Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What is an "honors" course?

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.