Did you take Physics in college? You might have had two options: College or University Physics. And, depending on the reader, your advisor probably pushed you into one particular class over the other. College physics is an algebra-based physics course for non-majors designed to introduce them to physics concepts. University Physics is a calculus-based physics course for majors designed to reinforce their calculus skills and prepare them for upper-division engineering courses. This is the "original" standard vs. honors distinction.
Honors classes today are social honors - designed to separate the "good" from the "bad" kids. In order to design Standard and PreAP Curriculums so that these courses are truly separate, I needed to establish a fundamental difference between the two courses. And it can't just be "the name."
Students sign up for PreAP/Honors courses for the distinction on their transcripts. They sign up with the thought that the honors class will prepare them for college, despite education reform standards calling for "common assessments" and "universal standards" that do nothing to support the classes. In all actuality, when a student selects the PreAP course, they should expect a fundamentally different course from the standard counterpart; that difference should not be based on socioeconomic status or gender or race, but rather on a carefully identified educational need.
Modern chemistry courses are NOT designed with this distinction. I argue that the “Honors” course gambit is a corrupt elitist club that is simply designed to keep “trouble-makers” out of the classes with the “good kids.” Because “good kids” tend to be based on who your parents are and not who the child is, we see segregation occurring. Meanwhile, we see students in “standard” courses with big aspirations who aren’t receiving the education they need to be successful. Perhaps that pre-med student didn’t score well on the ACT? Guess what! You want to know what they call the person who graduates last in their medical class? DOCTOR. Low test scores should not dictate a student’s future; that is the job of their will, determination, and perseverance. Just barely passing is still passing. (Such an argument can get me ready for a talk on standards based education, but I’ll save that for another soapbox.)
I argue that we should eradicate standard and honors and rather make two new distinctions based on job preparedness: pre-engineering/medical and consumer. Why this split? I don’t want to “gate keep” chemistry: I am a firm believer that ALL students should take a chemistry course (and a physics course) at some point in their high school career. However, for students who have identified paths to their success that do not involve a strict science background, do we REALLY need to stress these students with advanced math? Or, would a conceptual understanding of scientific laws and argumentation provide a more well-rounded citizen? Rather than drive away students with “chemistry is hard because MATH,” I argue that we should remove the barrier of algebra and make chemistry accessible and applicable to a student’s general career pursuits. And before we begin on the “do they REALLY know what they want to do after high school?” Yes, sophomores (the average age of introductory chemistry students) do know their career goals. Rather than belittle their plans, we should encourage these conversations and take them seriously!
The split between consumer and pre-engineering/med predicates on the idea of asking the student “what is your career goal” and then giving them the level of science that will meet their goal. Perhaps they are a traditional “honors” student who plans to start a bakery? They don’t need a high math course; they need to learn about the chemistry of baking (a fun anchor topic for stoichiometry). However, as tasty as this may be, an engineering student needs to be comfortable with the high data analysis of the design process. They need to focus on problem solving and engineering, where a consumer-based course needs to focus on application and argumentation. Thus, the divide: a low math, high-writing, high-marketing consumer course and a high math, mid-writing, and low-marketing engineering/med course.
Why include “medical” in the engineering class? Simple: chemistry is THE KILLER COURSE for med school. Making the split would allow time to add in units on Organic chemistry that would prepare the premed students while opening the engineering eyes to biomedical pursuits.
Also, for the sake of transcripts, NEITHER course should carry the “honors” or “advanced” label. If anything, heck, give them BOTH the honors label. Just vary the course material. I like the approach of AP Physics 1 vs. AP Physics C: P1 is a conceptual, algebra based course, generally for non-majors where as PC is a calculus based course generally for majors. Consider the same distinction in ALL science courses. Just label one as “majors” and one as “non-majors.” That’s how it’s gonna work in college anyways!
I identified the causal link for underperformance in my typical advanced chemistry course: a lack of mathematical prowess. Simply put, advanced chemistry requires advanced math. In a lab setting, most of the experimental results are quantified and require calculations. As you increase in the complexity of the chemical dilemma, you increase in the complexity of the math. Now, can some of these topics be discussed on a pure conceptual level? YES! However, this level of understanding does not fully prepare students for advanced collegiate pursuits in engineering or medicine. Removal of the math from advanced courses places students who NEED a heavy math backing at a disadvantage later in their academic pursuits.
But Linda - you make ask - what about those that struggle with math? If anything, this split provides students who are weak at math a stronger foothold in science as they conquer the math: rather than forcing them to take a struggling math course AND a struggling chemistry course (often called Math Part 2), the student can focus on increasing their math skills in a slower paced math course (such as a 2-year algebra course) and still enjoy chemistry. I’m not saying that the standard level chemistry course is math-free; numbers, shapes, patterns, and logical reasoning are all around us and the idea that you could have a “math-free” ANY course is preposterous. Mathematics is the foundation of all science, but algebra is not the only type of math. Rather, the consumer chemistry course will focus on scientific and numeric literacy and logical processes. The engineering/medical chemistry will focus on data analysis and advanced mathematical processes needed to be successful in a direct transfer to a university or advanced chemistry program.
Ideally, the first step would be dissolving any “honors” or “advanced” program in your school. Simply put, you need to radically destroy the past and accept that it was doing a major disservice to your students. Then, each course needs to look inward and say “what level of mastery is necessary for success?”
Take for instance English. If I’m going into chemistry, I don’t need Shakespeare.
As I type these words, an English major cries in agony and a literary aficionado gears up to duel my argument with their pen, but since they’re not in the room with me, I’m going to pretend I don’t hear their shrill cries of injustice.
I do, however, need technical reading skills, a skill I was woefully unprepared for in my English coursework from high school and undergrad. However, a journalism student or a pre-law student would need the skills that come from advanced literary analysis. So, I argue that the split would be: will you have a HIGH analysis or a LOW analysis of texts for your career? The same split comes for writing driven courses: will you have a HIGH free-form writing experience or will you have a LOW free-form writing experience? What about math? I would argue that this is the MOST corrupt “advance” class, because advanced math is just one year earlier. The only difference between “advanced” algebra 1 and standard algebra 1 is the age of the student. That can just be abolished and students can be placed in math courses based on their needs (though, I would argue that business/life math and statistics should replace Algebra 2 and PreCalc for the average student).
What will this split look like in this pacing? For consumer chemistry, the focus will be on citizen-science: how to read a scientific report, how chemistry impacts our day to day lives, how to live life knowing chemistry. We will focus on skills that are related to the various non-chemistry majors, like business or law or acting. The class will look to build marketable skills that are universal, such as safety and the ability to work in a time constraint and report making. In the engineering/medical course, we will focus on (ready for this craziness) ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE! Yes, we will add some of that consumer knowledge as tips, but each unit will rather focus on medical and engineering problems. This will also prepare students directly for advanced placement courses; as such, there will be more material covered.
Will there be different material? Kinda. For instance, in Nuclear Chemistry, we will discuss nuclear impacts on modern life in consumer science, with emphasis on the clean nature of nuclear energy, the implication of science on war and ethics, the history of nuclear discovery, ect. In EM Chem, we will cover the process that was used to design nuclear power and medical impacts of nuclear science. In stoichiometry, we will discuss basic ratios in consumer science and talk about other ratios in the world; in eng/med, we need to discuss yield quantities, since this is a specific skill necessary in engineering. We will harp on unit conversions for premed since they NEED to know CCs per kilogram and other medical conversions, while emphasizing chart and graph skills in consumer chem, since these are used the most for marketing.
Is this previous list all encompassing? No. But, it’s a general idea of the distinction.
Will this solve everything? No. But, it's a general good place to start.