Equitable excellence

The Advanced Placement United States History course has long been considered as one of the most difficult high school history courses (Rothschild, 1999). Because of its reputation, school leaders have generally only selected the few most academically successful students to take A.P. U.S. History. Historically, however, these few students have also generally come from wealthy backgrounds (Rothschild, 1999). In the last 30 years, however, due to the efforts of the College Board, the Federal Government and other grant agencies, the participation rate of low-income students in the A.P. U.S. History class and exam has increased (Casement, 2003). However, while more low-income students are taking the A.P. U.S. History course, the evidence suggests that few are passing the exam (A. Wiley, 2005). Yet, there are a few teachers, who teach substantial numbers of low-income students, who have found that their low-income students generally pass the exam, year after year. In this comparative case study, I examined the practice of two such A.P. U.S. History teachers for whom, over a 3-year period (2004-6), their classes have on average consisted of at least 25% low-income students and on average at least 60% of those low-income students have passed the A.P. U.S. History Exam. I studied the practice of these teachers through the use of student interview, teacher interview, classroom observation, anonymous student survey, and document analysis. While the two teachers had much variety in their practice, they had 11 common practices which were: (a) utilizing primary sources; (b) questioning; (c) providing numerous writing opportunities; (d) using lecture replete with "terms;" (e) utilizing group work; (f) encouraging student engagement; (g) providing a welcoming atmosphere; (h) providing test preparation; (i) utilizing the textbook; (j) requiring student independence; and (k) being responsive to students' needs. While this is just an exploratory study, the discovery of these common practices among teachers who have had similar success with low-income students in A.P. U.S. History suggests the need for further research on the efficacy of these practices for teaching challenging material to low-income students.