The Silence of Teachers Must Stop

Franchesca Warren Become a fan

 

LINK

The Deafening Silence of Teachers

Posted: 04/16/2014 10:18 am EDT Updated: 06/16/2014 5:59 am EDT
 

 

As Americans we have always been taught that one of the greatest things about being an American Citizen is that we are protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution. We pride ourselves with having the ability to speak without fear of retribution and to make sure if injustices are occurring, we have the ability to addressing them.

However somewhere between the United States Constitution and modern day education reform in America, teachers have lost their ability to speak up about injustices without fear of retribution. According to the Cornell School of Law:

Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

Despite the U.S. Constitution being a "living document," there are educators who are petrified of speaking out against the wrongs we are currently witnessing in education today. To demonstrate how freedom of speech is non existent in some schools, walk into any school and ask a teacher to go on record to discuss the ills in public education. Instead of getting an abundance of answers you will be met with a deafening silence. Silence not because teachers don't have an opinion, but silence because their words many times are used to hurt them professionally. Apparently, the first amendment does not apply to teachers.

As a pretty opinionated teacher, I am always full of ideas and speak out regularly against practices that are unjust or not beneficial to students. However, time and time again I have been "scolded" by more veteran teachers who warn me that being vocal would quickly get me "blackballed" in the district. This fact was even more evident when I was invited to a private screening of a new documentary entitled "Scapegoats." The film uses teacher interviews to examine how teachers have historically been made to be the scapegoats with anything bad that occurs in education. While I was in total agreement with what was being said in the document, I was dismayed that more than half of the teachers interviewed opted to have their face (and voices) distorted so their administration would not retaliate against them.

As I listened to teachers recall the atrocities that occur in public education, it was evident that these educational "pundits" and politicians have made it nearly impossible for teachers to exercise their first amendment rights. Teachers are terrified of voicing their opinions because many times it not only makes them a target but could possibly make them not get their contract renewed for the following year!

Instead of forgetting my feelings and just chalking the film up to that how things are, I got angry.

So in addition to falling wages and increased demands, teachers are now forced to hide our feelings? Why are we forced to secrecy in order to address the social ills we see daily in our schools? Are we telling falsehoods ? Of course not, but the truth is painful to hear and see. To admit that public education is failing at the hands of politicians and political pundits, then they would have to admit they are not the experts in education. Instead they would be forced to admit that the only way to improve public education is to allow the real experts speak about what they live everyday of their lives, the classroom teachers.

In any other profession, professionals are not retaliated against if they speak out about issues in their respective fields. If a physician remarks that more patients are coming in with Diabetes, no one tries to stop him from working in the hospital. If an attorney remarks that the amount of personal injury cases are quickly increasing, and gives strategies to help potential clients, they aren't "blackballed" from the profession. We are the only profession where the real experts, teachers, literally have no voice!

When I started The Educator's Room, I approached several teachers to write about their expertise from the classroom but many were scared that their principals would be upset if they wrote about anything that happened in their classroom. I was floored. When did it become okay for administrators, school boards and district offices to decide what OUR truths were?

The truth is hidden while the public is made to believe that lies are the truth. Truth be told, the majority of teachers loathe the increased standardized testing in schools. Truth be told, the people who make policies about education don't even have their kids enrolled in public schools. Truth be told, the people who run the school districts are usually not equipped with the pedagogy or experience to actually lead a classroom in 2013. Truth be told, federal programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are just programs to further destroy public education and allow private entities to take our tax dollars.

Now what do you think about that?

Despite the deafening silence, there are many educators who are getting angry and speaking up with no regard to the possible consequences. You have district administrators like John Kuhn who say "enough is enough" and write eloquent pieces like "Exhaustion of the American Teacher."

You have teachers who decided to make the film "The Inconvenient Truths Behind Waiting for Superman" and expose the policies that hurt our students.

You have the teachers in Chicago and Oregon that courageously decided to strike to ensure that their voices would be heard.

Times are changing, and I for one am glad. The truth is no longer being hidden by our deafening silence. There are more teacher in the world than people who might want to silence us. So speak, act, march, discuss and demand to be heard. Apparently, we might have the 14th Amendment on our side.

Follow Franchesca Warren on Twitter:

 

www.twitter.com/educatorsroom

How To Deal With Feedback

Smartblog

Leadership, Voice of the Educator

Practice what you preach

By Naphtali Hoff on November 6th, 2014 | Comment on this post

 

As a teacher, you are used to giving lots of feedback. Returned tests and papers, notes home, conferences, faculty meetings and the like all provide us with ample opportunity to share our thoughts about such things as student performance, programming and other school-related matters.

However, you will certainly also be the recipient of much comment, from your supervisors, parents, students, colleagues or some other school constituents. While much of that will likely be positive and affirming, a portion of it may not be. Their words may focus in on your teaching style, specific actions or comments of yours, your attitudes or some combination thereof. Even if the remark was delivered with constructive intent, you may resent the message or even become unsettled by it. Perhaps you may seek to get back at them in some way.

This is normal. Some may call it natural or even healthy. But as someone who has received his fair share of criticism over the years, my suggestion is that you get what you can from the comments and use them to your advantage.

When we think of retribution or even simply hold onto fear or animosity, we allow ourselves to remain stuck, and we focus on events that have already occurred. The best way forward is to be future thinking, and to see how we can make today and every day the very best and most productive yet in our careers.

Almost every critique can teach us something powerful about ourselves. When an attribute or behavior is singled out, let me assure you that there’s at least some kernel of truth in what’s being said. Doing something about that issue, including finding out what’s concerning people and taking steps to improve in that area, will serve you long into the future.

It’s also important that we practice what we preach. If we wish to be heard when we share feedback to our constituents, we should be open and willing to hear what others have to say about our performance.

Remember, at the end of the day, it’s all about the children. That’s why we chose this field instead of any other. We should be prepared to do whatever we can to give the children the best possible learning experience.

The next time someone approaches you with some unwanted feedback consider doing the following:

1. Listen well. Hear them out without interruption. Then mirror back what you heard for clarification. If there is something that you disagree with, hold it until the end. This way you validate them and open further lines of communication. It’s always best for the concern to come directly to you rather than to others.
2. Respond carefully. Try to avoid sounding defensive. Leave your ego to the side and accept warranted concerns as well as viable advice. If you are unsure about the validity of feedback or what to do with it, ask for time to respond. Make sure to get back to the other party in a timely fashion and with a real game plan (see below). Ask for feedback about the plan.
3. Thank them. Let them know that you appreciate the fact that they brought this matter to you and didn’t go around you. They easily could have; it would have been less risky and more comfortable. Let them know that you appreciate this growth opportunity that they have given you.
4. Seek more feedback. Chances are that others also have opinions about the matter at hand. Seek out people whose opinion you trust and try to gauge the broader truth. Just how widespread is this concern?
5. Do something. This may be the hardest part. No one likes to change, especially if we already have a plan in place and are well along in its execution. Seek to identify, alone or with a trusted confidant or coach, a set of actions that can help you grow as a leader. Then make sure to get back with the concerned party about what you have decided so that they feel validated and also do not add more grist to the mill.

We all want to hear that we’re doing well. Feedback is the breakfast of champions and positive comments can really put wind behind our sails. Constructive comments can also help us advance, sometimes even more than affirming ones. Regardless of the nature of the feedback that you received, be sure to make good use of it, so that you can become the very best professional possible.

Naphtali Hoff (@impactfulcoach) served as an educator and school administrator for over 15 years before becoming an executive coach and consultant. Read his blog at impactfulcoaching.com/blog.

If you enjoyed this article, join SmartBrief’s email list for more stories about education. We offer newsletters covering educational leadership, special education and more.

Dr. Patsy Perkins Wins Her U-Rating Appeal To The Supreme Court (April, 2014)

 PERKINS v. NYC DEPT. OF EDUC.110148/11
43 Misc.3d 903 (2014),
984 N.Y.S.2d 864
2014 NY Slip Op 24121

PATSY PERKINS, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent.

 Supreme Court, New York County.
Decided April 30, 2014.
 [43 Misc.3d 904]
 Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City, for respondent.

 OPINION OF THE COURT

 SHLOMO S. HAGLER, J.

 Petitioner Patsy Perkins (Dr. Perkins or petitioner) moved by notice of petition and verified petition seeking to vacate and annul her unsatisfactory ratings for the academic school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 issued by respondent New York City Department of Education (DOE or respondent). Respondent interposed a verified answer and opposed the verified petition.

 BACKGROUND

 Dr. Perkins has been employed with the DOE since 1994. On or about June 12, 2000, the DOE appointed petitioner as an assistant principal. In or about August 2007, Dr. Perkins was assigned to M.S. 232 in the Bronx, New York as a tenured assistant principal of mathematics and science. For school year 2008-2009, principal Neifi Acosta at M.S. 232 completed the requisite "Pedagogical Supervisory Personnel Report" (annual review) dated June 19, 2009 and petitioner received an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. Principal Acosta did not complete the section of documentation in the annual review. (Exhibit A to the verified petition.) On or about June 22, 2010, principal Acosta gave petitioner a second unsatisfactory rating for school year 2009-2010. (Exhibit B to the verified petition.)

 Petitioner filed for review or appeal of both unsatisfactory ratings and a hearing was conducted on November 10, 2010. (Exhibit U to the verified answer.) At the hearing, petitioner objected that respondent failed to send documents for the hearing to the Office of Appeals and Reviews (OAR) in a timely manner. More significantly, petitioner was not furnished with documents that principal Acosta utilized to support the unsatisfactory ratings until the day of the hearing. In addition, petitioner also objected that principal Acosta failed to indicate in the rating sheet which "areas of service in Section B, Document 1.7 were deemed unsatisfactory ... and the key to documentation has been left blank." (Exhibit V to the verified answer.) All of the above objections were denied. (Id.)

 At the hearing, respondent heavily relied upon documentation to support the unsatisfactory ratings. With regard to the first unsatisfactory rating, respondent primarily relied upon three letters, one dated May 19, 2009 and two dated June 2, 2009. (Exhibits D, G, and J to the verified answer.) As for the second unsatisfactory rating, respondent submitted four letters dated March 23, 2010, April 12, 2010, June 9, 2010 and June 16, 2010. (Exhibits O, P, Q and R to the verified answer.) In two undated findings, the chair recommended that petitioner's appeal should be denied and the unsatisfactory ratings should be sustained. (Exhibits V and W to the verified answer.)     [43 Misc.3d 905]

In letters dated August 11, 2011 and May 2, 2011, the Chancellor's designee, Senior Deputy Chancellor Shael Polakow-Suransky, denied petitioner's appeals and sustained both unsatisfactory ratings. (Exhibits X and Y to the verified answer.)

 Thereafter, in or about September 2011, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the unsatisfactory ratings for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. In or about January 2012, respondent interposed a verified answer to the verified petition.

 DISCUSSION

 STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDINGS

 The standard to review an administrative determination is set forth in CPLR 7803. The scope is limited to "whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed" (CPLR 7803 [3]). Thus, a court may not disturb an administrative determination unless there is no rational basis for it in the record or the determination is arbitrary or capricious (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222 [1974]). The arbitrary and capricious test relates to whether the administrative action should have been taken or is justified or if, conversely, the action is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts (id. at 231).

 DISTINCTION BETWEEN TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES AND VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS

 A hearing officer's determination as to the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference and is "largely unreviewable because the hearing officer observed the witnesses" (Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 A.D.3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]). Courts are generally reluctant to set aside administrative determinations due to technical deficiencies where the DOE fails to strictly comply with the procedures set forth in the rating handbook promulgated by the Chancellor (Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 89 A.D.3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2011]). However, where the deficiencies in the review process are not merely technical, "but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process," that would amount to a deprivation of a substantial right which is not waivable       [43 Misc.3d 906]
(Matter of Kolmel v City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 527, 529 [1st Dept 2011], citing Matter of Blaize v Klein, 68 A.D.3d 759 [2d Dept 2009], and Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 82 A.D.2d 832, 834 [2d Dept 1981]).

 ARGUMENTS

 Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to follow its own procedures in completing the annual reviews as well as in the appeal review process which deprived her of a substantial right to a fair hearing. Specifically, petitioner claims that principal Acosta failed to indicate in the rating sheet which areas of service were deemed unsatisfactory and omitted any documentation to support the unsatisfactory ratings. Moreover, petitioner claims that respondent failed to send documents for the hearing to the OAR in a timely manner and that she was not furnished with documents that principal Acosta utilized to support the unsatisfactory ratings until the day of the hearing in contravention of respondent's own rules. (Exhibit B to affirmation of Edward Wolf in support of petition, dated May 11, 2012 [Wolf affirmation], The Appeal Process, Section I, Article 2 [a], [b], [c].)

 Respondent argues that these alleged errors were mere technical deficiencies and the record supports the findings of the unsatisfactory ratings primarily relying upon Matter of Brown, which held that the failure to annex documentation to the annual review did not constitute a meaningful violation of lawful procedure.

 FAILURE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO HEARING UNDERMINED PROCESS

 While some confusion still lingers as to the proper standard to employ where the DOE fails to comply with the procedures set forth in the rating handbook or in the appeals process promulgated by the Chancellor, it appears that the appellate courts have overlooked mere technical deficiencies where there is other persuasive evidence in the record and it does not deprive the petitioner of a substantial right. It is also necessary to fully explain Matter of Brown, which does not stand for the proposition that every technical deficiency by the DOE must be overlooked. However, in Matter of Brown the First Department tolerated the DOE's failure to annex documentation to the annual review because there was other persuasive testimony in the record from the principal and the assistant principal who
[43 Misc.3d 907]
made "individual assessments ... based on their personal classroom observations" (89 AD3d at 487).

 In this case, it is uncontroverted that principal Acosta failed to complete the section of documentation on the annual reviews to support the unsatisfactory ratings in compliance with procedures promulgated by the Chancellor. This deficiency was compounded by the fact that the respondent failed to furnish petitioner with a complete set of documentation used by principal Acosta to support the reasons for the adverse ratings prior to the hearing on November 10, 2010. (Exhibit B to Wolf affirmation, The Appeal Process, Section I, Article 2 [a].) Unlike in Matter of Brown, the respondent here heavily relied on the total of seven letters that was not provided to petitioner prior to the hearing and just one observation report to support the unsatisfactory ratings. Based on the totality of the circumstances, it is apparent that the deficiencies in the review process were not merely technical "but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process," thus depriving petitioner of a substantial right which was not waivable. (Matter of Kolmel, 88 AD3d at 529.)

 CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged, that the petition is granted to the extent of annulling the unsatisfactory ratings for school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 and the matter remanded to respondent New York City Department of Education for further review consistent with this decision and order, and it is further ordered, that the clerk shall enter a judgment accordingly.

ADVOCATZ Collaborates With 2014 Super Lawyers at Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione and Wabnik LLP For 3020-a Defense

I am so happy to have one of the attorneys we work with on 3020-a Arbitration hearings, Ms. Debra Wabnik, awarded her second "Super Lawyer" Award.

ADVOCATZ provides a thorough, collaborative defense for Respondent teachers and other NYC Department of Education personnel who are charged with misconduct or incompetency and brought to "trial" pursuant to Education Law 3020-a.

Arbitration is not a Court of record. You do not have to be a lawyer to work in arbitration, nor to represent/assist at arbitration in New York State. Several arbitrators on the NYC 3020-a Panel are not attorneys and at least one is not licensed to practice in New York State. 

ADVOCATZ' purpose is to stop and vacate the judgment of "substantiated" false claims by investigating agencies - OSI, SCI, OEO - and defend the legal and contractual rights of all who are brought to grievances, mediation, arbitration, settlement and any other administrative hearing . We help people understand who the people are, what the process is, and how an individual victimized by false claims can defend him or herself in the compulsory arbitration known as 3020-a. If you have been re-assigned from your duties, have taken PIP+, are a probationary staff member discontinued from service for no Just Cause, believe you are a whistleblower retaliated against in violation of your rights to speak out as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, and/or any person who believes that he or she has been falsely accused of incompetency or misconduct, email founder and Director Betsy Combier at betsy.combier@gmail.com

Congratulations, Debra and Stagg Terenzi!!!

Betsy Combier

Stagg and Wabnik Selected as 2014 Super Lawyers,Kloter Named a Rising Star

Garden City, NY  - Thomas Stagg, managing partner, and Debra Wabnik, partner, of Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP have been named New York Metro Super Lawyers for 2014. Each year, less than five percent of all attorneys in the state are selected for this prestigious honor. 

"This is the third consecutive Super Lawyers rating for Tom and the second consecutive rating for Debra," notes partner Ronald Terenzi. "Their achievements are a testament to our firm's experience and expertise." Earlier this year, Tom received Corporate INTL's Global Award for Commercial Lawyer of the Year in New York and Debra was named one of Long Island Pulse Magazine's 2014 "Top Legal Eagles." 

Also rated by Super Lawyers this year was STCW associate Owen Kloter, who was selected for the Rising Stars list. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. "Owen's recognition as a Rising Star is a tribute to his dedication, talent and extraordinary work ethic, all of which help to strengthen us as a firm," said partner Lisa Confusione. "Owen's achievement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to maintaining the excellent legal reputation for which STCW is known."

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The multi-phased selection process includes a statewide survey, an independent research evaluation, and peer evaluations. The 2014 New York Metro Super Lawyers and New York Metro Rising Stars lists were published in a supplement to The New York Times, as well as the stand-alone New York Super Lawyers Magazine. 

A full-service law firm serving Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, municipalities, financial institutions and individuals, STCW practices in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Practice areas include commercial and general liability litigation, appeals, bankruptcy and creditors' rights, foreclosure, banking and consumer credit litigation, labor and employment, securities law, municipal law and real estate. The firm has achieved the highest peer review rating by LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell®, which rates legal ability and ethical standards; certain partners have earned "AV" Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings and have been included in New York Magazine's annual list of Top Rated Lawyers. 

Please contact Thomas Stagg at (516) 812-4500 or tstagg@stcwlaw.com, or visitwww.stcwlaw.com for further information. 

Great Neck Teacher Sheri Lederman Sues For Getting A Rating of "Ineffective"

Valarie Strauss

Answer Sheet

High-achieving teacher sues state over evaluation labeling her ‘ineffective’

By Valerie Strauss October 31 

 

Sheri G. Lederman has been teaching for 17 years as a fourth-grade teacher  in New York’s Great Neck Public School district. Her students consistently  outperform state averages on math and English standardized tests, and  Thomas Dolan, the superintendent of Great Neck schools, signed an affidavit saying “her record is flawless” and that “she is highly regarded as an educator.”

Sheri Lederman

Yet somehow, when Lederman received her 2013-14 evaluation, which is based in part on student standardized test scores, she was rated as “ineffective.” Now she has sued state officials over the method they used to make this determination in an action that could affect New York’s controversial teacher evaluation system.

How is it that a teacher known for excellence could be rated “ineffective”?

The convoluted statistical model that the state uses to evaluate how much a teacher “contributed” to students’ test scores awarded her only one out of 20 possible points. These ratings affect a teacher’s reputation and at some point are supposed to be used to determine a teacher’s pay and even job status.

The evaluation method, known as value-added modeling, or VAM, purports to be able to predict through a complicated computer model how students with similar characteristics are supposed to perform on the exams — and how much growth they are supposed to show over time — and then rate teachers on how much their students compare to the theoretical students. New York is just one of the many states where VAM is one of the chief components used to evaluate teachers.

If it sounds as if it doesn’t make a lot of sense, that’s because it doesn’t. Testing experts have for years now been warning school reformers that efforts to evaluate teachers using VAM are not reliable or valid. But reformers, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan, have embraced the method as a “data-driven” evaluation solution championed by some economists. Earlier this year, the American Statistical Association issued a report slamming the use of VAM for teacher evaluation, saying in part:

*VAMs are generally based on standardized test scores and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student outcomes.

*VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects – positive or negative – attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model.

 Lederman filed her lawsuit against New York State Education Commissioner John King Jr., Assistant Commissioner Candace H. Shyer and the Office of State Assessment of the New York State Education Department, challenging the rationality of the VAM model being used to evaluate her and, by extension, other teachers. The suit alleges that  the New York State Growth Measures “actually punishes excellence in education through a statistical black box which no rational educator or fact finder could see as fair, accurate or reliable.”

The lawsuit shows that Lederman’s students traditionally perform much higher on math and English Language Arts standardized tests than average fourth-grade classes in the state. In 2012-13, 68.75 percent of her students met or exceeded state standards in both English and math. She was labeled “effective” that year. In 2013-14, her students’ test results were very similar but she was rated “ineffective.”  The lawsuit says:

This simply makes no sense, both as a matter of statistics and as a matter of rating teachers based upon slight changes in student performance from year to year.

Superintendent Dolan supported Lederman, saying in an affidavit:

As superintendent of the GNPS, I have personally known Dr. Lederman for approximately 4 years. I have had the opportunity to meet with her personally. I have also reviewed her record of teaching, particularly the performance of her students on New York State assessment tests. I can personally attest that she is highly regarded as an educator by the administration of GNPS. Her classroom observations have consistently identified her as an exceptional educator. She is widely regarded in the GNPS as someone who brings out the best in her students. She has taught for seventeen (17) years in the GNPS and her record is flawless.

Sharon Fougner, the principal at  Elizabeth M. Baker Elementary School, where Lederman teaches, signed an affidavit saying that she believes the awarding of 1 out of 20 possible points to Lederman under VAM is”arbitrary and capricious” and agreed with Dolan that Lederman is an excellent teacher.

Still, the state of New York says she is “ineffective,” and offers a teacher no way to appeal the result.

The lawsuit will be worth watching because it is taking on the entire notion of VAM. If VAM were to fall in New York, more legal challenges would be likely in other states.

 (Correction: Earlier version said in one place that superintendent called Lederman an administrator. He didn’t. He called her an educator.)

 

How Do You Test For Art - What is the Right Way To Create or Design?

Art Portfolio as A.P. Test

By DANIEL GRANTOCT. 31, 2014

LINK

 

A.P. COURSE: Studio Art, 3-D Design
PORTFOLIO SECTION: "Concentration" (sustained investigation)
SECTION SCORE: 6
SCORE RATIONALE: Cohesive while incorporating sense of discovery. Sophisticated understanding of 3-D
design issues. Successful use of rhythm and repetition in placement of gears, turbines, wheels, windows. Absence of
color highlights texture. Gears, belts and turbines on outside of toys add visual, structural complexity. (Portfolio by
Shaw Sandback, Mount Carmel High School, Los Angeles)

 

Here is an unhappy thought: “Monet wouldn’t have done well in A.P. studio art. I’m sure of that.” The reason, continued Lauren Sleat, who teaches the course at Westminster Schools in Atlanta, is that there isn’t much breadth to his work. That is, he did the same thing again and again.

But he would have done well in terms of concentration, what the College Board describes as “the thoughtful investigation of a specific visual idea … through a number of conceptually related works.” Concentration and breadth are two of three categories in which students’ art portfolios are scored. One might expect Monet to score high in the third, quality, but the fact is, it took years for his work to be widely appreciated.

Now, Picasso is different. “Picasso would have scored very high,” Ms. Sleat said, because he could do traditional figurative work, modernist still life and abstract art in a variety of media — the whole package. Or, in College Board speak, Picasso would have earned a 5 on his portfolio.

It’s strange to picture famous artists struggling to get a good score in a high school art class. But unlike United States history or Latin or calculus, there are no right or wrong answers in Advanced Placement studio art. Students are tested not by their mastery of the material but by their skill, a far more subjective area of evaluation. “Readers” must make judgments about competence and inventiveness as they work their way through some 48,000 portfolios of student artwork. That’s more than double the number submitted a decade earlier.

 

Advanced Placement, run by the College Board, offers high school students college-level work, and the possibility of college credit for those who pass the exam in May. Studio art is one of the fastest growing of the A.P. disciplines, and has become a transcript staple in the applicant pool for Bachelor of Fine Arts programs at independent art colleges. “Maybe 25 to 30 percent of our applicants have done A.P. in high school,” said Linda Schwab, director of admissions at Watkins College of Art, Design and Film in Nashville.

A.P. COURSE: Studio Art, 2-D Design
PORTFOLIO SECTION: "Breadth"
SECTION SCORE: 5
SCORE RATIONALE: Variety of intentions and approaches. Successfully uses media and applies 2-D design principles, though at varying levels of accomplishment. Hand-drawn illustration, left, is strong; digital illustration, right, is good. In contrast, image at center is less engaging. (Portfolio by Lorelei Shannon, Spring Woods High School, Houston)

 

But the growth does not necessarily signal artistic aspirations. According to a 2007 survey by the College Board, only about 13 percent of the students major in art. So why take A.P. studio? To try to impress a college admissions office, of course, or perhaps to make a rest stop along the academic autobahn or, maybe, art really is a labor of love.

 

WHAT IS STUDIO ART, ANYWAY?

 

The art program comes in three yearlong options: drawing (which also encompasses painting and printmaking), 2-D design (graphic and digital design; photography) and 3-D design (sculpture and crafts).

Much is required. For drawing and 2-D portfolios, for example, students must submit 24 works: 12 in a breadth section, showing a variety of subjects, visual concepts and techniques, and 12 in the concentration section, presenting a unified body of work (all portraits, say) and ideas. Five works are highlighted as indications of quality, revealing understanding of concept, composition and execution and overall accomplishment.

 

As much as high school teachers will seek to give their students the rigor of a college class, time is a factor in A.P. courses that is difficult to get around. Studio art classes in college generally last two or three hours, sometimes longer, while high school art remains a 50-minute affair, with the last 10 minutes devoted to cleanup.

 

“You don’t get a lot done in class,” said Deborah Callahan, chairwoman of the art department of Longmeadow High School, in Massachusetts. “So twice a month, we keep the art room open from 2:15 to 8 p.m.” Several other A.P. art teachers relayed the same thing. Class time is for conversation — critiquing work, learning terms and concepts, watching presentations on contemporary art. The art, the portfolio, is made at home or after school.

 

Classroom grades reflect an instructor’s sense of a student’s effort and improvement, which the teacher sees on a daily basis. In contrast, the A.P. score — on a 1 to 6 scale for sections, recalibrated to 1 to 5 for the portfolio — is based on the end-of-year submissions to the College Board.

The Advanced Placement program in general has been criticized for its focus on a single test — likewise, studio art’s portfolio. “A.P. studio reveals some of the problems with how much we test,” said Jack Schneider, assistant professor of education at the College of the Holy Cross and author of “Excellence for All: How a New Breed of Reformers Is Transforming America’s Public Schools.”

“Slapping a score on a work of art, based on checking off this and this and this, is crazy,” he said. “Meeting all the requirements is not what makes a work of art move us.”

 

HOW A PORTFOLIO IS SCORED

 

The process of evaluating and scoring all those portfolios is monumental, requiring 120-plus readers — an even mix of high school and college art instructors who are divided into small groups that must reach a consensus. They follow a rubric that has been worked out over the years outlining principles of design and visual elements. In effect, is the artwork interesting and what are the elements that make it so? If not, what’s lacking? The rubric is intended to result in an objective assessment of artwork.

 

A.P. teachers need to know how to teach to that rubric. They need to speak the language — for instance, “composition” and “mark-making,” the lines, patterns and textures used to create an artwork. Greg W. Shelnutt, chairman of the art department at Clemson University in South Carolina and an A.P. reader for five years, explains what he looks at in judging mark-making: “how line is utilized, the weight of the line, where it is thin, where it’s thick, the movement of the line, the variety of marks.”

 

The teachers also need to know the difference between an artwork that earns a 4 or 5 or 6.

 

The continuing studies division of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago offers weeklong training workshops for A.P. teachers. Maybe half of them have art degrees, according to Kaye Buchman, former associate director of the division. “We’ve had the occasional shop or phys ed teacher who are told to teach A.P. studio,” she acknowledged. “That’s the nature of school budget cuts.”
 

The Taft Educational Center in Watertown, Conn., also offers optional A.P. training. Instructors may take a class to the nearby Yale Art Gallery “to see what makes certain paintings good,” said the center’s director, Al Reiff. They will point out how one student’s work compares to another’s. Perhaps, he suggested, “the composition is more complex — it draws your eye all over the image, while that student’s image is more flat.”

 

Barbara Petter Putnam, who has a bachelor’s in art education and a master’s in fine arts, teaches at St. Mark’s School in Massachusetts, where she prepared for her A.P. studio art class by looking at portfolios on the College Board website. “That taught me a lot about what was considered bad and what was considered good,” said Ms. Putnam. “I gained information through my own eyes.” The approach has worked. “There is the occasional 4, but almost all of my students get a 5,” she said.

While few of her 5s go on to B.F.A. programs, Trevor Packer, senior vice president in charge of Advanced Placement, pointed to a College Board survey finding: Students who take A.P. studio art are more likely to take an art course or two in college.
 

Ms. Putnam mentioned another benefit. With students stuffing five and six A. P.s into their schedule, offering an A.P. art class is the principal way “to get kids to make room in their schedules for art.”

“Otherwise,” she said, “they probably wouldn’t do it.”
 

Alina Libowitz, a first-year student at the University of Delaware with plans to major in either international business or speech language pathology, took A. P.s in English, European history and environmental science and found this: “Art was less stressful than my other classes.” A.P. studio, she said, was “a lot of work, but it doesn’t feel like work.”
 

Her classmate in studio art at Longmeadow High School, Madeline Maurer, took four A. P.s all told. She describes herself as competitive, and wanted the most challenging art course available. “I like to keep going up and up in levels.” Besides, she said, it was fun.
 

WHAT COLLEGES SAY

Art academies are receptive to the idea of A.P.-trained applicants. David Sigman, admissions director at the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design, said the courses “put students in line with what we are teaching here.” Elizabeth O’Brien, vice president of enrollment at the San Francisco Art Institute, said graduates who have taken A.P. art “tend to do a little better than others in their cohort.”
 

Traditional colleges don’t sniff at studio art, either. “We are very impressed with applicants who have taken that course,” said Mary French, associate director of admissions at Boston College.
 

Nat Smitobol, an admissions consultant for IvyWise and former assistant director of admissions at New York University, explains why that might be. He calls studio art “a soft A.P.,” adding: “But no one is penalized for taking it. It shows that a student is seriously interested in art.” (He names environmental science and human geography as soft A. P.s that are more apt to be viewed negatively. “Taking those sounds like you’re dodging A.P. chemistry or biology.”)

David Dickinson, an art teacher at Deerfield Academy, a preparatory school in Massachusetts, recommends that his students send their portfolios with their college applications even when not majoring in art. “A portfolio is a hook — it grabs their attention — in the same way that lacrosse is a hook at many colleges, or crew is a hook with the Ivies,” he said. “Seeing a portfolio thrills them.”

A.P. studio may help bolster an admissions résumé, but it can lack a benefit of many other A. P.s: Most colleges will not allow a student with a passing score (3, 4 or 5, depending on the institution) to skip a first-year core course, either because they have nothing comparable or, for art majors, they want all of them to take the same courses.

“It’s not just a skill set we’re teaching in foundation,” said Mr. Shelnutt about Clemson’s core courses. “They are getting inculcated into the culture of the program.” Instead, students may use any credit they receive for studio art toward an elective. But because most art majors want to take electives in their area of interest, it isn’t likely the credit will be used.

“A.P. courses are more a vehicle for college acceptance than credit,” confirmed Mr. Reiff, whose center trains instructors in all 35 A.P. disciplines. “They look good on your transcript.”

Then he added: “The question I keep asking is, does it make sense to bring that kind of mentality to the fine arts? Why not just offer more and better art classes in high school?”

Artwork is excerpted from portfolios used by the College Board as a guide for scoring, with students’ permission. Score rationale is excerpted.
Daniel Grant is author of “The Business of Being an Artist” and “The Fine Artist’s Career Guide.”