To: Superintendent
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools
I am writing this correspondence
to inform you of a needed procedural change for students within our
district. The only criteria for any
student’s enrollment into an Advanced Placement and/or “Honors” course should
be the student’s desire to attempt the course.
Our district should reverse its policy of requiring a minimum grade point
average and teacher recommendation for approval of enrollment in Advanced
Placement and/or “Honors” level courses.
It is my sincerest hope you will consider this proposed change and take
the necessary actions in order to make this change possible.
The importance of enacting such
a drastic change to the district policy of Advanced Placement and Honors curriculum
is focus on equity of access to knowledge for all students within the
district. As our district has continued
to evolve, we have placed at the forefront the concept of equity within our
schools. This focus has included many
district initiatives, including the program Courageous Conversations about Race,
which have helped all members understand the changing social and racial demographics
of our area. We must now focus ourselves
beyond the social understandings and into practical changes which reflect our commitment
to equity within our schools.
In the book Keeping Track,
author Jeannie Oakes describes many problems facing education in America today. The book focuses on the effects of the system
of tracking within schools and how this system impacts students, schools, and
society. She describes, “If schooling is
intended to provide access to economic, political, and social opportunity for
those who are so often denied such access, school tracking appears to interfere
seriously with this goal.” Oakes’s statement indicates the impact of
inequitable access to knowledge for many students. If one of our district goals is to ensure the
equity in the schooling process we must seek to change our policy and process
of enrollment in higher level courses.
By referencing Oakes and her work with tracking I am not suggesting that
disallow our current system of Advanced Placement and Honors coursework. However, I think her work on the impact of
the access to these courses displays serious issues effecting student
improvement and school culture.
Our current system provides the
individual classroom teacher with far too much power for deciding the fate
students in their educational journey.
Although, I respect the teacher profession and agree that most teachers,
administrators, and district personnel all work toward greater student success and
achievement our current system is fundamentally flawed. The first power of the individual teacher is
they must give permission, by personal recommendation, for students wishing to
enroll in higher level courses. This
allows individual teachers to essentially “track” students into lower level
courses if students not given the teacher permission to enroll in high level
courses. Students wishing to challenge
themselves into a higher level of academic rigor should not be stopped by a
teacher forecasting how that student will perform in the future. The teacher recommendation process is simply
too subjective and allows teachers’ individual biases into the future of
student academic progress. While some
teachers may have set guidelines for what they use to recommend students,
others do not.
Our current policy also
implicates the teacher by the second criteria, which is the student grade point
average requirement. By only allowing
students achieving a 3.0 grade point average or above the opportunity to enroll
in higher level course work, our district is signaling our values of student achievement. This practice degrades the achievements of
any student underneath the threshold who wishes to challenge themselves in a
higher level course. Instead, we should
encourage all students to challenge themselves academically even if they have
not met a predefined grade point average threshold. While the rationale of grade point average
threshold is meant to have students given the best chance for success, the
student and parent should be the stakeholders making such a decision and not
teacher, administrators, or the district.
Another problem with the grade point average threshold as a requirement
for enrollment is the subjectivity of what an arbitrary grade actually “shows”
about a student and a teacher. With each
teacher determining their own grading policy it is almost impossible to ensure
fairness of acknowledgment of student performance. A student may perform at an equal level in
two different classrooms, with two different teachers, and receive different
grades. While the concept of grading
policy may also be addressed at a later time, this discrepancy influences the
ability of students when wishing to enroll in higher level courses. These two problems display why teachers have
far too much impact on student’s access to higher level courses and why our
district must change our policy to ensure equity of access to knowledge for all
students.
Although I believe the proposed
change to be a positive for our students and the district, others may disagree
with this plan. The first question
raised to this new concept is what happens when lowering achieving (lower grade
point average) students wish to take a higher level course? How can they be successful in higher level
courses if they have already struggled in lower level courses? The answer to the first question is that all
students should be provided the description of the expectations of the course
they wish to enroll. If students who
have struggled wish to take a more rigorous course the teacher currently
teaching the student, counselors, and/or administrators should discuss the
seriousness of the academic course with students. For example, when a counselor is scheduling
courses and notices a 2.0 GPA student wishing to enroll in an AP level social
studies course, the counselor may want to meet with the student or direct the
student to talk with the AP teacher or previous social studies teacher to be
sure they understand the expectations for the course. If the student still wishes to enroll they
should be allowed to enroll and experience the course, even if they struggle
academically.
The impact of the experience
of students taking a challenging course may not be initially understood by the
student. However, many students describe
that higher level courses produced immense benefits even when those benefits
were not initially present to the student.
Students may find these courses helped prepare for future academic
endeavors or helped the student choose an area they may wish to pursue for a
career. These reasons suggest schools
should not keep willing students from the experience of academic
challenge.
After exploring the arguments
made for changing the policy of enrollment in higher level courses in our
district I encourage you to take the next steps in seeking change. First, I would advise you select a committee
of teachers, administrators, and parents to evaluate our current policy and the
proposed change I have put forth in this letter. This committee should meet to discuss the
impacts of a potential change to our policy, including some of the major points
outlined in this correspondence, as well as any areas of potential change
surrounding this policy in course scheduling, counseling, etc. The committee should also evaluate policies
of surrounding districts which have implemented what I have proposed to assess
the potential impacts of such a change.
I would encourage visiting a few schools and talking to teachers,
administrators, and parents regarding the expansion of access to higher level
courses.
Finally, the committee should
provide a recommendation to you on the merits of the policy change I have proposed. Once recommended you, the superintendent, and
the committee should formally recommend the proposal for adoption at a meeting
of the school board members where a vote may be taken. Following adoption of the policy I would keep
the committee in place to track the progress and impact of the policy
addressing students, parents, teachers, counselors, and administration. The committee should evaluate how the policy
has influenced equity, access, student improvement, student academic success,
and any other areas/factors which arise throughout this process.
Although I have put forth a
comprehensive and substantive change in the district policy of access to higher
level courses for students, I do not propose the policy or its outcomes to be
perfect or free of criticisms. Any
policy within our schools which is altered impacts various stakeholders in
multiple ways. We can anticipate many
impacts of changes but hardly can be prepared for all implications of any
decision. School systems are incredibly
complex and impact far too many individuals and processes to be certain of all
implications. However, I believe in the
spirit of the district’s focus on equity of access to student achievement we
need to evaluate and implement a new policy for higher level course
selection. Students must be given the
opportunity, if so desired to enrich themselves by their own choosing. The district, should not allow subjective
processes of grading or teacher approval to deny any willing student access to
academic challenges. This practice has
been unfair, inequitable, and sustained for too long. We should model for our students and the
community our commitment to equity of access and individual choice for all
students, regardless of past experience.
I hope you will give this
proposal sincere reflection in the goal of improving the educational experience
of all members of school district and surrounding community.
Sincerely,
Jeff Richards
Social Studies Teacher
Canton High School
