Advanced Placement and American education: A Foucauldian analysis of the Advanced Placement Program of the college board

Advanced Placement is a series of courses and tests designed to determine mastery over introductory college material. It has become part of the American educational system. The changing conception of AP was examined using critical theory to determine what led to a view of continual success. The study utilized David Armstrong's variation of Michel Foucault's critical theory to construct an analytical framework. Black and Ubbes' data gathering techniques and Braun and Clark's data analysis were utilized as the analytical framework. Data included 1135 documents: 641 journal articles, 421 newspaper articles and 82 government documents. ^ The study revealed three historical ruptures correlated to three themes containing subthemes. The first rupture was the Sputnik launch in 1958. Its correlated theme was AP leading to school reform with subthemes of AP as reform for able students and AP's gaining of acceptance from secondary schools and higher education. The second rupture was the Nation at Risk report published in 1983. Its correlated theme was AP's shift in emphasis from the exam to the course with the subthemes of AP as a course, a shift in AP's target population, using AP courses to promote equity, and AP courses modifying curricula. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was the third rupture. Its correlated theme was AP as a means to narrow the achievement gap with the subthemes of AP as a college preparatory program and the shifting of AP to an open access program. ^ The themes revealed a perception that progressively integrated the program into American education. The AP program changed emphasis from tests to curriculum, and is seen as the nation's premier academic program to promote reform and prepare students for college. It has become a major source of income for the College Board. In effect, AP has become an agent of privatization, spurring other private entities into competition for government funding. The change and growth of the program over the past 57 years resulted in a deep integration into American education. As such the program remains an intrinsic part of the system and continues to evolve within American education. ^

Advanced Placement and American Education: A Foucauldian Analysis of the Advanced Placement Program of the College Board

Advanced Placement is a series of courses and tests designed to determine mastery over introductory college material. It has become part of the American educational system. The changing conception of AP was examined using critical theory to determine what led to a view of continual success. The study utilized David Armstrong’s variation of Michel Foucault’s critical theory to construct an analytical framework. Black and Ubbes’ data gathering techniques and Braun and Clark’s data analysis were utilized as the analytical framework. Data included 1135 documents: 641 journal articles, 421 newspaper articles and 82 government documents. The study revealed three historical ruptures correlated to three themes containing subthemes. The first rupture was the Sputnik launch in 1958. Its correlated theme was AP leading to school reform with subthemes of AP as reform for able students and AP’s gaining of acceptance from secondary schools and higher education. The second rupture was the Nation at Risk report published in 1983. Its correlated theme was AP’s shift in emphasis from the exam to the course with the subthemes of AP as a course, a shift in AP’s target population, using AP courses to promote equity, and AP courses modifying curricula. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was the third rupture. Its correlated theme was AP as a means to narrow the achievement gap with the subthemes of AP as a college preparatory program and the shifting of AP to an open access program. The themes revealed a perception that progressively integrated the program into American education. The AP program changed emphasis from tests to curriculum, and is seen as the nation’s premier academic program to promote reform and prepare students for college. It has become a major source of income for the College Board. In effect, AP has become an agent of privatization, spurring other private entities into competition for government funding. The change and growth of the program over the past 57 years resulted in a deep integration into American education. As such the program remains an intrinsic part of the system and continues to evolve within American education.

A comparison of the teacher efficacy and performance of traditionally and alternatively certified first -year teachers

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and performance evaluations of alternatively certified first-year teachers to traditionally certified first-year teachers. The participants were 25 first-year teachers in the Broward County Public School District (FL) who completed the Transition to Teaching alternative certification program and a comparison group of 32 first-year teachers in the same school district who completed a traditional university teacher preparation program. ^ The study was a mixed methods design (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The quantitative data were collected during the 2002–2003 school year using the Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) and the Florida Performance Measurement System formative and summative instruments. The qualitative data consisted of focus group interviews that were conducted at the end of the 2002–2003 school year. ^ Data were analyzed using independent samples t tests to compare the means of the two populations on their efficacy scores and performance evaluations. Paired samples t tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to compare the efficacy scores for each certification type at the beginning of the school year to the efficacy scores at the end of the school year. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the change in the efficacy scores of the teachers from the beginning of the school year to the end of the school year. Focus group interviews were conducted and transcribed, and the content was analyzed and categorized based on the four sources of self-efficacy described by Bandura (1986, 1997). ^ The results of this study revealed that no statistically significant differences existed between the two groups of teachers in their teacher efficacy or performance evaluations and that they reported similar sources of their efficacy. These findings add to the research base that supports alternative certification as a viable and effective pathway into teaching. ^