Jerry P. Gollub, et al.
National Academy of Science, Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools
February 2002
Diane Ravitch opined on this National Research Council "study" in last week's Gadfly but it's worth another comment, particularly amidst reports that elite private schools are dropping Advanced Placement courses so as to concentrate on idiosyncratic, teacher-built courses, and in light of last week's report that Harvard will henceforth award credit only to those who score "5" (the top mark) on A.P. exams. In this lengthy study (only the uncorrected, pre-publication version of which is presently available, and that for a stiff price), the National Academy of Science's Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools essentially tries to impose N.C.T.M. math and a similar view of science on two long-standing, external "gold standard" high school curriculum-and-assessment programs, the College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) program and the International Baccalaureate (IB). The gist of the critique is that these programs are too heavy on content coverage and skill development and too light on conceptual understandings. The authors don't see the AP and IB as external tests of important skills and knowledge but, rather, as teaching strategies that, they assert, should be "made consistent with findings from recent research on how people learn". In other words, it's not knowledge of the disciplines that should form the core of these programs, as it long has, but, rather, principles of cognitive psychology and pedagogy. Constructivist principles. AP and IB, in this view, are about the process of learning, not about what's been learned. Probably we should not be surprised, considering that the committee that prepared it was stuffed with educationists, including NCTM heavyweight John Dossey and veteran progressive-educator Jeannie Oakes. This report was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton Administration (jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Education Department's Office of Educational Research and Improvement.) It will be interesting to see whether its recommendations are taken seriously by the private organizations that sponsor the AP and IB programs, and by the Bush administration (whose National Science Foundation recently hired committee member Michael Martinez as a program officer). It seems unlikely that the "research" cited in this report meets the standards of scientific proof mandated in the recent No Child Left Behind act. If you'd like to read the pre-print, surf to http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10129.html for information about obtaining a copy.