My syllabus was rejected . . . and I used Code.org's


#1

I used Code’s syllabus and was sent this rejection letter. What do I do?

I’ve pasted the entire email as reference.
“”"

From: AP Course Audit [mailto:no-reply@epiconline.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:41 PM
To: Kowshik, Manoj M
Subject: AP Course Audit - Request for Additional Computer Science Principles Course Information

This is an automatic email that does not accept email replies. The message below is located in your AP Course Audit account’s Communication Center. For more information, or to respond to this message, please sign into your account at http://www.collegeboard.org/apcourseaudit and use the Communication Center link located on your Status page.
Dear Manoj Kowshik:
Thank you for submitting your AP Computer Science Principles syllabus for Sam Houston Math Science and Technology Center as part of the 2016 - 2017 AP Course Audit. Unfortunately, we need some additional information from you in order to authorize your course.
Two expert reviewers have examined your syllabus independently and were unable to confirm that it included clear, explicit evidence of one or more of the scoring components within the curricular requirements. Given the relative complexity of a course syllabus and the variety of ways each requirement or its components can be fulfilled, the reviewers may have interpreted your syllabus somewhat differently than you had intended. In order to move quickly to a resolution and authorize your course, we need you to address the specific scoring component(s) identified below and then resubmit your revised syllabus for further review.
Component 1a: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P1: Connecting Computing.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P1: Connecting Computing. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P1].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within “Security and Hacking” addresses Computational Thinking Practice 1 Connecting Computing, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P1] learning objective (LO 3.2.1, LO 4.2.1, LO 4.2.2, LO 4.2.3, LO 5.5.1, LO 6.3.1, LO 7.2.1, LO 7.4.1, LO 7.5.1), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 7.4.1 [P1].
Component 1b: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P2: Creating Computational Artifacts.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P2: Creating Computational Artifacts. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P2].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within Digital Scene Design addresses Computational Thinking Practice 2 Creating Computational Artifacts, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P2] learning objective (LO 1.1.1, LO 1.2.1, LO 1.2.2, LO 1.2.3, LO 1.3.1, LO 2.2.1, LO 4.1.1, LO 5.1.1, LO 5.1.2), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 1.1.1 [P2].
Component 1c: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P3: Abstracting.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P3: Abstracting. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P3].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within Encode a Complex Thing addresses Computational Thinking Practice 3 Abstracting, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P3] learning objective (LO 2.1.1, LO 2.2.2, LO 2.2.3, LO 2.3.1, LO 2.3.2, LO 3.2.2, LO 5.2.1, LO 5.3.1, LO 6.1.1), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 2.1.1 [P3].
Component 1d: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P4: Analyzing Problems and Artifacts.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P4: Analyzing Problems and Artifacts. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P4].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within Make a Web App addresses Computational Thinking Practice 4 Analyzing Problems and Artifacts, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P4] learning objective (LO 1.2.5, LO 3.1.1, LO 3.3.1, LO 4.2.4, LO 5.4.1, LO 6.2.2, LO 7.1.1, LO 7.1.2, LO 7.3.1), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 3.3.1 [P4].
Component 1e: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P5: Communicating (both orally and written).

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one written assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P5: Communicating. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P5].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within Security and Hacking addresses Computational Thinking Practice 5 Communicating, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P5] learning objective (LO 2.1.2, LO 3.1.3, LO 4.1.2, LO 6.2.1, LO 7.5.2), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 6.2.1 [P5].
Component 1f: Students are provided with opportunities to meet learning objectives connected to Computational Thinking Practice P6: Collaborating.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must briefly describe at least one assignment or activity that addresses Computational Thinking Practice P6: Collaborating. The Performance Tasks alone do not sufficiently meet this requirement.

Evaluation Guideline: Each assignment or activity must be labeled with a learning objective and the associated computational thinking practice [P6].

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: While an activity within Digital Scene Design addresses Computational Thinking Practice 6 Collaborating, and is adequately described, it needs to be labeled with a [P6] learning objective (LO 1.2.4, LO 3.1.2, LO 5.1.3), and be specifically paired with the associated computational thinking practice, such as LO 1.2.4 [P6].
Component 3: Students are provided the required amount of class time to complete the AP Through-Course Assessment Explore - Impact of Computing Innovations Performance Task.

Evaluation Guideline: The syllabus must explicitly state that students are provided with eight (8) hours of class time to complete the Explore Performance Task.

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: The syllabus mentions the Explore Performance Task, but does not specify that students are provided 8 hours or 480 minutes of class time to complete the Explore Performance Task.
Component 4: Students are provided the required amount of class time to complete the AP Through-Course Assessment Create - Applications from Ideas Performance Task.

Evaluation Guideline:
The syllabus must explicitly state that students are provided with twelve (12) hours of class time to complete the Create Performance Task.

Rating: Insufficient Evidence

Rationale: The syllabus mentions the Create Performance Task, but does not specify that students are provided 12 hours or 720 minutes of class time to complete the Create Performance Task.
What are my next steps?

  1. Review available AP curricular resources.
    There are several resources designed to support you as you make the requested modifications to your syllabus.
    • The Syllabus Development Guide is a subject-specific curricular resource that provides a detailed explanation of each scoring component, definitions of key terms, and samples of evidence which highlight the level of detail reviewers expect to see in a college-level syllabus.
    • Annotated Sample Syllabi are available that demonstrate the variety of ways teachers can fulfill the curricular requirements within the context of a syllabus.
  2. Resubmit your revised syllabus.
    When you have made the requested revisions to explicitly demonstrate how your course meets the scoring component(s) identified above, you can then resubmit your syllabus in its entirety following the instructions for resubmission included below.
    Deadline for Resubmission
    You are encouraged to resubmit your syllabus within two weeks of receipt of this email. Resubmission within this time will ensure that your course completes the review process and remains eligible for AP designation.
    Instructions for Resubmission
    To resubmit your syllabus, sign in to the AP Course Audit website and click the link on your Course Status page labeled “Resubmit Syllabus.” Please note: You do not need to resubmit the AP Course Audit form.
    What if my syllabus is identical to a syllabus previously approved for another instructor?
    In rare cases, identical syllabi that are submitted by different teachers and evaluated by different reviewers may receive different outcomes. Although there are valid reasons why this may occur, the AP Course Audit provides an easy to use process to ensure this does not happen. If you want to be certain you receive the same outcome of the approved syllabus, use the Claim Identical submission process.
    We appreciate your ongoing efforts to provide students with rigorous, college-level course work. The AP Course Audit is a means to validate and confirm this remarkable achievement, and we thank you for your participation.
    If you have questions regarding the AP Course Audit, please send us an email through your Communication Center by logging into your AP Course Audit account at http://www.collegeboard.org/apcourseaudit. Or, you may reach the AP Course Audit Helpline toll free at 877-APHELP-0 (274-3570); international users call 541-246-2500. The AP Course Audit Helpline is available to assist you Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET.
    Thank you again for your participation in the AP Course Audit.
    Sincerely,
    AP Course Audit
    Advanced Placement Program

#2

@mkowshik

Did you use the “Claim Identical” option where you use the ID number and upload a copy of the pre-approved syllabus? The instructions are located here: https://code.org/educate/csp

Andrea