In this sequence, all students start in algebra 1 and geometry in 9th and 10th grade (regular level), but then may have the option (presumably based on high school math performance until then) to take an accelerated algebra 2 / precalculus course in 11th grade, followed by calculus AB or BC in 12th grade. Students who do not accelerate continue with a regular algebra 2 course in 11th grade followed by a regular precalculus course in 12th grade.
In other words, the decision to accelerate math or not is done after seeing how the student does in high school math (algebra 1 and geometry), rather than locking in the decision in middle school based on how the student does in elementary and middle school math.
Does this make more sense than making the math acceleration decision in middle school, when (a) the only information about the student’s math ability is from elementary and middle school math, and (b) there is implicit pressure to accelerate in order to reach calculus in high school, based on the exaggerated importance of doing so for college admission? In the traditional decision in middle school, with only (a) information, it may be less likely to get the math acceleration decision “correct”, and (b) may lead to a bias toward math acceleration for students who are not as likely to do so well in accelerated math courses. Waiting until 10th/11th grade to decide means that information about whether math acceleration is appropriate for the student will be better than it was in middle school.
(Obviously, the very few top students in math are not covered here, and may accelerate on their own earlier, dragging their parents and teachers along for the ride. But this is about the great majority of students who are “ok” or “good” at math, not the very few top students in math.)
For my kid, another year of on-level math in middle school would have been misery. That said, I think there should be many paths to calculus. One that focuses on late-bloomers is no better than one that focuses on early-bloomers.
“Obviously, the very few top students in math are not covered here, and may accelerate on their own earlier…”
Actually I think this is the biggest problem, a lack of standardized early acceleration possibilities means it’s only the privileged kids with rich or well connected parents who get that benefit, either by paying for it themselves or (sometimes) manipulating the system.
In my kids’ year the opportunity to double accelerate (geometry in 8th grade which was taken at the local HS) was there, but never advertised. So surprise, surprise, 3 of the 4 kids who ended up in that group had parents on the school board. Unsurprisingly that led to a huge backlash once everyone else found out. But after allowing other kids to test into that group for a couple of years, the middle school later decided to cancel the option completely because the high school didn’t want to offer the course to middle schoolers any more. Of course that was after the kids whose parents were on the school board had graduated (much like the school board cancelled the annual trip to Yosemite because it was “too expensive” once their own kids had gone there). So count me as a cynic about this sort of thing.
Waiting until 11th grade to decide whether students are talented at a core academic subject is crazy to me. (As does waiting until 9th grade to offer Algebra 1, but that’s another topic). Perfectly valid instruments to measure math talent are available in elementary school. Our school accelerates students as soon as starting Algebra in 6th grade for capable and willing students, and I’ve never seen an issue with it.
Cramming Algebra 2, Pre-Calc, and Trig in one year seems equally as preposterous.
What data do you have that says “ it may be less likely to get the math acceleration decision “correct”,? I’ve never seen anything of the sort and have been keenly involved in gifted acceleration research, especially in math, for 10 years (or 40 if you include my personal experience).
This brings back sad memories of “A Nation Deceived” where “common knowledge” about acceleration and gifted education was completely at odds with actual research. The same “I’ve heard that kids who are accelerated and then flounder so we shouldn’t accelerate anyone, just in case” anecdotes unsupported, and overwhelmingly disproven, by data. I thought we were past that.
Will they also only allow Juniors and Seniors to play varsity sports, forcing talented younger kids to play grade-level teams until then?
The statement “ The compression at Grade 11 also reduces tracking by ability through most of a student’s time in SFUSD, thereby ensuring that they encounter both high expectations and peer-based opportunities to learn.” boggles my mind.
Sounds like they consider allowing students to progress based on their ability to be a bad thing - fear of hurting feelings by actually giving high talent students the ability to learn at the pace they can sustain? Reminds me of the most infuriating statement I ever heard from a teacher - “yes, some of the students are ahead, but we’ll get them all at the same level by the end of the year”.
I do not think you two are talking about the same kids. I believe he is referring to the kids that are doing Calc etc around 8th grade. Also, these days there are so many opportunities for kids to accelerate in math without spending a lot of money.
This is how it was done at my high school (specialized high school in NYC). And you had to test into either AB or BC. Everyone took a test at the end of algebra/pre Calc and based on score got assigned to AB or BC. Worked well.
At my D’s school, algebra 1 was a part of the regular middle school curriculum for honors students so no need for this system.
I’m definitely not fond of it. To me math is best learned when the brain is ready for it. That might be 7th grade or 11th for neurotypical students. Why slow down those who are ready earlier? They’ll just be bored. Having them in the same classes as naturally slower to develop kids doesn’t help the others. It only reinforces their (others) beliefs that they are dumb at math because they don’t get it as easily as Suzy or Joey do.
I’m in favor of going off placement tests for progression even after a student has started the sequence.
Not all students even need Alg 2. College bound, yes, but that’s not everyone.
A “Life Math” course should be required in there somewhere. It’s a course that deals with everything from budget to insurance differences to retirement options (and anything else obvious I’m forgetting on the spot).
My daughter could not have completed her double engineering major in four years without multivariabie in high school. This progression woukd have been terrible for her. And where’s trig? Booo!
All of the high schools that have a two year calculus AB and BC sequence are evidence of widespread inappropriate acceleration.
Students who take calculus in 11th grade are on the +2 math track. That the school feels the need to slow them down in calculus indicates that they are not top math students like one would expect in the +2 math track, but students who were inappropriately pushed ahead more than they should be. The top students who should be in the +2 math track should see all high school math (including calculus BC in one year after precalculus) as easy A courses.
The truly gifted will be obvious in that they are dragging the parents and teachers along, not being pushed like it seems so common now. But they are rare.
My kids would be miserable. The solution is to make the math path fluid, not to take 1 full year to assess. If they don’t trust the standardize math test from middle school to evaluate the kids, then create their own test, add more criteria, etc. and provide an easy way for kids to change math level within the same school year.
At our school there are 4 criteria for your kids to be placed in Honor Algebra 2 at 9th grade: You need to get an A in Geometry (algebra 1 is before Geometry for our school system); Standardize test has to be in the 90th percentile, teacher recommendation and the parent’s recommendation/consent.
In many cases parents tend to push their kids ahead of the curve, but the flexibility is there for kids to change their mind (move to regular Algebra or redo geometry). Or suck it up and get a low grade on H Algebra 2 and they will self adjust their math level next year.
I don’t believe the schools should mandate entry level for HS math.
I disagree with two year AB/BC automatically meaning inappropriate acceleration or that all students in +2 should get As in Calc.
Students can hit walls in math and I highly suspect it goes along with natural brain development. Students also can lose interest or have more things going on in their lives that distract from math. Slowing down when needed for the student is ideal - not anything preset.
Placement tests before each course would do this. Boring students can have terrible consequences. At the very least they’ve wasted time and have to catch up later meaning there’s another class they can’t take. At worst when they tune out something else will fill their mental gap.
I agree with #13’s four criteria. Our school has something similar to that (daughter is senior and doesn’t have math (long story there). Doubling up math courses seems like something a parent came up with. Also wouldn’t that effect the rest of your HS classes? I don’t buy the math late bloomer theory. The first sequence is mostly fine except I’m not sure how you get to senior year BC (or AB) from sophomore Geometry.
11. I understand what your saying but many kids won't be taking multivariable and/or are unable to take it because of lack of availability at their school.
Disagree completely with waiting until HS. I think it should be moved even earlier than middle school. Both my kids were identified early as being proficient in math and advanced in elementary school. They were both in Algebra in 6th grade.
Some of the responses here have me thinking about the mental health thread that just got posted. If we are adding advanced math courses for a small number of kids that are accelerating more than 2 grades levels, what is the trade off in terms of funds and resources for public schools? In our old district, there was no in school option for those kids. Their parents either pulled them out of public, paid for CC courses, or homeschooled. Our current district partners with the university that we are lucky enough to have in town. Math is always period 1 and students can take their math class at the university and get transportation back to school for 2nd period. Maybe a question for a different thread as I don’t want to hijack.
Some folks definitely are late bloomers with math. It’s all natural brain development and where the individual fits.
More students probably are late bloomers, but give up thinking they are dumb because they expect they should be with the leaders of the pack. This is probably what they are trying to fix by holding others back, but life doesn’t work that way in reality.
Kids walk at different times. Their brains develop abstract reasoning ability at different times.
It’s unusual, but in my teaching years we had one young lass go from being in our lowest math class in 9th grade - below Alg I - to being a math major in college. For her, when it clicked she flew and loved it.
Let kids do math classes at their own pace coupled with desire.
However, many high school have only the two year calculus sequence, not a one year calculus BC course after precalculus. That seems to be an indication that there are very few +2 students in those schools who are truly top math students.
Also, the common recommendation here for students to retake their AP calculus credit in college suggests that many students in AP calculus may not have been appropriately placed back in middle school. Those who retake end up +0, the same as if they did not accelerate math.
This thread is really not about the exceptional or gifted top math students (that may be some posters’ kids, and who probably need special provisions no matter what the standard options are), but about the vast majority of college bound high school students.