Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advanced Placement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland SD 1J launches districtwide review of AP access and outcomes after student complaint
Summary
District staff told the Policy Committee they will complete a mixed‑methods review of Advanced Placement (AP) offerings, alignment and barriers to access by the end of the academic year and recommended administrative steps including updated course guides and family outreach to improve transparency and equity.
Director Sullivan raised a student complaint about access to Advanced Placement (AP) classes and the Policy Committee asked district staff to conduct a systemwide review.
Chris Greider, director of CTA and IB, presented a memorandum summarizing current AP participation and results across the district and outlined next steps. Greider said the district’s average AP exam score is about 3.2 and staff found roughly a 17% increase in the share of students scoring a 3 or higher this year. He told the committee that “there is a sort of obvious racial disparity” in both participation and success rates and described work to map offerings and prerequisites school by school.
Greider said staff categorized AP subjects into three alignment levels — high, moderate and low — and gave AP English Literature and Composition as an example of high alignment (offered as core credit across all high schools with similar prerequisites) and AP Physics as an example of low alignment (varying grade levels, credits and prerequisites across schools). He said the initial complaint, from a ninth‑grade student who found inconsistent course‑load rules on the district website, prompted the broader review.
The memo and Greider’s presentation propose mixed‑methods research: qualitative stakeholder interviews and focus groups overlaid with quantitative participation and performance data. Greider listed five guiding questions to structure the work: what technical access to AP looks like; how courses should be aligned across schools; what barriers limit participation; what systems and supports improve success; and what the district’s vision should be for advanced coursework. He said the goal is to finish the review by the end of this academic year.
Staff told the committee some possible outcomes: an administrative directive, updates to the district course guides to make prerequisites and whether courses count as core or selective consistent across schools, and a family outreach and communications plan to improve transparency about AP opportunities. Greider emphasized that addressing inequitable outcomes will require supports beyond course‑catalog changes, including professional development.
Board members asked staff to include International Baccalaureate (IB) and dual‑credit programs in the review where relevant, to examine school‑level practices that raise participation (advising structures and school culture), and to report back with data about which students enroll versus which students actually sit for exams. Committee members and staff agreed to return with additional details and data at a future meeting.
Votes at a glance: no formal committee motion was recorded to adopt policy at this meeting; staff were directed to continue the review and return with further information.
Ending: Staff said they will provide the guiding questions document, school‑by‑school participation and exam data, and a timeline for stakeholder engagement. The committee asked staff to consider examples in the district where AP or similar advanced coursework is integrated as core so that participation is not exclusive.
