By now, you likely know that I’m no fan of the College Board. So a recent NYT article got me going. The College Board portrays its Advanced Placement programme as an equitable avenue towards academic rigor for disadvantaged pupils. However, their relentless expansion of AP rests on dubious ethical footing. Stern accountability for the corporation's questionable research, gatekeeping exam model, and conflicts of interest around revenue seems warranted.
AP curriculums undoubtedly enrich, but benefits remain concentrated amongst already-privileged learners. Exam pass rates for minorities and low-income students languish below 40%, unchanged in decades. Yet the College Board downplays this through methodologically-dubious briefs claiming universality of impacts—whilst concealing data and bending statistics. Independent analysis exposes “minimal to no” improvements in university outcomes for most takers. Still, marketing hype fuels growth.
Moreover, the high-pressure tests create harmful obstacles. Underprepared pupils endure pointlessly-stressful revisions geared towards wealthier peers, facing slim odds of success. Hours-long standardised exams inherently disadvantage those lacking robust foundations, language mastery, and home support. Students merit engagement via diverse demonstratations of knowledge, not conformity to a narrowly-analytical testing paradigm that seismicaly favors certain pedagogical demographics.
Accountability for these conflicts falls wanting. States annually furnish at least $90 million sponsoring exams which reliably demoralize underwriters’ own vulnerable constituents. The College Board skirts transparency, whilst amassing billion-dollar surpluses and executive salaries topping $2 million. This moneyed fixture of the educational-industrial complex insists assessments remain integral for ‘rigor’, but ethicality seems misplaced.
Equitable access to enriched curriculums is overdue, but the capitalistic AP agenda serves primarily to widen opportunity gaps under the banner of closing them. Constructing an academic fast track for the well-resourced, whilst selling false promises of advancement via “meritocratic” testing to children setup for discouragement, reflects misguided priorities. Fairness dictates dramatic rethinking of equitable assessment and enrichment to support diverse learners.
The College Board trumpets a narrative of Advanced Placement enabling equal opportunities for students who think alternatively. Yet their systemic de-emphasis of direct guidance methods means neurodivergent and gestalt-processing learners, like me, struggle to access touted benefits. Accommodation policies ill-suit those requiring the specialised, explicit teaching enshrined in standard learning plans (e.g., 504 / IEP). Prioritising traditionally-analytical skillsets leaves vital demographics disenfranchised amid ever-expanding AP ubiquity.
Gestalt-based thinkers perceive holistically, grasping concepts as cohesive wholes rather than step-wise. For us, vital meaning gets lost in intense information-processing demands typical of Advanced Placement’s fast-paced challenge. Without adequate scaffolding to cement core schema before stacking complex applications, surface-level AP rigor risks harm over enrichment. IEP accommodations, designed through detailed learner-profiling, routinely provide personalised upfront concept-building alongside structured subsequent independent practice opportunities.
Yet AP’s “challenge all” ethos eschews individualization for scaled marketability. Standard accommodations only afford peripheral stress-reductions (but not noise-cancelling headphones) and extra time for struggling through methods already misaligned to different, yet equally valid, cognitive modalities. College Board rhetoric about uplifting disadvantaged groups through their programme is intellectually disingenuous whilst assessments intrinsically demotivate those deviating from ‘approved’ analytical processing.
Ethical tensions abound in constructing academic conveyor belts that defy fundamental psychological diversity. Learning differences warrant affirmation, not coercion towards conformity. If the College Board’s ambitions for equitable access are genuine and Universal Design for Learning principles meaningful, enhancing AP’s compatibility with gestalt and explicitly-guided pedagogies merits urgent redress. Obligating square pegs into relentlessly circular holes serves nobody.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
No place for autism in AP classes?
No place for autism in AP classes?
No place for autism in AP classes?
By now, you likely know that I’m no fan of the College Board. So a recent NYT article got me going. The College Board portrays its Advanced Placement programme as an equitable avenue towards academic rigor for disadvantaged pupils. However, their relentless expansion of AP rests on dubious ethical footing. Stern accountability for the corporation's questionable research, gatekeeping exam model, and conflicts of interest around revenue seems warranted.
AP curriculums undoubtedly enrich, but benefits remain concentrated amongst already-privileged learners. Exam pass rates for minorities and low-income students languish below 40%, unchanged in decades. Yet the College Board downplays this through methodologically-dubious briefs claiming universality of impacts—whilst concealing data and bending statistics. Independent analysis exposes “minimal to no” improvements in university outcomes for most takers. Still, marketing hype fuels growth.
Moreover, the high-pressure tests create harmful obstacles. Underprepared pupils endure pointlessly-stressful revisions geared towards wealthier peers, facing slim odds of success. Hours-long standardised exams inherently disadvantage those lacking robust foundations, language mastery, and home support. Students merit engagement via diverse demonstratations of knowledge, not conformity to a narrowly-analytical testing paradigm that seismicaly favors certain pedagogical demographics.
Accountability for these conflicts falls wanting. States annually furnish at least $90 million sponsoring exams which reliably demoralize underwriters’ own vulnerable constituents. The College Board skirts transparency, whilst amassing billion-dollar surpluses and executive salaries topping $2 million. This moneyed fixture of the educational-industrial complex insists assessments remain integral for ‘rigor’, but ethicality seems misplaced.
Equitable access to enriched curriculums is overdue, but the capitalistic AP agenda serves primarily to widen opportunity gaps under the banner of closing them. Constructing an academic fast track for the well-resourced, whilst selling false promises of advancement via “meritocratic” testing to children setup for discouragement, reflects misguided priorities. Fairness dictates dramatic rethinking of equitable assessment and enrichment to support diverse learners.
No Place for Autism?
The College Board trumpets a narrative of Advanced Placement enabling equal opportunities for students who think alternatively. Yet their systemic de-emphasis of direct guidance methods means neurodivergent and gestalt-processing learners, like me, struggle to access touted benefits. Accommodation policies ill-suit those requiring the specialised, explicit teaching enshrined in standard learning plans (e.g., 504 / IEP). Prioritising traditionally-analytical skillsets leaves vital demographics disenfranchised amid ever-expanding AP ubiquity.
Gestalt-based thinkers perceive holistically, grasping concepts as cohesive wholes rather than step-wise. For us, vital meaning gets lost in intense information-processing demands typical of Advanced Placement’s fast-paced challenge. Without adequate scaffolding to cement core schema before stacking complex applications, surface-level AP rigor risks harm over enrichment. IEP accommodations, designed through detailed learner-profiling, routinely provide personalised upfront concept-building alongside structured subsequent independent practice opportunities.
Yet AP’s “challenge all” ethos eschews individualization for scaled marketability. Standard accommodations only afford peripheral stress-reductions (but not noise-cancelling headphones) and extra time for struggling through methods already misaligned to different, yet equally valid, cognitive modalities. College Board rhetoric about uplifting disadvantaged groups through their programme is intellectually disingenuous whilst assessments intrinsically demotivate those deviating from ‘approved’ analytical processing.
Ethical tensions abound in constructing academic conveyor belts that defy fundamental psychological diversity. Learning differences warrant affirmation, not coercion towards conformity. If the College Board’s ambitions for equitable access are genuine and Universal Design for Learning principles meaningful, enhancing AP’s compatibility with gestalt and explicitly-guided pedagogies merits urgent redress. Obligating square pegs into relentlessly circular holes serves nobody.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.