You can view and/or join the discussion here:

 http://messageboard.rainsberger.ca/topic/162696/

But, I do still very much enjoy online communities, and I had this crazy idea: since I’m usually in email contact with a lot of universities about their policies, what if I could bring the admissions people into the discussion?

So, I did a very brave (stupid?) thing. I emailed them all. I told them about the community I was forming. I gave them carte blanche to go ahead and advertise the heck out of their schools and programs. What do I care? They should *want* to advertise to you, to attract this segment of the population. In exchange for providing first-hand answers from the schools themselves, I thought the trade-off was a no brainer.

Now of course, I had to email them with the idea — because none of you were there yet. So, admittedly, I led them to the board, but there was not much for them to do. I told them that I was going to give them first crack at the board, and they could post a welcome message from their school, links to their site . . . whatever they wanted. And, that over the coming weeks, I would then mention the site here and at the upcoming Ontario conferences.

A couple of schools wrote me back and said they thought it was a great idea. Some have indicated that welcome posts will be forthcoming. One school (and if you want to know who, you’ll just have to visit and find out for yourself!) has posted a welcome message already. I can tell by the activity log that probably about 8 universities have visited the message board, but not posted.

I’m going to assume that some universities need to see people there first before they’ll know how to get involved, so I now unleash you upon them. Visit the site and ask your questions, and see who comes! There are specific folders for each school so that information can be easily tracked. If a school is slow to respond, then I’ll gently inform them that they have questions waiting.

And, perhaps it would be a nice gesture to acknowledge the school who was first to post, even before any of you guys showed up, by posting in that area, too.

These message board things are a tricky business. I know there’s nothing sadder than a low-activity board, but not only did I want a place where people could compile their information and experiences by school, I wanted to get the schools in on it, too. I think we can do that, if you make it worth their while by posting.

Not sure what to post? Feel free to introduce yourself in the general area. But also, remember that the schools probably aren’t going to know what to post either. Why not ask them something that’s not on their website — how many homeschoolers did you admit last year? How far in advance should a homeschooler contact your university? What’s usually the most difficult part about dealing with a homeschooler’s application? What can we do to make the application process smoother?

Statistics tell us that over 90% of people only visit boards and never post. But, I’m asking you to bite the bullet and share *something.* It can be a new question or in response to something already written. (I’m putting shorter “fact sheets” up there that aren’t meant to be comprehensive, but basic starter guides for different topics.) It can be something you’ve learned, or an experience you’ve had in the university prep/admission process. If you’ve looked into university admissions at all, you have something valuable to share with others just starting out.

So there you have it. This board might suffer the same miserable fate as most out there, but I hope that, when you go looking for info about Ontario universities, you’ll go there. Either ask your question directly to one of the university reps or post what you have found in other sources. Join us here:

http://messageboard.rainsberger.ca/index/

What can I say? That would make me happy.

While the university system isn’t perfect, it needs to be protected from the influence of the secondary school system, if only because the secondary school’s concerns are not the university’s concerns.

University students, for the most part, have reached the age of majority. Even those that have not have at least surpassed the requirements for compulsory attendance in school. As different as a Gr. 12 math class is from a Gr.9 math class, where students are still compelled to attend, the difference between a Gr. 12 math class and a university math class is greater still. The classes are held with different expectations: nothing short of an A is acceptable to a university applicant, but once in university, Bs and even Cs can look pretty good.

The primary career activity of most professors is research, not teaching. The landscape is changing somewhat with the increase in part-time or contract faculty who must sometimes scramble to pick up classes to earn a living, but for the most part, past achievement and future innovation in one’s field are characteristics of university professors, not high school teachers.

Elementary and secondary school attendance are locally based whereas one has their choice of any university. This may sound like a trivial distinction, but I know a thing or two about lazy computer programmers. Tell me that your local high school does NOT auto-fill the province field with “Ontario” in their database of student addresses. I don’t want to think about the added cost to update student records with a country field.

OK, so I’ve given some sound and one “I just plain don’t trust them” reasons for keeping the two entities separate. But, in all seriousness, the goals of the institutions are just too different to be effectively melded together. One hinges on tight provincial control of curriculum, attendance and pedagogy, attempting to provide (whether they want it or not) the same thing to students who are in no position to refuse. The other prides itself (at least historically) on academic freedom and discovery while offering a variety of paths (some would claim too many paths) ranging from academic to professional, general to hyperspecialized.

I just can’t see much common ground between the two sets of teachers, and yet, the Ontario Secondary School Teacher’s Federation (union) has been finding its way into the university system.

Now, those much more cynical than I would argue that all unions do today anyway is demand salary increases. So, why wouldn’t university staff want to hitch its wagon to a large, provincial union?

But, if we go with the assumption that being part of a union means having the same interests at heart, then why on earth would university staff want to join a high school union? So they can be forced to strike when the next provincial government makes radical changes to the high school education system again? So that they can get caught up in issues that don’t concern them, forced to feign interest in topics surrounding P.D. (or P.A.) days, teacher licensing, and the Gr. 10 literacy test?

That’s why I was shocked to read a short blurb stating that the University of Waterloo had voted at the end of the month on this very issue. As far as I can tell, the results are not yet in. Apparently, there are disputes over whether the OSSTF had enough consent of the membership to even hold the vote. Furthermore, several votes were “segregated” at the polling station because there was a question as to whether certain voters fell into the appropriate job categories to vote.

As shocked as I was to discover that this vote had been held, when I dug around for more information, I was even more surprised to learn that “upwards of 1,400 or 2.3 per cent of their total membership belongs to the university community with members from the universities of Brock, Ottawa and Algoma.”

I just don’t get it. I’m thinking that my first rule of thumb would likely be, “If the organization name doesn’t represent me, maybe the organization is not for me.”

But then again, for how many years was I a member of the “Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents” when, as I’ve made very clear in the past, I’m not a parent? But in that case, I had a specific goal in mind that only the homeschooling community was actively working towards: breaking down the barriers of university entrance for students without a high school diploma.

At the time, every seedy tutoring company located over a bakery in a strip mall was applying for government accreditation so they could issue high school credits and cash in on the “credit shopping” craze. I wanted to go in the other direction. If students didn’t need a high school diploma for university entrance, then they didn’t have to fall victim to the whims of educational and pedagogical fads nor get sucked into the grade inflation race caused by easy access of marks for sale. They could “radically” choose a their own path (which ironically, was often more traditional than the school system itself!) and prepare themselves for university however they saw fit. This was my vision, and if I had to align myself with “strange bedfellows” to realize it, then so be it!

So, if we go with the assumption that the university staff is getting something out of the deal, or that some goal is being achieved . . . what is it? Are the universities concerned about the underprepared first year class and want to become more involved in what goes on at the secondary level? Do the universities want to show support for their secondary school counterparts, whom they think have a “tougher” job than they do? Do university profs want easier access to high school teaching jobs as an option, and think this might be a way around teacher certification?

I honestly don’t know what the arguments in favour of this alliance are. (In a cursory reading of a few websites, I’ve heard only the opposition speak.) If people vote in favour of it, there must be something in it for them. I’m all for people improving their own situation, I just hope this isn’t the beginning of the end of the separation of secondary and post-secondary.

I was a graduating senior during the York strike of ’97 where classes were pretty much canceled in February and never resumed. I was sympathetic to my professors, who could clearly articulate and stood behind the reasons for the strike. Fortunately I didn’t lose any credits, nor was I asked to “come back next year” to write any final exams (on my own dime) as happened to several others.

If my graduating year had been disrupted because my prof’s hands were forced by a striking OSSTF, I’m not sure I would have been so sympathetic.

Today is a day for families to discuss fun things like government, legislation and public representation.

As some of you know, neither Joe nor I have a driver’s license. This is partly a political statement, but just as much a part of our attempt to be financially responsible. A few cabs a year hardly adds up to the expense of owning a car full-time.

With the developing technologies on this front, we have both resolved not to get our licenses until we can purchase a 100% electric vehicle. This doesn’t mean that we will automatically get our licenses once this day arrives, nor are we necessarily chomping at the bit to do so. Given that we’ve gone this long with out a car, our driving needs are obviously few and far between and it may never be necessary or even “worth it” in our minds to get a car. But, if we do, it will be an electric one.

That’s why we watch the news on this front with great interest. Many of you may have seen the company that manufactures the Zenn car featured on the Rick Mercer show, or in other mainstream news. The short story is this: there’s a Canadian (Quebec) manufactured car that is only sold in the U.S. because our federal transport laws weren’t up with the times.

I say “were” because the publicity that the Zenn car received last fall prompted transport Canada to give the low-speed electric vehicle the stamp of approval. Now, that still didn’t mean you could actually purchase or drive it here, because some of our road laws are provincial. But, it was a step.

So, what’s all the fuss now? I just received an email notification today that Transport Canada is attempting to redefine “Low Speed Vehicles” so that now NONE of them will be allowed on the roads! They are trying to change the definition of a low speed vehicle from one that is allowed to operate on roads with posted speed limits of 50 km/h or less (meaning most of your city streets) to one that is only allowed to operate on essentially “private” roads: university campuses, parks military bases etc.

Since most of the electric cars now in production (or prototype) are meant to be small, casual driving vehicles to accomplish tasks such as grocery shopping and zipping around town, many of them are classified as low speed vehicles.

You don’t have to be an environmental activist to appreciate that low speed vehicles like the Zenn car (which actually exceeds mandated safety requirements, so that’s not the issue) on our city streets makes a lot of sense for everyone.

These cars take up less room on the streets and in parking lots, use no gas (conserving it for others who do need it) and are a symbol of our willingness to explore and accept alternatives as well as individuals’ right to choose how much (or how little) of a “car” they really need.

We know firsthand the huge effects that something as trivial as a definition can have on a situation. Remember when Ontario universities used to be funding based on the number of students who had acquired a high school diploma? Think about what happened when that funding definition was amended to include “or equivalent.”

Below is the email I received, and of course, I’d love it if others got involved in the cause and made their feelings known via the methods described at the end. It’s one I feel is worthy, and affects me personally. But, that’s not the only reason to participate.

I support several causes that don’t affect me personally because I feel it’s my responsibility to advocate for personal choice and freedoms.

I don’t have children, but I feel very strongly about homeschoolers’ right to choose their own education. If I do have children in the future, I would want the freedom to homeschool them to be available to me.

I don’t drive, but if I ever choose to do so, I would like the option of an electric car so that it can in theory be powered by any form of energy I choose.

That’s it. I have no ulterior motive, no veiled attempt to force everyone else to give up their cars. I simply hope that perhaps this issue can be a springboard for your family to discuss issues of legislation and governance. And if you feel so moved, participate in your government to increase the options available to us all.

Here’s the email I received:

Transport Canada is trying to ban the ZENN and other Low Speed Vehicles from public roads!

On December 22, 2007, only 50 days after granting the ZENN the National Safety Mark (clearing the way for ZENN to sell in the provinces that enact low-speed vehicle legislation) Transport Canada announced plans to REVISE THE DEFINITION OF LOW-SPEED VEHICLES.

The (paraphrased) existing Low-Speed Vehicle (LSV) definition is as follows:

“Low Speed Vehicles are designed for on road use, have a regulated top speed of 40 KPH and are restricted to roads with a posted speed limit of 50KPH.”

This type of vehicle is legal in more than 40 of the 50 States and throughout Europe, Asia and South America in mixed-use environments and has an exemplary safety record when operated in its defined operating environments!

The proposed revision to definition of Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs) is as follows:

“low-speed vehicle” means a vehicle, other than a restricted-use motorcycle or a vehicle imported temporarily for special purposes, that is designed for use primarily on streets and roads where access and the use of other classes of vehicles are controlled by law or agreement”

There are other recommendations, including the addition of small trucks to the definition and improvements for increased visibility of LSVs that ZENN Motor Company agrees are reasonable and we support.

Reference: Canada Gazette Vol. 141, No. 51 — December 22, 2007, Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Low-speed Vehicles)

What does this mean?
Essentially, the ZENN would be UNABLE to operate on 50 KPH and slower public roads such as downtown Victoria, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. The ZENN, and vehicles like it would be forced to only operate on closed, private roads such as parks, university campuses and military bases.

What are the consequences to such a revision?
§ The ZENN, and green vehicles like it will not enter the Canadian market
§ Consumer choice for alternative, zero emission green vehicles will remain limited to bicycles
§ Those provinces who wish to promote alternative forms of transportation (such as a Low-Speed Vehicle) will have to legislate in direct opposition to Transport Canada’s revised definition of limited on road use

Concerned? Outraged? Here’s what you can do:
All comments regarding the proposed changes must be submitted by February 20, 2008 to:

Matthew Coons, Senior Regulatory Development
Engineer, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Directorate, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C,
8th Floor, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
tel.:613-998-1961; e-mail: coonsm@tc.gc.ca

I came home to a small backlog of local newspapers, and have just finished writing a letter to the editor I thought I’d share with you.

The “offending” article concerned a local school who had discovered, a few days into hiring a new replacement teacher over the semester break, that the teacher had given a false certification number and was not in fact registered as a certified teacher.

Fine. I understand laws, regulations and such. And, contrary to most people’s opinions, I’m actually a pretty big stickler for them. (I simply believe in having as few as possible.)

But, the principal’s statement to the paper really irked me:

“So, it was kind of comical, but it’s serious all at the same time, because this person was in no way, shape or form, any kind of a teacher.”

I was going to add emphasis, but I don’t think my readership requires me to point out why I’m so disturbed.

Not that I expect this to be published in my local little paper, since I’m sure it’s not a community hot button issue, but this is what I was compelled to write:

re: Uncertified teacher discovered working at Ebb and Flow School

While I appreciate the unfortunate situation Principal Paul Monchka found himself in when he realized he’d hired a teacher under false pretenses, his statement, “. . . this person was in no way shape or form any kind of a teacher, ” clearly displays one of the serious flaws of our education system.

I suspect the tutors, piano teachers and driving instructors of this country (just to name a few) might take issue with that statement, not to mention the homeschooling community.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s fraudulent to claim certifications you clearly don’t have. Unfortunately, our school systems fail to recognize that our community has many “teachers” and reinforces the misguided notion that failing schools are the only sources of a meaningful education. We view “drop outs” as problems, instead of recognizing that some students simply need a different environment in which to thrive and develop their potential.

It is worth noting that in Ontario, teachers need not be certified in order to teach in private schools. This allows alternative options to flourish and attempts to meet a wider set of student needs.

Before moving to Dauphin this summer, I had 18 years of experience as mostly a high school/university math tutor (and owner of a successful tutoring business) in Toronto, but also as the co-founder/director of a private high school, as a guidance counselor and as a classroom teacher. I have no certification, but if you ask the thousands of students and families whose lives I touched, I’m pretty sure they will say I am in SOME “way shape or form” a “kind of a teacher.”

The latest brainchild to come out of post-secondary education circles (in the US) is a regulation that would limit the number of university courses a student is allowed to drop during their degree.

Let’s put aside for a moment my aversion to anyone telling you what you can or cannot choose to study, especially when you’ve already paid for it in the first place.

As the article points out, this becomes a logistical nightmare: there’s suddenly a whack of more information to keep track of, and they expect that this information will follow you from school to school.

Dropping courses has been the staple of academic advising for as long as I can remember. Not sure whether you can handle a full 5 courses? Sign up for them, and after the first month if it’s too much, drop one and pick it up over the summer. Lost a few weeks due to personal circumstances? Write off the semester (if you have to) and start fresh next term.

There are already deterrents in place for dropping courses like they’re going out of style, your transcript, for one. Academic probation is another.

Anyone who makes a career out of dropping classes isn’t going to be “scared straight” by this new regulation. But, the policy may just mess up the academic lives of those in need of flexibility.

Original article from the Dallas News: College officials say law capping dropped classes may hurt students

We could go on all day debating whether university has changed too much with the times and lost its academic orientation, or whether it’s not hip enough and ceases to be relevant to today’s youth.  Both can be easily argued . . . and therein lies the biggest problem: because “everyone goes to university” we have all kinds of diverse students, with diverse goals and expectations all trying to get different things out of the same institution.  Rybak describes five different motivations for attending university (all from a Canadian-Ontarian perspective, so it’s great not to have to mentally translate from the word “college”) and asks the key question: what makes us think that one university system can satisfy all of those  different needs?

As your child prepares for university, I’d encourage you to focus on the motivation behind this goal.  It could be one of Rybak’s five, a combination of one or more, or something entirely different.  But, knowing your own motivations, your children’s motivations and the motivations of the people with whom your child is likely to attend will help you gain a broader perspective of the Ontario university scene and help you prepare for your child’s own experiences.  This ain’t your parents’ university! 

McGuinty says studies show that 4-year-olds in full-time learning programs consistently score higher in math and language skills than other students.

If you measure it, they will come

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Yes, we can demonstrate that starting school earlier leads to measurably better performance in school, which may or may not have anything to do with actual academic achievement. The longer you play a game, the better you become at that game. I played a lot of “Frogger” as a kid, but any one who knows me personally can attest to the fact that I have an unexplained fear of crossing streets. Obviously, my skills at maneuvering a pixelated frog through traffic did nothing to bolster my own confidence in crossing the road.

The same can be said about starting kids in school earlier. Yes, they’ll get the hang of spelling tests earlier, perhaps. But, will they become better spellers, or just better at predicting which 10 words the teacher will use in Friday’s dictation? Will they become better readers, or will they learn to choose shorter books so that their list of books read becomes longer more quickly? Some kids easily learn these coping mechanisms, or “rules of the game” which can overshadow or even replace real learning.

More school hurting those who need it most?

Check out the latest offering by Kate Tennier and Helen Ward: More school isn’t always better – “The drive for full-time kindergarten is based on the idea that it’s better for children and necessary for parents — wrong on both counts.” This latest educational scam (which unfortunately was overshadowed in the last provincial election by the Conservative private school funding platform) is still years away from being a done deal.

More school isn’t better. And, that’s not just me talking. With a few hours to kill at the airport last night, I finally got around to reading, in its entirety, Homeschooling: From Extreme to the Mainstream. Contrary to the idea that public schools help level the playing field for the disadvantaged,

Surprisingly, several studies have found that home education may help eliminate the potential negative effects of certain socio-economic factors. . . Home education appears to mitigate the harmful effect of low parental education levels. That is, public schools seem to educate children of poorly educated parents worse than do the poorly educated parents themselves. One study found that students taught at home by mothers who had never finished high school scored a full 55 percentile points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels.

I think this is one of the most powerful messages of the report because homeschooling is often regarded as an option for the advantaged – either financially or academically. Much of the support for the public system rallies around the necessity to care for the disadvantaged. To be “the great equalizer.” But, it’s never been clearer that our schools are not doing that. And, more time in those schools is not going to do that, either.

As always, we are indebted to Kate, Helen and others who refuse to let us forget that politicians and bureaucrats continue to move forward with bad ideas unless they are stopped, and that we must remain vigilant in keeping the conversations alive. Thanks to them for keeping a very important issue in the public eye.

Don’t want to go it alone? Homeschool co-ops are a great option to consider. In a co-op, group activities, lessons and classes can be formed with different parents contributing their different skills to provide a comprehensive education to a group of students.

What’s the difference between this and school? Choice. You can choose to leave the group if it doesn’t work for you. You can pick and choose which “classes” or activities to join, and aren’t forced to sign up for “all or nothing.” The co-op can hire a specialty teacher, such as a French teacher, on a temporary or contract basis. If it doesn’t work out, it’s easy to make a change.

From this week’s Washington Times:

Teach your children well – - The Washington Times, America’s Newspaper (Printer Friendly/Text Only Version):

Ann Cameron Siegal said she was “nervous” to continue home-schooling her daughter past the eighth grade until she learned about such supplemental resources as co-ops, online or correspondence courses and community college classes.

In the past five years, more gyms, museums, public libraries and other community fixtures have begun to cater to the growing home-school contingent by offering afternoon programs and classes, said Mrs. Siegal, of Alexandria, who has home-schooled her 16-year-old daughter for nine years.

“I think people are realizing more the opportunities that are out there in their communities,” she said. “It’s out there now, where it wasn’t a number of years ago.”

And, just in case you missed this statistic when it first came out:

According to the National Association for College Admission Counseling, 52 percent of colleges in 2000 had a policy governing how to evaluate home-schooled applicants. By 2004, that number had risen to 83 percent.

Want to find or start a homeschool coop but don’t know how to get started? Contact your local O.F.T.P. representative, your local homeschool support group or post a comment here and find others who want to do the same.

Feel free to list your co-op here if you’re looking for new members or searching for someone with a particular talent to educate your group.

Recently, the Thomas B. Fordham foundation sponsored a study “Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate: Do they deserve Gold Star Status?” to compare the academic merits of the two programs, specifically comparing the Biology, English, Mathematics and History offerings of each.

The very act of comparing the two, however, requires some judgement calls: since the IB program requires all students to take a senior math course, there can be as many as six different “levels” of math courses offered by Ontario IB schools. Obviously, the content and goals of these courses will vary widely. Certainly, taking the highest of the “Higher Level” (HL) offerings provides a very different foundation than the lowest of the “Standard Level” (SL) courses. Similarly, there are two AP Calculus exams: AB is meant to cover a half-year college course, while AB is meant to cover the material found in a full-year, first year, American college calculus course. The study chose to compare the SL curriculum to the AB exam, citing the justification that both programs are for students not continuing in a heavily math-based university program.

The first problem I have with the comparison is that students who are not intending to study math (or math-related fields) in university have the option of avoiding AP Calculus altogether. Yet, every IB student must take at least SL level math to graduate with the IB diploma. It’s perhaps a little unfair to compare a voluntary, advanced credit course with a required, high school mathematics program, but the point of the study was to establish whether one or both programs really deserved the reputation as a stellar academic program. So, we’ll go with it for now.

Given that comparison, I couldn’t comprehend how the IB math program scored higher (B-) than the AP calculus (C+). One of my beefs after several years of tutoring students in the IB program is how students are “pushed through” advanced math topics. This is because senior math is required of all students, and quite frankly, not all students are suited to senior level studies in math. And, given that your final IB “score” is dependent solely on the mark from the IB exit exams, an IB SL program really lends itself to teaching to the test.

When you know, for example, that there will be only one exam question concerning derivatives, probably based on throwing something into the air, it’s not too difficult to teach the least talented of students a pattern-based answer that requires no real understanding of the math concepts. (Remember, I taught you in about 45 seconds how to do it here.) There are few 12 year olds who aren’t capable of mimicking these steps.

Today’s update to the story comes via Jay Matthews at the Washington Post in Professor Says Editors Altered Review of AP, IB Courses:

David Klein of California State University at Northridge posted on his university’s Web site his original assessments of AP Calculus AB and IB Mathematics SL, which showed he would have given a C+ to the AP course and a C- to the IB course. The final version of the report, released Nov. 14, raised the IB grade to a B-, contradicting Klein’s view that the AP course was better
. . .
Klein says he does not consider either the AP or IB courses the gold standard for high school math, although in his original report he said they had some strengths not found in mainstream high school programs.
. . .
Klein also says that many of what he considered his strongest points were deleted by the editors, particularly his view that overuse of calculators could interfere with students’ mastery of analytical skills and conceptual understanding. (The report can be seen at http://www.edexcellence.net.)

This, I get. I’ve long taken issue with how both of these programs overuse calculators and minimize manual calculations. The standard argument in favour of using calculators to remove computational barriers is this: the kids can then focus on anaylzing and higher level thinking skills.

The problem is, as any good math student knows, our real understanding of mathematical concepts comes from using the underlying math, not avoiding it.

If you don’t know what dance the numbers are doing, you can’t possibly make meaningful sense of the result.

This is one reason why the MDM4U course (Data Management) is so hard for so many kids. I remember studying statistics at university before computer programs were used for the number crunching. I needed to know, by hand and with no formula cheat sheet, how to compute things like standard deviations and correlation coefficients.

You couldn’t get through that course without seeing all the nitty gritty steps involved in arriving at your stats. More importantly, since you knew exactly what you did with all the numbers, you understood what they meant. In the Data Management course, however, many students are using calculators and computers to avoid the “trivial” act of actually calculating the statistics — as if that somehow weren’t part of the point.

Granted, arithmetic isn’t mathematics, but arithmetic is how most of us come to understand numbers. Take that away from students, and they’re making a whole bunch of advanced conclusions, based on very little understanding.

I’m not arguing that it’s perhaps more interesting for lower-ability math students to be able to answer questions about whether given data shows a particular trend or correlation. But, without the ability to do all the work by hand, or at the very least understand it, these students are never going to be in positions where they’ll get to do that kind of higher level mathematical anaysis anyway. So, what exactly is this really preparing them for?

It would be one thing if these programs made it very clear that they are shielding the kids from a lot of the real work. I’m all for a full-disclosure statement that informs the students there is a lot more involved in doing this stuff for real, and that they should use their interest/success in these courses to decide whether they want to actually study these concepts (properly!) in university.

But the problem, and the point of this study, is that these programs are often heralded as models of excellence in education. That’s not exactly consistent with the “warning — we’re taking out the “hard stuff” so you can work at a higher conceptual level” disclaimer that should accompany these courses, at least as far as mathematics is concerned.

Public misunderstanding of mathematics and mathematical literacy (I guess the educrats want us to use the phrase numeracy now) have created a real problem in mathematics education. Because so many people think that math is “hard to do” they don’t realize how easy it actually is to teach and learn math through memorization of procedures and ignore understanding altogether. Therefore, to look at the “hard” questions on an AP Calculus or IB math exam and to see kids answer them looks impressive. Memorizing the encyclopaedia sounds impressive, too. And it is, but it’s a feat of memory and not of understanding or appreciation of knowledge.

For homeschoolers, the choice between the two programs is simple. It’s simply not possible to participate in IB offerings without regular enrollment at a local high schools, so AP is your only option.

Is AP worth taking at all? Yes, for many reasons. But, do so with the understanding that the act of preparing for the exam is separate from the act of learning calculus.