

I'm not saying that western Europe is perfect, but the governments over there care more about the welfare of their citizens than ours does in the US.

Raising the minimum wage tends to reduce employment, and it's better for both the individual and society for someone to work for $5 an hour than not to work at all. Someone who starts at a low wage may see wage increases as he becomes more productive at his job and/or establishes that he is reliable and trustworthy. But first he needs to get the job.

You call America "ruthless", but it is already spending a lot of money on Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing subsidies, free school lunches (and in some places, breakfasts) and on age-related entitlements such Medicare and Social Security. The European welfare state is even more lavish than ours, and even more unsustainable. Several governments in Europe -- Ireland, Greece, and Portugal -- are unable to pay their debts.

If you heavily subsidize the children of the poor through the programs listed above, that encourages them to have more children they cannot support. If affluent families have much of their income taxed away to pay for all these programs, they will be able to afford fewer children. Over time, these effects
will reduce average intelligence.

Your profile says you live in California. Your state is bankrupt, and its various policies that drive up employment costs, including a minimum wage of $8.00 about 10% higher than the Federal minimum wage of $7.25, is causing many businesses to flee to lower-cost states such as Texas.

Your vision of a compassionate society requires much higher taxes than Americans are currently paying. There is little sign they are willing to do so. I am not.

I am a Republican, I'll guess you are a Democrat. The debate over the size of government is not going to resolved on this forum, but it is obnoxious for you to freely express your political views but call other people trolls because they express different views.

I'd be interested in seeing you support this claim with numbers and proof. I ran across some research recently that argues against this seemingly fairly logical theory.

Hello everyone,

Please keep the discussion focused on education. A few threads in the past have veered off into political arguments and we're trying to avoid that here.

Thank you!

Mark