I ran texts from the AP Latin syllabus through Voyant Tools:
- 6,300 total words in length
- 2,800 forms (i.e. aberant + abest = 2)
- 1,100 meanings/lemmas (i.e. aberant + abest = 1 meaning of “awayness”)*
Based on the research of Paul Nation (2000), 98% of vocabulary must be understood in order to just…read…a text. According to Nation’s research, then, Latin students must understand about 1,080 words in order to read the AP syllabus texts.
There’s a catch. That 1,080 figure represents the exact words from the AP texts that students must understand, which is a lot. To put that into perspective, it’s been reported that students reasonably acquire ~175 Latin words per year, for a total of something more like 750 by the end of four high school years. Needless to say, there’s a low chance that all 750 would be included in the specific 1,080 needed to read Latin on the AP, and that varies from learner to learner. Even if they were the exact words, though, 750 is still only a text coverage of 68% understandable at best. This is far below Nation’s research. We know that reading starts to get very cumbersome below 80%. This is just one reason why no student can actually read AP Latin. Oh wait…
****Those figures are just for Caesar****
I ran the Virgil passages through Voyant tools as well:
- 5,400 total words in length
- 3,200 forms
- 1,500 meanings/lemmas
Despite being shorter in length, Virgil uses 14% more forms and 30% more meanings/lemmas. Since students read both authors, though, I combined everything into Voyant Tools once again to see what students are really expected to understand:
- 11,700 total words in length
- 5,700 forms
- 2,600 total meanings/lemmas
- 370 meanings/lemmas in common between both authors
That’s a lot of Latin, a lot of forms, and a lot of words (and only 14% in common between the two authors). Again, based on Paul Nation’s research, students must understand 2,540 words—exactly the ones appearing in the texts—to be able read the AP Latin syllabus.** With about 750 words acquired by the end of year four, that would be just 30% understandable text coverage at best (if all acquired 750 are found in the AP texts). This is exceptionally low. N.B. AP syllabus reading begins at the start of the fourth year. By that time, students likely understand just 600 words, which is a text coverage of 24%.
“Yeah, but AP stands for Advanced Placement.”
It could be argued that AP courses are intended for the academic elite, and not “typical” learners. Assuming an “advanced learner” can acquire twice as many words, though, which is a big assumption, that only results in 60% understandable text coverage. That’s still nowhere near a readable level. Clearly, students aren’t actually reading Latin on the AP syllabus. If not reading Latin, though, what is being measured on exam itself?
Before that’s addressed, it should be noted that the AP Latin syllabus actually has required readings in English, too. These are translations of the Caesar and Virgil passages in Latin, only entire chapters, not just excerpts. That preparation amounts to 32,300 total English words in length, which not only is translated Latin literature written at the Distinguished Level, but also unfamiliar references from the distant past. That is, it’s been observed that a test on the content of Caesar and Virgil, entirely in English, would be quite challenging on its own, and that’s in a language students know well. But this analysis has been on the AP syllabus reading list. Considering the scope, there should be a decent amount of Latin on the AP Latin exam, right? It turns out there just isn’t that much on the exam.
As for the exam itself, students are assessed on a variety of skills and knowledge. However, actually reading Latin is a very small part of the exam. In the sample exam, there were perhaps five actual reading comprehension questions in the first section, and another four in the second section. Given other online samples and reports from various teachers, the actual Latin passages amount to something like 600 total words in length. To put that into perspective, that’s 5% of the AP syllabus in Latin, and if you include the required English translations, that’s close to 1% of the total course content. Note, too, how this analysis is simply addressing comprehension—step zero—let alone additional cultural competence needed to compare, contrast, and analyze the Latin texts.
So, for years now, I’ve heard how the Latin on the AP exam is written at the same Distinguished level as the English on its own Lit & Comp AP exam. That’s enough bad news. However, I had no idea that the scope of the AP syllabus was beyond research and reason, and ultimately doesn’t really focus on the supposed universal goal of teachers: reading Latin. At an anecdotal level, this analysis certainly confirms stories from teachers moving towards a more comprehension-based and communicative language teaching (CCLT) approach who also offer AP Latin. Such teachers report that despite increased enrollment filled with students reading more Latin at higher levels of comprehension, they aren’t necessarily doing well on the AP Latin exam. That is, by all other accounts, these Latin programs are thriving, but that success isn’t represented by AP exam scores. Of course, it’s clearer now that the AP Latin exam doesn’t really measure reading comprehension (for that, try ALIRA, or just hold a discussion).
But The College Board has built its machine, convincing universities and high schools that the test scores are valid measurements of valued skills. There’s a lot at stake here, too. People have published support materials for exam prep, which means there’s money. Big money. Districts pay for teacher training, and for students to take the exams. Big money. Perhaps the most disappointing result is backwards designing a Latin program’s curricula to begin teaching AP content an entire year earlier due to the scope, as well as denying a Latin experience when AP is the capstone (here, meaning the final course offered in high school, i.e. lack of a non-AP track). This, essentially, amounts to “weeding out” typical students despite what research says about realistic expectations of appropriate reading level.
So, working around that AP machine, or even tearing it down, is tricky. Like I wrote in Why Your Language Teacher Failed You, for now we’ll have to wait until teachers challenge the status quo. Not a very easy thing to do.
*This is the lowest possible figure, and best scenario. The reality is that many, many forms of esse, quisque, and other pronouns appear throughout. Words with different stems can be less-recognizable to complyetly unrecognizable (e.g. est vs. fuērunt), and likely should be considered two different meanings. However, for consistency, these were counted as one (1).
**The reality is probably much worse. For example, a student who can’t recognize all stems and inflections starts moving towards not understanding the combined figure of 5,700 different word forms.
***I reviewed thousands of word forms—6,124 in fact. I’m sure I miscounted at some point, and I’m sure there were typos in the original Latin texts I used. For this analysis, then, I actually rounded almost every figure down to the nearest 100! Still, even with potentially hundreds of mistakes not accounted for, the situation remains grim. What you’re looking at is a very forgiving and favorable outcome of what’s probably much worse.