Algebra 1 6th Grade 26-27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

You think that kids are not going to be aware that they are repeating a class and that is not going to think that they failed? Or that they are not strong in math? It is not as simple as retaking the class. Repeating the class will be damaging for the kids who have to retake it.

Worse yet, there will be others who don’t retake it, who will continue because the parents thinks it looks bad for the kid to retake the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the full thread but is it true that the grade for algebra 1 will be on their high school transcript? I’m confused about why that would be the case. Growing up, algebra 1 was the standard 7th grade math option. I don’t understand why something my kid takes in 6th grade would be on a high school transcript but hopefully I’m misunderstanding. I’m concerned because I don’t know if I should trust the quality of instruction (I’ll skim over the full thread now) because we have had some weak instructors at our school in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the full thread but is it true that the grade for algebra 1 will be on their high school transcript? I’m confused about why that would be the case. Growing up, algebra 1 was the standard 7th grade math option. I don’t understand why something my kid takes in 6th grade would be on a high school transcript but hopefully I’m misunderstanding. I’m concerned because I don’t know if I should trust the quality of instruction (I’ll skim over the full thread now) because we have had some weak instructors at our school in the past.

Because in the US, Algebra1 is considered a HS class. In most of the country, the accelerated kids take Algebra in 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the full thread but is it true that the grade for algebra 1 will be on their high school transcript? I’m confused about why that would be the case. Growing up, algebra 1 was the standard 7th grade math option. I don’t understand why something my kid takes in 6th grade would be on a high school transcript but hopefully I’m misunderstanding. I’m concerned because I don’t know if I should trust the quality of instruction (I’ll skim over the full thread now) because we have had some weak instructors at our school in the past.

Yes, it will be on the transcript.

--HS math teacher

[Anonymous]

Is the digital consent form available to all 5th grade AAP? It talks about 0.5 weight (do they mean because of honors so additional 0.5?). Also about digital teaching…at a center school that has an in person class this year, are they switching or is this a catch all form?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

You think that kids are not going to be aware that they are repeating a class and that is not going to think that they failed? Or that they are not strong in math? It is not as simple as retaking the class. Repeating the class will be damaging for the kids who have to retake it.

Worse yet, there will be others who don’t retake it, who will continue because the parents thinks it looks bad for the kid to retake the class.

It's only damaging if you, the parent, make it damaging. My kid went in knowing that this was an experiment and that if they didn't do well (whether it was because they weren't ready for the class or because it wasn't well taught), they could just retake it next year. Framing this way took off a lot of pressure. Sounds like you did a bad job of explaining things to your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

You think that kids are not going to be aware that they are repeating a class and that is not going to think that they failed? Or that they are not strong in math? It is not as simple as retaking the class. Repeating the class will be damaging for the kids who have to retake it.

Worse yet, there will be others who don’t retake it, who will continue because the parents thinks it looks bad for the kid to retake the class.

Of course they'll realize they're repeating it, just as they'll realize 7th grade AAP algebra is accelerated as is and that a few of their AAP friends happen to be there as well, so they aren't some exceptionally dumb failure.

Parents should be educated on the ability to expunge grades and the benefits of repeating a crucial course like algebra 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the full thread but is it true that the grade for algebra 1 will be on their high school transcript? I’m confused about why that would be the case. Growing up, algebra 1 was the standard 7th grade math option. I don’t understand why something my kid takes in 6th grade would be on a high school transcript but hopefully I’m misunderstanding. I’m concerned because I don’t know if I should trust the quality of instruction (I’ll skim over the full thread now) because we have had some weak instructors at our school in the past.

Yes but you can expunge it and even if you don't, most colleges won't put much, if any, weight into it. Generally colleges only care about grades in courses taken 9th grade or later

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/gxcbwa/comment/ft0doiu/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/gxcbwa/comment/ft0hku9/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

It's an Algebra 1 Honors course. There is a lot of material that needs to be taught. No, it is not "easy" for a teacher to fill in a number of instructional gaps for students who are not prepared for the course, even if the students all have the same gaps. Unless we want to completely water down what is considered Algebra 1 Honors, which is probably what will happen, so that parents can brag about how accelerated their 6th graders are in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

It's an Algebra 1 Honors course. There is a lot of material that needs to be taught. No, it is not "easy" for a teacher to fill in a number of instructional gaps for students who are not prepared for the course, even if the students all have the same gaps. Unless we want to completely water down what is considered Algebra 1 Honors, which is probably what will happen, so that parents can brag about how accelerated their 6th graders are in math.

Kids have gaps (less correlated ones, which is worse) in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade algebra 1, which teachers remediate and scaffold to the best of their ability. Should the fact that kids in 8th grade algebra have gaps and get CS mean that everyone should be forced to take it in 9th or later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

It's an Algebra 1 Honors course. There is a lot of material that needs to be taught. No, it is not "easy" for a teacher to fill in a number of instructional gaps for students who are not prepared for the course, even if the students all have the same gaps. Unless we want to completely water down what is considered Algebra 1 Honors, which is probably what will happen, so that parents can brag about how accelerated their 6th graders are in math.

Kids have gaps (less correlated ones, which is worse) in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade algebra 1, which teachers remediate and scaffold to the best of their ability. Should the fact that kids in 8th grade algebra have gaps and get CS mean that everyone should be forced to take it in 9th or later?

Nobody said that and the kids you're referring to aren't taking Algebra 1 Honors. This was in reponse to how "easy" it will be to fill the gaps kids will have from skipping two years of math while simultaneously teaching Algebra 1 Honors. It won't be.

And the magical Algebra 1 Honors teachers you're envisioning to fill these gaps don't exist. Very, very few teachers at the elementary level are licensed to teach Algebra. Provisionally licensened teachers and/or virtual classes will be common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

It's an Algebra 1 Honors course. There is a lot of material that needs to be taught. No, it is not "easy" for a teacher to fill in a number of instructional gaps for students who are not prepared for the course, even if the students all have the same gaps. Unless we want to completely water down what is considered Algebra 1 Honors, which is probably what will happen, so that parents can brag about how accelerated their 6th graders are in math.

Kids have gaps (less correlated ones, which is worse) in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade algebra 1, which teachers remediate and scaffold to the best of their ability. Should the fact that kids in 8th grade algebra have gaps and get CS mean that everyone should be forced to take it in 9th or later?

Nobody said that and the kids you're referring to aren't taking Algebra 1 Honors. This was in reponse to how "easy" it will be to fill the gaps kids will have from skipping two years of math while simultaneously teaching Algebra 1 Honors. It won't be.

And the magical Algebra 1 Honors teachers you're envisioning to fill these gaps don't exist. Very, very few teachers at the elementary level are licensed to teach Algebra. Provisionally licensened teachers and/or virtual classes will be common.

And any teacher with common sense knows they can't make up for two years of math in addition to teaching Algebra. This is one of the stupidest ideas FCPS has had in awhile. And there have been many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I keep hearing is that the powers that be “don’t want to gatekeep rigor” and “parents should be able to decide.”

I have a few theories. The FCPS math office people HATE 6th grade algebra 1 (they aren’t fans of advanced math in elementary in general and already managed to essentially get rid of it for 3rd-4th grade). The terrible rollout and worse eligibility change for next year are so bad I wonder if there’s an element of malicious compliance/self-sabotage.

No this is all Reid’s idea. Every principal thinks this is bonkers. It is like she does whatever she wants and the SB is clueless.

This right here. There is no academic research that shows what she is doing is helpful for students. And while hyper-acceleration might be good for some, there are many, many students who are being harmed by this and their parents are clueless. The medical profession has a saying - “Do no harm”, but apparently school superintendents (Reid) goes unchecked with many of her decisions.

How are they being harmed? Even if they get a C, they can just repeat it in 7th without any trouble.

1) The poor grade comes from missing foundational instruction that the child is unable to compensate for. Repeating the course may allow the student to cobble together a better grade by memorizing procedures, etc, but the deeper understanding and true mastery is still not there. This means the student has a weak foundation for the rest of their math courses.

2) It’s harmful to their confidence and self-image. This is an 11-year-old child. Why intentionally set them up for failure, or for a slog where they have to give up down time and other activities for tutoring just to have ti retake it anyway?

3) Teachers are trained to support every student as much as they can, but their time, bandwidth, and attention are limited. Putting obviously unprepared students in the class diverts the teacher’s attention from the prepared students (who are also skipping 2 years of instruction), bringing down the entire class.

1) the foundational prealgebra topics' mastery should be measured by the SOL so kids missing it shouldn't be eligible for 6th grade algebra in the first place. Also, kids in 6th grade algebra class will likely be missing similar material (that which would have been covered in 6th grade prealgebra), which makes it easy for the teacher to cover/scaffold v.s. most classes where each kid has different gaps.

2) Getting a C in 6th grade algebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra is no more a failure than getting an A in 6th grade prealgebra followed by an A in 7th grade algebra.

3) Every class will have C students. I'm not talking about students who get a D or F because they never learned how to add or multiply fractions.

It's an Algebra 1 Honors course. There is a lot of material that needs to be taught. No, it is not "easy" for a teacher to fill in a number of instructional gaps for students who are not prepared for the course, even if the students all have the same gaps. Unless we want to completely water down what is considered Algebra 1 Honors, which is probably what will happen, so that parents can brag about how accelerated their 6th graders are in math.

Kids have gaps (less correlated ones, which is worse) in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade algebra 1, which teachers remediate and scaffold to the best of their ability. Should the fact that kids in 8th grade algebra have gaps and get CS mean that everyone should be forced to take it in 9th or later?

Nobody said that and the kids you're referring to aren't taking Algebra 1 Honors. This was in reponse to how "easy" it will be to fill the gaps kids will have from skipping two years of math while simultaneously teaching Algebra 1 Honors. It won't be.

And the magical Algebra 1 Honors teachers you're envisioning to fill these gaps don't exist. Very, very few teachers at the elementary level are licensed to teach Algebra. Provisionally licensened teachers and/or virtual classes will be common.

The schools are required to have a teacher get certified. I am certified. I was before all of this. My principal said to have an in person teacher they need to have 15 kids. Otherwise the kids will be taking it online.