Notes from the Roundtable Discussion on APs at Blair

PDC Thursday Roundtables—February 21, 2013:

Topic:  Advanced Placement Curriculum:  Pros and Cons

Attendees:  Lew Stival, Blair Buck, Bob Brandwood, Kaye Evans, Craig Evans, Mike Eckert, Jason Beck

Reading:  Independent Curriculum Group work on APs at Independent Schools

Thoughts:  While the general consensus was that the AP program does provide some good opportunities for Blair students, it may also close the door on more interesting and worthwhile academic options.  There was considerable energy behind a thorough review of the AP program at Blair and how our peer schools have dealt with the opportunities and challenges that it presents. 

Particular questions and issues that were raised:

• The English APs are good tests…  yet the question still remains that courses could be developed without tracking in the junior and senior year that would still allow for some students to self-select to prep for the AP itself.  Tracking hurts the quality of the regular courses, while integrated courses still allow the best students to distinguish themselves. 
•  Do the AP scores matter to Blair?  Lew Stival noted that the scores are meaningless from a college admission perspective, and that more and more of the best schools are doing away with giving credit for AP scores (see Dartmouth in 2012). 
• It was noted that the NY Times article about the APs at Scarsdale high school claimed that the APs were “good predictors of performance”.
• College Counseling did note that they AP designation is a “roadsign to rigor” for colleges – especially those that may not read applications closely. 
• If we were to radically alter the AP program at Blair, how would we communicate rigor to colleges (and parents and kids)?  Better course descriptions and better teacher recommendations would be required. 
• Blair Buck noted that the Bio AP curriculum and test were new this year.  The course is designed to be more quantitative, and has less breadth and more depth along with more lab work and more critical thinking requirements.  The question remains, however, how much prior knowledge will be expected on the exam itself and how that fits into our course schedule at Blair.  Other science tests will be revised in coming years…
• Is it valid to teach to the test, especially if the teacher doesn’t have a role in crafting the assessment?
• Does knowing that the test results don’t matter change the approach of the teacher?  The student?
• Would dropping APs at Blair be a marketing challenge or opportunity for Blair?  Given that some of the best independent schools are moving away from the AP designated courses, with an advanced studies program as an alternative, could be a way of distinguishing our academic program.
• If there is no AP designation on our transcript, would colleges focus even more on SAT and/or ACT results?
• Would current parents have concerns with such a radical curriculum change at Blair?  Especially given that the public perception relies on the “AP for All” marketing efforts of the College Board as much of its basis.
• If we teach kids how to think critically and how to write, won’t they be able to prep for the AP exams relatively easily beyond the actual coursework? 
• Could we have a blend?  AP US History and then no Senior AP options in the history department, for example?  This would seem to pull the lower kids up and may help distribute grades more effectively. 
• We need to remember that our kids are innately advantaged already when it comes to reading, writing, and thinking. 
• Could we design a pilot program to test the effectiveness of non-AP courses and self-selected AP testers? 
• Obviously, any change would require at least a year-long process of research, intentional curriculum design, marketing, and implementation.

Action items:

1. Create a Task Force to review the research on the AP program, look at how other schools dealt with these questions, and consider effective Blair options.
2. Encourage departments to regularly review their AP offerings and the effectiveness of those courses in meeting the departments’ educational standards and goals. 

Looking Ahead:            We will plan on two more Roundtable Discussions in early April on the following topics:  Gender and Education at Blair and Moving Toward a Humanities Curriculum.

                                    In addition, we hope to return to the Action Items of all six Roundtable Discussions in late April to reflect on what we would like to move forward with.  Stay tuned for more information on this process in the weeks ahead.

Notes from Roundtable Discussion on Foundational Questions

PDC Thursday Roundtables—February 14, 2013:

Topic:  Foundational Questions:  What We Live and What We Believe

Attendees:  Hans Doerr, Marty Miller, Cindy Crowner, Mike Eckert, Andrew Sykes, Blair Buck, Ann Williams, Jason Beck

Reading:  Foundational Questions PDC Blog Post

Thoughts:  Using the questions below, our discussion ranged from the set of “buzz-words” that we fall back on in these types of conversations to how we differentiate ourselves in the marketplace:

• What are the essential learning outcomes or qualities of your students when they graduate?
• What is the desired relationship at your school between students, teachers, and knowledge?
• What is the differentiated value that your school offers to your clients?

While we didn’t come up with any real answers to these questions, they did lead us to a number of very good conversations about the nature of school life at Blair and places like Blair.  The notes below come at these questions from a wide-array of vantage points, but they suggest a natural desire for focused goal setting and that proactive approaches with a defined set of intended outcomes can be incredibly helpful for faculty and students both in the classroom and the broader community.

Particular questions and issues that were raised:

•  Independent learning, critical thinking, having an ethical compass, lifelong learning, living with passion:  while we may list these traits as important, don’t all schools want to do these things? 
• How do we instill a sense of stewardship in our kids?
• Old-style boarding school life created an Old-boy network that provided real value to their personal and professional lives.  Is that a value we create – whether intentional or unwanted?  Is our alum network a vital contribution to the lives of our graduates?  Should it be?  How can make the most of this network?
• So many of our students come from non-traditional boarding school backgrounds and are fully buying into our community and way of life with a non-cynical sense of service.  Some schools have made it their mission to produce leaders of education and social change institutions.  Should such a public service focus become a more intentional part of our community and educational function?
• Do all of our kids feel challenged to lead or serve?  While our best kids do wonderful things in this way, what kind of improvements do we engender for those who don’t arrive at Blair as leaders and servants?
• A Value-Added Approach demands that we not simply claim the credit for the accomplishments of our best kids, but that we look at what we have provided for our students who struggle.  While we work at this in an organic fashion, it is hard to quantify and exists without structure.
• How do we differentiate ourselves from other boarding schools?  We should easily provide value over public and day schools, but what about our peer and aspirational groups?   
• How do we create Academic Differentiation:  APs?, a place that teaches service and learning? Technology in education and life?
• Why are students successful at Blair?  How has the school changed?  What do students who leave Blair think were the real values of their experience here?
• The value of an intentional approach to community life, the dorm experience, community service, leadership training, academic issues.  Differentiation asks for a specific set of approaches to these important areas of school life. 
• There is a ton of value and learning that happens at Blair in all areas of life, but how can we make sure it is being maximized for all our students? 
• Things that could be an area of focus:  service-learning, global studies (we already have a developed international program in Kenya to draw upon), Housemaster-ing as an educational function, harkness learning, essay writing, humanities curriculums, etc
• How do help kids find academic curiosity?  How do the adults in this community model the learning and living behaviors we expect of our students?
• When asked what makes Blair special, the conversation tends to rightfully come back to “community”…  what does that mean?  And how can we highlight what is special about our academic approach?

Action items:

1.  Look at surveying recent alums (5 and 10 year) to more fully understand how the Blair experience provides value in their lives both in college and beyond.
2. Continue broad conversations about how Blair differentiates itself in the community and in the classroom.  Be aware of how other schools market their value-added approaches to school life, and see where opportunities exist for Blair to carve a niche. 
3. Continue to advocate for academic approaches that go beyond the basic:  flipped-classroom models, humanities curriculum, skill-set alignment by grade level, Harkness-style classrooms.
4. Encourage more people to attend the regular PDC Roundtable Discussions.

Looking Ahead:           Thursday, February 21^st at 6:30 PM in Clinton 205.
Topic:  Advanced Placement Courses:  Academic handcuffs or a valuable curriculum?

Notes from Roundtable Discussion on Character Education and Residential Life

PDC Thursday Roundtables—February 7, 2013:

Topic:  Teaching Character Beyond the Classroom – Residential Life Curriculums

Attendees:  Teddy Wenner, Dave Facciani, Hans Doerr, Mike Eckert, Tiffany Zimmerman, Ryan Pagotto, Rachel Stone, Carolyn Conforti-Browse, Jason Beck

Reading:  Selections from PDC Blog Posts

Thoughts: Teaching character and values at Blair is something we all feel strongly about, yet how do we communicate these values to our students?  And what is the role that residential life plays in educating the whole student? 

Particular questions and issues that were raised:

•          A formal Residential life curriculum comes with both pros and cons.  At Blair, we have relied on Prefect modeling in the dorms, organic conversations about values at the dorm level, in classes, and with advisors, etc.  A one-size fits all curriculum would likely saddle larger dorms with a very different burden than smaller dorms and raise questions about buy-in.
•          Organic approaches to character and values work at Blair, but how can we be more intentional about our residential life focus?  Public speaking has become a part of the regular conversation on campus and as a result it seems to have improved across campus.  Would consistency in conversations about character and values have a similar effect?
•          Tiffany reminded us of the Search Institute’s 40 Assets of Developmental Assets (see link below) and Hans brought of Tough’s commentary on the Kipp/Riverdale 7 Character Essentials – both could provide models for a shared curriculum and focus at Blair.
•          Community-wide Essential Questions (as used by Francis Parker and others) could be an effective way to guide the conversation and a school-wide curriculum on character and values.  Could align with chapel, vespers, dorm, prefects, advisors, even Skeptics and coursework…  A shared reading?
•          Would a Character Curriculum “Independent Study” that students could elect to participate in be a nice way to elevate the conversation?  Or should the program be more advisor-centric?
•          What do we want our graduate to value when they cross the stage?  Is there faculty agreement on what values these are?  Should there be?
•          Housemasters could be empowered to develop their own curriculums and use prefect and student involvement in that process. 
•          Could we align a residential life conversation/curriculum with the CHAT program?  Is it time to consider a new approach to CHAT given the current challenges?  A look at Loomis’s Center for the Common Good classes or a new model of larger presentations then follow-up in dorms for CHAT? 
•          It was suggested that Prefect Program could be more engaged in these conversations on a formal basis.  Could we put more structure in place for them on this issue of character conversations with the kids in the dorm?
•          Should we re-consider the role of the Dorm Staff and our expectations of them beyond the absolute basic nature of dorm duty?
•          Would the use of “badges” for character be a way to engage the kids and provide structure?

Action items:

1. Continue the conversation about more formal structure for residential and community conversations about character and values.
2. Look at revising CHAT and consider aligning it with a community-wide Essential Question and other programs.
3. Develop a shared vocabulary of character values and/or graduate outcomes that all faculty agree on.
4. Survey community about their perception of what comprises character.
5. Consider more synchronicity between prefects, class councils, weekend activities, housemasters, vespers, chapel, CHAT, and the advisor program.
6. Look at intentional ways to focus this conversation in the community.

Looking Ahead:           Thursday, February 14^th at 7:00 PM in the Wean Dining Hall. 
Topic:  Foundational Questions:  What We Live and Believe

Thursday, February 21^st at 7:00 PM in the Wean Dining Hall.
Topic:  Advanced Placement Courses:  Academic handcuffs or a valuable curriculum?

 Links:

Kipp/Riverdale Character Set:  http://www.kipp.org/our-approach/strengths-and-behaviors

Search Institute 40 Developmental Assets:  http://www.search-institute.org/content/40-developmental-assets-adolescents-ages-12-18

Foundational Questions

I recently discovered Grant Lichtman's blog "The Learning Pond" and have thoroughly enjoyed his perspective on education, pedagogy, and the potential for innovation.  I was struck by an entry from earlier this year that posited three Foundational Questions that schools must ask.  I've copied them below and encourage you to read his full post on these questions.

What made me pause was that these are precisely the types of things that I know some of us think about with some regularity when we take the time to consider the "big picture" at Blair.  They are also fundamental components of the accreditation process.  And they raise the specter of the "value-added" conversation as well.  Yet, I'm not certain that all of us in this community would answer these questions in the same way.  Perhaps that's what we want as a community of educators and learners with any number of different foci to embrace, or maybe its just that the language isn't there to describe shared ideals in uniform terms, or perhaps they are a constantly shifting mark that need constant refreshing.  Regardless, they made me think and I propose them as fodder for discussion in the months ahead:

• What are the essential learning outcomes or qualities of your students when they graduate?
• What is the desired relationship at your school between students, teachers, and knowledge?
• What is the differentiated value that your school offers to your clients?

Source:  http://learningpond.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/three-foundational-questions-schools-must-ask/