<p>In our district, the accelerated students, either 1 year or 2 years accelerated, get Algebra I/Algebra II/Geometry; while the grade level kids get Algebra I/Geometry/Algebra II. I was told it was to make sure that the “grade level” students had a full year of geometry before SATs. If they took Geometry as juniors they wouldn’t complete the course when they are taking spring SATs.</p>
<p>^ That logic does not apply in our case, as Geometry is taught in 8th grade to advanced level and Alg. II in 9th. Unless they keep that sequence for everyone because of the lowest level track.</p>
<p>Do any public schools offer multivariable calculus or is this a class only offered in private schools?</p>
<p>Yes, there are some public high schools that offer multivariable calculus and beyond.
I took multivariable calculus in my senior year and I was not on the fast track.
(There were few sophomores and juniors in my multivariable calculus.)</p>
<p>There is a different world out there.</p>
<p>^ No need for pretension.</p>
<p>alh #154–re “being asleep,” I was just suggesting that my lengthy opinions might have become a bit boring :)</p>
<p>Quite a lot in math depends on the quality of the teacher, and the type of work required (well thought out, or not). I think eastcoast101’s story illustrates the kind of problems that can arise when a student is just slightly mis-matched to the level of the course–lots of gear-shifting, resulting in discouragement, when the person could actually be quite good at mathematics. davidthefat’s story, I think, illustrates problems that can be caused when a teacher insists on excessive repetition, via homework, of problems that a student doesn’t need to do, in order to understand the material. (More boys than girls are probably derailed in this way, but not exclusively so.)</p>
<p>Wise use of the student’s time is an issue. As I mentioned up-thread, I think the difficulty is that students can approach a single work of literature at many different levels, and all benefit from reading it. It’s quite hard to design a single math assignment that accomplishes something for students at many different levels. </p>
<p>The ideal math curriculum would be individually tailored to each student, and spend the amount of time on each concept that the student needed (with a little extra impetus to actually learn some trig identities, for example, so that one doesn’t have to look them up every time–that can get to be very inefficient). Software has not reached this point yet, and I think that it will always be necessary to have interactions with a human math teacher, preferably in person–but I think that much more could be done with software.</p>
<p>Quantmech: I am never bored by your posts :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was startled when you mentioned this idea up-thread, but hesitated to object since I didn’t want to derail the thread. I agree that students can approach a single work of literature on many different levels, but forcing a student already very familiar with the work to listen to a too-simplistic interpretation/discussion while denying her/him the right to ask any questions, or bring up ideas, which are inevitably over the heads of classmates, and perhaps the teacher, seems to me not only a horrible waste of that student’s time but an experience that has the potential to turn the student off on literary studies entirely.</p>
<p>okay - I hope that doesn’t sound too snotty intellectual or ignorant or entitled 
But I strongly feel that opportunities for “acceleration” for some students are important across the board - not just in math/science. If we don’t want to take a chance on squashing their interests and abilities.</p>
<p>I agree that accelerated courses in literature and history would also be great, when they can be offered. I appreciate the point about “enforced tedium” in the classes–but was just trying to contrast the case where there is still something in the assignment that could be beneficial for the student, vs. the case where there is nothing at all.</p>
<p>One major difference I see is that most students could go to their local library and, with the librarian’s help, access almost any work of literature, history, etc, pertinent literary criticism, or primary historical text, even if they had to utilize inter-library loan. I don’t see that the same student can walk into a library and find the math resources necessary to educate herself.</p>
<p>That is a problem imo</p>
<p>edit: Wouldn’t the type of self-paced math programs offered at TIP/CTY and at least used to be offered through Stanford (EPGY?) be appropriate for all students? My info on all these programs is really outdated and don’t know what they all do these days.</p>
<p>
texaspg, wouldn’t this option for calculus readiness from the UT site you linked suggest that having an AP Calc course with a score of at least 3 is not the only way to satisfy the requirements?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes … but an important part of learning to appreciate literature, or understand history, is interacting with the literary text or the historical source material. By that I mean responding to the material, then getting feedback on your response - writing a paper and having it critiqued, engaging in a class discussion, taking an exam and getting comments in response. That requires teachers.</p>
<p>Sylvan - It is still a conditional admission until you meet the criterion at graduation time. What if you fall sick on the day of AP exam and can’t take it?</p>
<p>Ohiomom - I would amend your statement to say MOST public middle schools in Texas do not offer Geometry.</p>
<p>I am also puzzled by the sequence Algebra I followed by Algebra II since Geometry usually comes between the two.</p>
<h1>170 annasdad, I agree with you that interacting is important but many middle/high school students will not have access to classes with appropriate class discussions and feedback. I think teachers are important, too, but when the teachers and classes aren’t available I have the sense that literature and history are easier to self-study than math and some areas of science.</h1>
<p>If all students had access to appropriate classes in all subjects that would be excellent. Since they don’t and the reality seems to me to be that they never will, self-study frequently seems to me the only realistic option. A library is a pretty democratic institution.</p>
<p>I am so sorry I always go off topic. I am just a very scatter-headed person.:(</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it actually be easier to find the math resources on a one-on-one basis, either via a virtual library or online program? </p>
<p>Reading difficult literature isn’t simply a matter of picking up a book and reading through but, as annasdad points out, an experience that is fully appreciated through discussion and guidance. I’d also argue that it requires peers as well as teachers. As alh observed, sitting through a class where classmates trudge–often unwillingly-- through basic texts can be truly awful for the person who has an entirely different breadth of understanding from which to draw and a far more sophisticated level of vocabulary and grammar. This notion that everyone can benefit from reading the same text is, in my opinion, a myth and yet it’s been used for years to justify removing differentiation in the humanities. There’s nothing in an assignment that’s of value to the student who has already completed the required reading, often years earlier, and who won’t gain any new insight based on the level of the non-differentiated class.</p>
<p>Reading “lit crit” on a particular work doesn’t entirely take the place of class discussion, but can be pretty illuminating? Peer discussion is nice but not absolutely necessary?</p>
<p>Writing instruction is a different discussion imho ymmv</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>That page lists a “Calculus Readiness Requirement” which can be fulfilled by one of the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ALEKS is apparently a course and test company: [ALEKS</a> – Assessment and Learning, K-12, Higher Education, Automated Tutor, Math](<a href=“http://www.aleks.com/]ALEKS”>http://www.aleks.com/)
Texas specific math placement test is here: [UT</a> ALEKS Math Assessment](<a href=“http://cns.utexas.edu/academics/placement/math-assessment]UT”>http://cns.utexas.edu/academics/placement/math-assessment)</p>
<p>The latter link says (emphasis added):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that at least one of the other ways of showing that you are calculus ready, IB Math SL score of 4, is treated by Texas as equivalent to [url=<a href=“http://www.ma.utexas.edu/academics/courses/syllabi/M305G.php]M305G[/url”>http://www.ma.utexas.edu/academics/courses/syllabi/M305G.php]M305G[/url</a>], which is a precalculus course.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the peer discussion. I actually think that discussion with similarly able and well read peers is the best instruction there is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like students start two grades ahead, but finish one grade ahead. Does not seem to make sense to slow-pace the best students at math.</p>
<p>When I went to high school, students one grade ahead in math started algebra 1 in 8th grade and finished calculus BC in 12th grade.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are probably some elite STEM magnet schools that offer it “natively”, and some others which offer it in a dual enrollment arrangement with a nearby college. Note that private high schools which offer it “natively” are not that common either. However, a student who completes calculus BC before senior year is probably better off taking post-calculus courses at a college or through dual enrollment anyway, so that the college that s/he attends later will accept the credit.</p>
<p>Ok, I will bite on the digression from the original thread here.
I am seriously concerned about the lack of opportunity for gifted history and literature students to accelerate!!! </p>
<p>First is the issue of “unfairness” in creating a weighted curriculum, in favor of advanced STEMers who can take serial courses and progress as quickly as they can find alternative courses, including during the summers. This unfairness destroys any arguments about tracking in English, Lit, History, etc. being politically incorrect.</p>
<p>Tracking in reading, writing, and humanities courses worked very well during my era. Kids were put into sections of similar students and learned as deeply as they could. What was advanced was the “depth”, not the breadth of the material. Kids who are gifted verbally need a chance to stimulate and challenge themselves. And, yes, Humanities need to be studied in a social environment, as they are about communication, persuasiveness, interpretation, life experiences.
Tracked sections produced very well-educated kids at all levels of talent. Everyone could do the basics: write well, spell, use and understand grammar, enjoy a good discussion about a book, read some tough stuff like Plato and Shakespeare, primary texts for History, etc. And the kids who were able to do more, did- because they were challenged by one another in the classroom, they wrote more complex papers based on original research, held debates in the classrooms, and so forth.
Nothing at all like this was available at any of the schools available to my Ds, from publics to privates to parochials to charters and magnets, all the way through HS!!!
My D’s were in purposefully mixed sections, and they often led the discussion and taught the others, and wrote the papers for their small groups, which gave the teachers a break, but I am not sure anyone benefited from this approach! (Don’t get me started on collaborative learning…)
The top of every academic area needs the opportunity to grow and develop! ALL these gifts should be regarded as treasures!!!</p>
<p>Our education in general is so confused about how to handle the differences in learning ability.
I say, accept that there are differences, and place kids in groups and sections that accommodate their levels. Assess at the start of the year, and re-assess half-way through the year .</p>
<p>My son was accelerated a year in math as part of the district’s GT program that started in 4th grade. Staying on that track, he had Calc BC as a junior, an A- for the year and scored a 5 on the AP exam. He’s a solid math student, but not a math genius. This year he is in Calc III at the local CC and finding it very difficult. He’s spending nearly all of his homework time on that one class. He says his other high school friends who are taking it are having a similar experience. This CC does not exactly have the reputation of MIT, so I’m wondering if he has been ill-prepared, although he claims the teacher doesn’t explain things well. In further questioning of him about this, I’ve come to the conclusion that he has previously been “taught to the test” and is now expected to reason things out more on his own.</p>
<p>I also keep remembering an opinion I received from a math professor several years ago on a forum in which I was seeking advice about my daughter (who is gifted in math); he told me that K-12 math instruction in this country is abysmal, even in the “best” schools, and that if I had any hope of her realizing her potential in math, I would need to take charge of her education. I’ve lost his original messages, but recalling from memory, I believe his primary complaint was with methodology and training of math teachers. He said teachers in the U.S. are trained to impart knowledge to students, and for most subjects, this is fine, but for mathematics, a teacher must be a facilitator of investigation. He was also highly critical of the new math that at that time in favor in our district. </p>
<p>Anyway, I appreciate this thread and would like to read more as I’m lately faced with mapping out a new plan for D.</p>
<p>UCB - Not sure why you believe Math SL does not include Calculus? If that were the case, my kid could have taken it last year after precalc. The syllabus is showing Calculus.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.education.umd.edu/MathEd/conference/vbook/math.sl.08.pdf[/url]”>http://www.education.umd.edu/MathEd/conference/vbook/math.sl.08.pdf</a></p>