I agree. What’s your plan to ensure all students are eligible for accelerated, small-class size experiences for elementary and middle school students?
We have to do more than say, “don’t slow down for everyone.”
How do we open the accelerated experience to everyone?
If you were in a school with diversity in SES, the question is not whether any low SES students were admitted into the fast track. The question is how many? Equity is not achieved with 5% representation, but with equal opportunity.
I think there are a %age of students who very much benefit from accelerated math. However, accelerated math has taken on a life of its own. In many places, parents fight to get their kids in accelerated math whether this is a good move or not for their kid.
Old timers on this forum have heard this. Our second kid was recommended for accelerated math starting in 8th grade…so near the end of 7th was when the recommendation was made. We contacted the head of the middle school math department and asked him to give us a compelling reason why our kid should be accelerated. He hemmed and hawed…and really couldn’t give us one. This kid was a very conscientious student who was well behaved and did the work. She never gave the teachers any trouble. She was a good math student but she wasn’t a gifted math student. My husband is an engineer, and felt very strongly that a strong math foundation was more important for our kid than acceleration.
We declined the offer. We were the first parents ever to decline this offer they told us.
Fast forward. The kid took precalculus as a high school senior. She never took HS calculus. But she was an engineering major in college, and took plenty of higher level math there (and did very well).
For our kid, this was the right decision.
There absolutely are kids who benefit from accelerated math. But I think it’s a much smaller %age than the numbers actually enrolled in these programs.
SFUSD math tracks are shown here: High School Pathways . The standard and recommended tracking options are shown here:
Given the frequent postings here by students who are on the +2 (or even higher) tracks who feel like they are not that good at math (perhaps pushed ahead by tiger parents in middle school, or overly optimistic placement evaluation in middle school), this type of detracking is probably a reaction to those results as well as other issues with equity and inaccurate placement evaluation in middle school.
It is not clear how SFUSD handles the rare students who are so obviously really good at math that the appropriate placement is actually +2 or higher.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx
There may be a little of news sites picking up only part of the story.
My question first is how are kids chosen for the accelerated track? And why 3rd grade? If using a lottery would result in the appropriate sorting then I’d argue tracking should not be happening in 3rd grade since all kids are equally capable of handling the more advanced math curriculum and it’s literally luck of the draw if you are chosen. If it’s parental lobbying of teachers for a recommendation that’s the same issue in a different form and all kids should be challenged by accelerated math.
Second, I’d say keep all the kids on the “accelerated” track, same number of kids per classroom, same curriculum, text book etc…until such time as the kids begin to sort themselves. Maybe that’s in 5th grade, maybe 8th grade. I also think that truly mathematically gifted kids should have the opportunity to advance separately. Kids who are capable of algebra 1 in 6th grade? I’m not even clear how those kids are identified but they obviously exist and they shouldn’t be required to wait until 9th grade to take Algebra 1 just because the majority do.
The issue with this is will parents will complain if their kids are moved from the accelerated to college prep track in 9th grade or 10th grade because they’re having difficulty performing well enough to stay at the higher level? Or are they given the opportunity to stay in accelerated and take the lower grade?
It’s just a more complicated issue and the knee jerk reaction to just keep everyone at the lower level seems ill advised. I’d rather see all kids challenged to learn and perform at a higher level than moving everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Asian American people who are post-1965 immigrants or the kids of post-1965 immigrants are a selected subset of people from their countries of origin. For example, 70% of immigrants from India have bachelor’s degrees (often from elite universities like the IITs). This is not representative of India as a whole, where only about 9% of the age 25+ population in 2011 had a bachelor’s degree (much lower than the US overall). Immigration from China has similar differences between the immigrants and the population of China as a whole.
In other words, the “education ethic” that you mention is likely much stronger among the immigrants to the US than it is in their countries of origin, because the immigrants are selected to be those who are highly educated to begin with (which tends to come with a stronger “education ethic”).
These seems very vague but if the state and the districts take the time to figure it out, maybe it will work. To me it seems like a lot of generalizes concepts. And I didn’t read everything but clearly there’s concern about kids progressing in lockstep.
The question is whether the kids who want to reach calculus will be prepared? As I previously mentioned my S’s elementary school used everyday math for 2-5th grade and it was a fiasco! The school scrapped it after that thankfully. He did end up taking calculus in 12th grade and elected to take it again freshman year because he is a CS major and wanted to make sure he really understood it.
I think some parents get caught up in the supposed prestige of their kids being in advanced math because it really the only subject that has distinct subjects on each grade. Whether a student is in Honors English vs AP literature doesn’t seem to matter as much.
This.
It seems to be a trend that has been going on for a while. My home town (at the time) in CA needed to find additional funds for the “no child left behind” programs that they were implementing many years ago. So where did the money come from? It came from eliminating the gifted program in the elementary schools. While I’m in favor of some level of no child left behind I am also quite in favor of providing the gifted kids the challenge that they need. After all, it is our best and brightest that will lead our country with new and innovative ideas that will keep our country on the forefront.
I was not challenged enough in my education thru high school. I excelled because of my desire to learn and having definite career goals even before middle school. But I never did any math homework in high school and was still the top ranked science and math student (have the awards to prove it). When I got to college, it was a real shock to actually have to study or practice time management. I didn’t know how and struggled my first two years. I finally figured it out and did well my upper class years, thankfully.
I believe that we are shooting ourselves, as a country, in the foot by eliminating these advanced tracks.
When I was in high school, perhaps 1 out of 15 in each class was on the +1 math track (precalculus in 11th grade, calculus BC in 12th grade). This was probably 1 out of 5 who were headed to four year colleges immediately after high school. Students on the +2 math track came through perhaps once every few years, and were known as the best students in math (who got easy A in all high school math and easy 5 on the AP calculus BC test).
Now on these forums, it seems that many of both students and parents think that the +2 track is the “normal” one, and that the +1 track is the “behind” or “remedial” one, while many students on the +2 track fret about not being good at math and wanting to take the off-ramp to AP statistics instead of taking precalculus and calculus. That suggests that math acceleration has gone far beyond what is appropriate for the students and become part of the “most demanding schedule” arms race to be competitive for admission to an elite college.
They’re talking “differentiation” with all the kids in the same level, but the teacher is supposed to individualize the instruction for each student’s level. And it sounds as if they’re using a spiraling curriculum, where each topic is touched on every year.
This will be a disaster for the students whose families depend upon the school to teach their children math. We went through exactly this - the “Everyday Math” debacle. The “spiraling curriculum” debacle. No Child Left Behind (which went together with no child may move ahead). The reality that differentiation was just a word - there was no such thing as teaching for a child who was advanced in anything. I’ll never forget being told that my son didn’t really, couldn’t really understand the deeper meaning of the math he’d mastered four years ahead of time - as if there were a deeper meaning to basic arithmetic - so he should just spend the next four years of school understanding the inner, deeper meaning of arithmetic he’d already mastered.
Those parents who care about their children’s education will either move them to private school, or teach them traditional math at home. Those children who are able to do more, but don’t have a parent to guide them to move ahead in math, won’t. Virginia’s overall scores in math will plummet. The kids who will lose out the most will be those capable of moving ahead, but unable to, because they don’t come from homes where a parent can teach them traditional math, as fast as the kid can master it.
I used the word equity because that was the reason given in the article I posted.
Your example is a great, personal, first-hand account of how inequitable our school system has become. I agree with you that it makes more sense to direct all this energy to create more opportunities for all children. I honestly have not researched the plan in Virginia in much detail, but from what I’ve read I don’t think I agree this solved the problem.
Just yesterday, some parents on the parent page at my daughter’s college were complaining that because they felt their kid’s high schools did not offer enough high level math classes to appropriately prepare their kids for the rigor of some of the freshman STEM classes compared to some of their peers. I have to believe that plans like those in Virginia will only make this situation worse.
Do they really mean not enough high level math courses (precalculus and, for a small number of colleges, calculus), or that the quality of the courses is poor (e.g. students who completed precalculus need to retake it in college after poor placement test results, or students with A grades in AP calculus scoring 1 on the AP exam)?
Math talent is one of the most common manifestations of being gifted.
For kids with real math talent, it is not about preparing them for college. It is about engaging their mind so that they don’t go brain dead while listening to the class learn 3 times 3 when they are ready for algebra.
But these gifted kids will be fine right, even if they are bored? After all, they are smart.
No. Let me tell you why.
Several years ago, my son and I attended a mini-camp hosted by Davidson Institute for Talent Development. Davidson is dedicated to providing support services for kids in the top 0.1% of intelligence.
The families that attended this camp came from all socio-economic backgrounds. Some were like us, with kids going to a highly regarded public school system with strong academics (our local high school has an average SAT score over 1350). But others were from average or below average school systems, where intelligent kids were often made fun of. Some of their children were struggling in school or having discipline problems.
Their minds wanted nourishment in the same way that your lungs want oxygen. They weren’t getting it, and therefore they disengaged or rebelled.
For families from these backgrounds, their first visit to a Davidson camp was cathartic. The kids found “their people” and had conversations at a level they never had before. And it was for the parents as well. I still remember a first-time parent, who broke down in tears at the parent session because she was overcome with joy seeing her child fully engaged with other kids for the first time in her life. For my son, this camp made him realize just how good he had it relative to others, so we didn’t return. But some families find this so rewarding that they come year after year.
But enough about the 0.1% kids. How does this relate to the rest?
The same lessons apply, but just to a lesser degree. Again, bright kids want to have their mind engaged. When it is not engaged, many of them will disengage, doing worse than if they were in the correct class for them.
It is just a massive waste of talent.
Related to my above post, I have a theory that students thrive when their ability is within 2SD of the school norm. If a child is more than 2SD above their classmates, they may not have any intellectual peers to engage with. This also explains why my child was well adjusted (he had intellectual peers due to the strength of our local school system) and many other kids at Davidson were not (they were well above 2SD relative to others).
Back to the topic: Accelerating an advanced child makes it more likely that the child finds intellectual peers in their classroom, so that is also beneficial.
However, it looks like it is common for math acceleration decisions to be made for reasons other than the actual math ability and motivation that the student has (e.g. parental push). Why is it so common on these forums that students on the +2 or higher track want to get off the main math track or think that they are “not good at math”?
Obvious math talent should be allowed to accelerate, but schools should try not have inappropriate acceleration of those who are merely good (as opposed to great) at math (for many students good but not great at math, +1 is the actual appropriate math track, rather than +2 or +3 that seems to be common these days).
Having children grouped with drastically different math abilities is not the utopia some posters seem to think it is. It is not just that the talented get bored, it is the utter destruction of the self-esteem of the untalented in front of their classmates that is unbearable to watch. Be careful what you wish for. Children are far more astute and judgmental of their colleagues than you expect, and throwing their academic differences in their faces daily helps no one. Ironically, we wouldn’t dream of doing so for the choir or football team, right? We do not give everyone the same playing time and star role in the musical even if if tone deaf? Doesn’t happen after 3rd grade or so, when posters seem to accept that some kids have musical talent, some are more coordinated, and yes, some are more math inclined than others. In most public schools, parents can petition for their kid to be placed in the accelerated class. Those interested can do so, and deal with the consequences.
In this Virginia real-life version of Harrison Bergeron, that will come next.
It is the year 20812021, and every American is fully equal.
I think they mean their school does not offer high level math courses. They feel it puts their kids at a disadvantage compared to their peers in some of their college courses, such as physics.
