It’s a non-issue in your school district, in your opinion, and your child won’t be affected because she’s too old.
I was angry when my son’s school implemented a ridiculous math curriculum when he was in elementary school. I worked with him at home during that time to make sure I filled in the gaps. Thankfully they got rid it, mostly due to parental lobbying and it didn’t affect his math track in middle or high school. Not all parents will have the time to do the same.
I’m happy the media is bringing this to the attention of Virginia parents (and parents in general as many states are jumping on the bandwagon). They should be aware of its implementation and how it may affect their child, good or bad, so they can make informed decisions about what educational path is best for their child.
Since you mention Harvard, Harvard gives its own three part math placement test to incoming frosh. The three parts are basically precalculus, calculus 1 / calculus AB, and calculus 2. The results are used to recommend placement into entry level math courses as described at https://www.math.harvard.edu/media/Math-for-first-year-students-2020-2021.pdf . Note that this does not mean an automatic recommendation to retake single variable calculus (Math 1a, 1b), since placement into courses more advanced than single variable calculus is possible, and students who do place into the more advanced courses can choose varying levels of theory and difficulty.
I know that. I can also tell you that more than half the kids entering MVC this year appear to have taken it before, based on personal knowledge. So while I understand your theory that this should all sort out based on placement tests and versions of courses, that is not what is happening.
If you mean the regular version (Math 21a at Harvard), then that seems like a math acceleration race to wasting the results of such math acceleration. Of course, those taking one of the honors level courses (22a, 23a, 25a, 55a) would not be repeating it in the same sense; they would be learning it at a deeper level (somewhat analogous to taking real analysis after calculus).
Using progressive-speak, I am offering my opinion from the “I” perspective. I feel the elimination of accelerated math could be construed as systemic racism to those of Asian descent.
For those of you who aren’t Asian, I am sure you can come up with your own reasons why the elimination of accelerated math is not a good idea.
Looking at the infographics presented above, I see students have exactly the same classes through 7th grade (when algebra concepts are introduced).
Then, there’s SOME differentiation in 8th grade, since some students will take HS algebra, alongside geometry, CS, and basic statistics in 9th and 10th. After that there’s the accelerated path with advanced algebra+trig+precalculus over one year then AP calculus Ab or BC over one year, and/or modules in Discrete math which will benefit future CS students (or other modules).
I agree that differentiating when you have a full class wirh many levels is not possible so there will be a need to differentiate levels and tests in the 8th grade. That seems much better than differentiating in 3rd grade.
As for the super advanced Virginia STEM students, they have TJ.
The plan for squeezing all of Advanced algebra+trig+precalculus over one year and then AP calculus Ab or BC over one year seems like a heavy lift - both for teachers and students.
That’s usually material covered over three years. Even if you took out some overlap between Alg 2/Precalc, it’s still about 2.5 years at a minimum. For Calc BC, the precalc honors in our hs covers some of the early part of Calc BC so that they can get through the BC curriculum in time for the AP exam.
I read through the proposed curriculum. While there is a lot of unnecessary crank-turning junk in Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 which should be rightly thrown out, it is still essential to have fluency in symbol manipulation, with understanding, to get through precalc and calculus. It will be interesting to see outcomes for the junior/senior years with this program.
I don’t know what middle school math in public schools looks like today, but it was a joke when my D took it. They learned fractions by seeing how many tuna cans it took to fill a soup can. She already knew how to add, subtract, multiply and divide fractions, mind you. When I questioned the curriculum, I was told that students needed to understand fractions in a hands on way or they didn’t really understand. I called b.s. & argued for two years until I finally got the district to allow a small class of students who could take a more traditional math path. But I had not intended for it to be just for my kid & a few others. In the end, though, I couldn’t fix the system. I sent my S to a private middle school where they taught a traditional math curriculum. D went to private high school and S ended up at a public high school in a neighboring district. Neither was “accelerated,” but they did take calculus in high school. All I ever wanted was the chance for them to move forward with concepts they had already mastered, without wasting time revisiting concepts they already understood.
Some kids will struggle, and schools should figure out how to help them (or they will get frustrated and act out … in addition to hating math). Some kids will master concepts quickly, and they should not be held back (which can lead to boredom and acting out). I don’t know exactly how to fix the problem, but just treating everyone the same isn’t the answer. I was privileged to be able to give my kids alternatives to our public school, but public schools should be set up to help all kids. The focus should be on meeting them where they are and helping them to move forward. We’ve been having this conversation for many years, and it’s about time the education community figured it out.
We’re destreaming math here in Ontario starting this fall too. The difference is we don’t have an accelerated track prior to high school. Even gifted programs don’t accelerate curriculum. They just add extra depth. When students enter grade 9 they are offered predominantly 2 (but sometimes 3 for certain special education students) levels for core courses - “Applied” which lead to courses in grade 12 that are acceptable for admission to 2-3 year diploma programs and “Academic” which lead to courses in grade 12 that are acceptable for admission to 4 year bachelor’s degrees. There has been numerous studies that have shown that students from certain racialized backgrounds are predominantly recommended to the Applied level courses in grade 9 shutting them out of the ability to apply to university (this isn’t universally true as there are pathways for moving up to the Academic stream but students rarely do and students are free to choose whatever level of courses they want in grade 9 regardless of teacher recommendations). To solve the problem they are destreaming math such that all incoming grade 9 students will be placed in “Academic” math and the “Applied” stream will be eliminated. The expectation is that the following year they will do the same for grade 10 math. Streaming will then be pushed off to grade 11. After that they will move to destreaming the remaining core courses in grades 9 and 10. The concern here is that while the intention is to raise those performing at a lower level, the reality is that the bar will be lowered instead to meet their abilities. Time will tell I guess. In theory I think it’s the right approach.
As for accelerating math, the expectation for incoming Science and Engineering students here in Canada is for them to have completed Calculus in grade 12. It’s not quite the equivalent of Calculus AB though. S19 did do Calculus AB in grade 12 and reports that it was slightly more advanced than the regular grade 12 Calculus in that the regular curriculum does not include integration. In any case you can’t take Calculus I in university straight from pre-Calculus. Students in grade 12 generally take pre-Calculus (Advanced Functions) in first semester of grade 12 and Calculus in the second semester. They are free however to accelerate their courses as they like by fast tracking either by doubling up math courses during the regular school year or through taking summer school. There are very few schools however that provide options beyond grade 12 Calculus as AP and IB are not universally offered and there are very few dual enrolment options.
Huh? Algebra 2 and precalculus (including trigonometry) is two years, not three, in the traditional high school math curriculum. There is some content overlap, so compression into one year for stronger-in-math students should be possible.
In other words, it looks like the base math expectation in Canada for science and engineering students is about a half semester advanced compared to the base math expectation in the US. Meaning, the difference between having seen the first half of calculus 1 versus having completed precalculus.
Seems odd to me to say some kids are overwhelmed by taking accelerated math so no kids should take accelerated math. Would make more sense to me to do a better job figuring out who take the accelerated track and allowing for offramps.
I suspect that in certain districts its certain parents/students who cannot handle the accelerated math but who are very competitive who do not want others who can handle it to have what could be an advantage. School boards should resist that pressure though.
It is probably more like, district and school officials have a hard time saying “no” to pushy parents who want to over accelerate their kids in the math acceleration race / competition, so we have gotten to the point where it is very common for high schools to have and require a two year calculus AB - calculus BC sequence, which is absurd when you think about it, since students on the +2 math track (needed to get to calculus by 11th grade) should be strong enough students in math to easily handle all of calculus BC in one year immediately after completing precalculus.
In other words, the number of math accelerated students (particularly at the +2 or higher track) who should be there is probably swamped by the number of inappropriately math accelerated students, at least in some schools or districts.
But how are those kids doing in the those classes? If they’re doing ok then why does there need to be an adjustment? Just because parents push doesn’t mean the kids can’t handle those classes. The baseline should be to challenge and then provide off ramps rather than making everyone learn at the lower level.
The situation where a high school has and requires a two year calculus AB - calculus BC is an example where everyone is forced to learn at a lower level (slower pace) because the accelerated math tracks are mostly students who cannot handle calculus BC immediately after precalculus, despite being on the +2 math track. That means that it is already the case that students who are strong enough in math that they should be in the +2 math track are slowed down to accommodate the parentally-pushed-too-far-ahead students.
Is this really a common three year sequence? Our high school uses Calc AB followed by Calc BC as the advanced track (immediately after the honors Algebra 2/Trig course). Only the less able students take pre-Calc (followed by either Calc AB or AP Stats if they took it in junior year).
Our school has Pre-Calc, AP Calc BC, MVC track. You can choose to take AP Calc AB before BC, but I am not sure how many kids go that route, especially if they going into STEM.
Kids aren’t robots. They aren’t programmed to learn at the same pace. Why bore some of them while some other kids struggle to learn the same materials? Education works best if students study with their intellectual peers. Families will look for alternatives if schools can’t provide what their kids need. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of acceleration, in any subject, for the sake of acceleration. Depth in a subject is often more important, but unfortunately, most US HS’s aren’t equipped to provide it.
For schools where that is the case, assuming the school board has no guts (to tell parents no), they probably should remove the accelerated math classes. But where that is not the case (and I think there are schools where is it not the case), they shouldn’t cave to aggressive parents/students. They run the risk of driving off the best students.
the way I understood the description, some elements of algebra2 would be incorporated into the “middle” curriculum (8-10, presumably in 10th). There would then be 1 semester of further algebra, one semester of precalc (similar, I suppose, to the one-year “slow” sequence in college where students take college algebra and precalculus over 2 semesters)
In NYS, they have an Algebra2 level which includes a lot of trig and precalc. As a result, that class is considered the hardest in the math curriculum.
I do think it’s more useful for 95% students to understand modelling and statistics, rathet than some details of algebra… but I’m afraid not differentiating much in 8th grade could be problem. An issue I see is that by 8-9th grade some kids would start acting out because the curriculum is not appropriate for their needs and teachers cannot be expected to differentiate between roughly three levels of 8th grade (students struggling with the 7th grade curriculum, those ready to move to regular 8th grade intro algebra/geometry, and those ready for HS rigor (currently+1).
From a cynica perspective, I suppose districts expect to save money by keeping large classes together rather than establishing different level-based groups. @bjkmom is/was a math teacher and may have a deeper understanding of the changes and a professional opinion.