Why is Math the Super Accelerated Subject?

[Anonymous]

Go to a private HS.

It’s part of the reason so many private high schools are feeders to the most elite colleges. They focus on the “accelerated humanities” track as well - at a very high-level and a degree of sophistication you would ordinarily find in college level classes.

Colleges want that preparedness and level of intellectual discourse/intellectual vitality. They want you doing humanities-based independent studies in school… Not in a pay-to-play research organization outside of high school… but with a high school teacher on a niche or specialized area of interest in the humanities. With an academic written work product.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some of it is that math is more linear.

Let's say that your school's 9th grade curriculum is early World History. It's not like a kid can be "finished" with that. There are adults with PhD's who are still finding things about World History to study and explore. Similarly, if your freshman English class is studying personal narratives, there is always more work to be done, always room for improvement. So, theoretically, even the very brightest kids can find ways to engage and grow in these topics. Acceleration makes less sense than enrichment.

But in math, there is a point at which there is no longer work on solving systems of linear equations that is meaningful. So, it makes sense to move on to the next thing.

+1

Math (at least what is taught in K-12) is linear. Each new concept is heavily dependent on mastery of previous building block concepts and once mastered will make learning more advanced concepts easier.

Unfortunately, most of pre-Algebra math instruction uses a spiral approach to curriculum. They introduce concepts in small doses each year and the next year they spiral around to the concept again. Theoretically, this is supposed to provide reinforcement. What it actually does is slow down/hinder learning. Students who mastered the material initially the first time get bored and frustrated. Meanwhile while students who didn’t master it the first time have a year to forget the material and get more muddled before they have to learn more complex material on a topic they remember being bad at.

Other pedagogical trends like teaching elementary students to rely on calculator and jumping to unrelated topics making it hard for students to see connections don’t help, either. Worse, many American teachers may not have a deep understanding of math themselves. The approach to teaching elementary mathematics tends to be remarkably inefficient. If smart, motivated students are effectively taught, it is entirely feasible that they could progress beyond Calculus. On the other hand, if some kids need more time to master basic math, that’s fine too. It isn’t a race. The key element is to make sure that every student has a solid mastery of the math up to their current level.

I think as long as kids have had Precalc in high school so that they are prepared for Calculus when they get to college, they can still flourish in any career (including STEM) that they wish to pursue. Calculus and advanced math classes may give students an edge in the admissions game as it relates to taking the most challenging courses, but degree programs still look at Calculus as a college level course, which is why those who take it in high school can get college credit for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US is behind many countries in K-12 math education. Learning Calculus BC in 11th grade is considered accelerated here in the US but is merely normal in many part of the world. In contrast, differences in other, non-math subjects aren't so noticeable between US and those countries.

University-bound students in other countries learn foreign languages, but they don’t get noticeably better classes in other subjects.

I have a nephew in a country with highly regarded schools who’s strong in classes like history and weak in math. The solution was to track him based on his math skills and steer him toward factory work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go to a private HS.

It’s part of the reason so many private high schools are feeders to the most elite colleges. They focus on the “accelerated humanities” track as well - at a very high-level and a degree of sophistication you would ordinarily find in college level classes.

Colleges want that preparedness and level of intellectual discourse/intellectual vitality. They want you doing humanities-based independent studies in school… Not in a pay-to-play research organization outside of high school… but with a high school teacher on a niche or specialized area of interest in the humanities. With an academic written work product.

Exactly. This is why most magnet schools and similar tend to be very STEM heavy. Teaching advanced humanities classes is a lot harder, and is often done better in smaller classes. It can't easily be mass-produced. It is often best done in privates (though there are obviously plenty of exceptions).

Colleges don't want a class that is 100% kids who took BC calc as sophomores and did science research and whatever else. They want a balanced class. And kids who can think and write critically and adapt to evolving situations.

I am so tired of the mentality from some people that their kid is "smarter" because they took more APs or took BC calc earlier than another kid. First of all, anyone who gets their jollies because they perceive their kid as "smarter" is sick. But also, this is not the sole measure of intellect and ability. But I hear it all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you about everything except 1. Lots of subjects have a lot of content that could be “crammed” (ie learned) but math is pretty much the only subject where it is still accepted that learning content matters and is a goal. Every other subject has been dumbed down to something akin to personal development goals. To wit the lack of spelling and grammar instruction and the increasing decline in any meaningful volume of reading and writing in humanities classes.

I hear this all the time but I suspect it is very school dependent - both back in the 80s/90s and now. My kids - in a non DCUM public (a good school but not a top school in my state) actually have a ton of reading and writing in their English and Social Studies classes. Far more than I ever did in my high school honors classes (and attended an Ivy). I'm actually surprised at the workload and the grading is not easy A stuff, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of it is that math is more linear.

Let's say that your school's 9th grade curriculum is early World History. It's not like a kid can be "finished" with that. There are adults with PhD's who are still finding things about World History to study and explore. Similarly, if your freshman English class is studying personal narratives, there is always more work to be done, always room for improvement. So, theoretically, even the very brightest kids can find ways to engage and grow in these topics. Acceleration makes less sense than enrichment.

But in math, there is a point at which there is no longer work on solving systems of linear equations that is meaningful. So, it makes sense to move on to the next thing.

+1

Math (at least what is taught in K-12) is linear. Each new concept is heavily dependent on mastery of previous building block concepts and once mastered will make learning more advanced concepts easier.

Unfortunately, most of pre-Algebra math instruction uses a spiral approach to curriculum. They introduce concepts in small doses each year and the next year they spiral around to the concept again. Theoretically, this is supposed to provide reinforcement. What it actually does is slow down/hinder learning. Students who mastered the material initially the first time get bored and frustrated. Meanwhile while students who didn’t master it the first time have a year to forget the material and get more muddled before they have to learn more complex material on a topic they remember being bad at.

Other pedagogical trends like teaching elementary students to rely on calculator and jumping to unrelated topics making it hard for students to see connections don’t help, either. Worse, many American teachers may not have a deep understanding of math themselves. The approach to teaching elementary mathematics tends to be remarkably inefficient. If smart, motivated students are effectively taught, it is entirely feasible that they could progress beyond Calculus. On the other hand, if some kids need more time to master basic math, that’s fine too. It isn’t a race. The key element is to make sure that every student has a solid mastery of the math up to their current level.

I think as long as kids have had Precalc in high school so that they are prepared for Calculus when they get to college, they can still flourish in any career (including STEM) that they wish to pursue. Calculus and advanced math classes may give students an edge in the admissions game as it relates to taking the most challenging courses, but degree programs still look at Calculus as a college level course, which is why those who take it in high school can get college credit for it.

Lots of really great points and very well written. I have a feeling those who don't want to listen to what you are saying (i.e. those who are in a big rush) will ignore it but you are spot on.

The only minor comment I will make is that Geometry is the one outlier to the curriculum path - it could largely be taught simultaneously with algebra and there would not be a great loss or challenge.

Back to your primary point, I have found a number of kids who were in a rush to race through math classes, thinking they knew it all. Then they get to a competitive college and realize that their allegedly top notch high school really hadn't taught them that well and they didn't have the fundamentals down. I actually often advocate for kids to start at the lowest level class possible in college (without being 100% overqualified and bored) and reinforcing the fundamentals there. There is no shame in it. They will generally end up in the same place. Most of these kids racing through math aren't going to actually major in math and/or do math research. So it doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous]

Some kids have an innate ability with math. And obviously they should be encouraged to challenge themselves. And math is a subject you can’t dumb down. The school districts that are trying to kill math bc “equity” haven’t really succeeded.

But there are also kids that have an innate ability with English and writing. And those kids are getting crushed by the “equity” people.

So math remains a place where talent can shine. And the stellar humanities kids are told to whither and be bored bc the equity administrators can definitely dumb that down to hit their numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US is behind many countries in K-12 math education. Learning Calculus BC in 11th grade is considered accelerated here in the US but is merely normal in many part of the world. In contrast, differences in other, non-math subjects aren't so noticeable between US and those countries.

It's not. False.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go to a private HS.

It’s part of the reason so many private high schools are feeders to the most elite colleges. They focus on the “accelerated humanities” track as well - at a very high-level and a degree of sophistication you would ordinarily find in college level classes.

Colleges want that preparedness and level of intellectual discourse/intellectual vitality. They want you doing humanities-based independent studies in school… Not in a pay-to-play research organization outside of high school… but with a high school teacher on a niche or specialized area of interest in the humanities. With an academic written work product.

True. +100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it is the one subject where the ed policy trend folks have not been able to deny that pure ability coupled with hard study is actually at the core. Everything else they can dumb down and decelerate by redefining outcomes. They try with math (see SF) but seem to have failed.

Wasn't AP Calculus already a water-down version? How did SF district fail? Couldn't they just water it down further?

SF tried to prohibit algebra in MS and parents finally revolted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in AP Calc BC in 10th grade. If there was an accelerated pathway for writing, she'd take it. But she can't, because the electives aren't any better than AP Lang and AP Lit (taken respectively in 11th and 12th), so there's no point. The English curriculum in MCPS is really bad. Thank goodness she reads and writes for pleasure, at home. She's in all AP classes for other things like APUSH and AP Physics C. All of it is easy for her.

Math is the one discipline where logical and critical thinking skills are all you need. Maturity and social skills are not needed. If you think about it for half a second, you'll recognize that all other disciplines need some basic level of understanding of human relationships. Very young, immature people can do very well in math. It's truly for anyone with the patience to cogitate.

This is why math, above any other subject, has been prized by scholars over the centuries of human civilization.

This is a very weird take. Math has definitely not been prized over other disciplines. It is currently the only discipline kids are allowed to accelerate in public schools because we have dumbed down the rest of the subjects, but the dumber-downers are not actually smart enough to dumb down math. they try by blocking advanced course work but that is all they can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of it is that math is more linear.

Let's say that your school's 9th grade curriculum is early World History. It's not like a kid can be "finished" with that. There are adults with PhD's who are still finding things about World History to study and explore. Similarly, if your freshman English class is studying personal narratives, there is always more work to be done, always room for improvement. So, theoretically, even the very brightest kids can find ways to engage and grow in these topics. Acceleration makes less sense than enrichment.

But in math, there is a point at which there is no longer work on solving systems of linear equations that is meaningful. So, it makes sense to move on to the next thing.

+1

Math (at least what is taught in K-12) is linear. Each new concept is heavily dependent on mastery of previous building block concepts and once mastered will make learning more advanced concepts easier.

Unfortunately, most of pre-Algebra math instruction uses a spiral approach to curriculum. They introduce concepts in small doses each year and the next year they spiral around to the concept again. Theoretically, this is supposed to provide reinforcement. What it actually does is slow down/hinder learning. Students who mastered the material initially the first time get bored and frustrated. Meanwhile while students who didn’t master it the first time have a year to forget the material and get more muddled before they have to learn more complex material on a topic they remember being bad at.

Other pedagogical trends like teaching elementary students to rely on calculator and jumping to unrelated topics making it hard for students to see connections don’t help, either. Worse, many American teachers may not have a deep understanding of math themselves. The approach to teaching elementary mathematics tends to be remarkably inefficient. If smart, motivated students are effectively taught, it is entirely feasible that they could progress beyond Calculus. On the other hand, if some kids need more time to master basic math, that’s fine too. It isn’t a race. The key element is to make sure that every student has a solid mastery of the math up to their current level.

I think as long as kids have had Precalc in high school so that they are prepared for Calculus when they get to college, they can still flourish in any career (including STEM) that they wish to pursue. Calculus and advanced math classes may give students an edge in the admissions game as it relates to taking the most challenging courses, but degree programs still look at Calculus as a college level course, which is why those who take it in high school can get college credit for it.

This. They have mangled math in elementary school (because the elementary school level knowledge of the ed reformers lets them get that far) but as much as they would like to, they are unable to so fundamentally change the way the HS level classes are taught. So all they are left with is keeping kids out of the HS level classes (the SF approach) while ensuring that only the kids good enough to actually learn math in the mangled “spiral” (combined with the disaster of computerized instructions) will be able to succeed in the higher level classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to a private HS.

It’s part of the reason so many private high schools are feeders to the most elite colleges. They focus on the “accelerated humanities” track as well - at a very high-level and a degree of sophistication you would ordinarily find in college level classes.

Colleges want that preparedness and level of intellectual discourse/intellectual vitality. They want you doing humanities-based independent studies in school… Not in a pay-to-play research organization outside of high school… but with a high school teacher on a niche or specialized area of interest in the humanities. With an academic written work product.

True. +100

Agree. It’s the true benefit of an elite private high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of it is that math is more linear.

Let's say that your school's 9th grade curriculum is early World History. It's not like a kid can be "finished" with that. There are adults with PhD's who are still finding things about World History to study and explore. Similarly, if your freshman English class is studying personal narratives, there is always more work to be done, always room for improvement. So, theoretically, even the very brightest kids can find ways to engage and grow in these topics. Acceleration makes less sense than enrichment.

But in math, there is a point at which there is no longer work on solving systems of linear equations that is meaningful. So, it makes sense to move on to the next thing.

+1

Math (at least what is taught in K-12) is linear. Each new concept is heavily dependent on mastery of previous building block concepts and once mastered will make learning more advanced concepts easier.

Unfortunately, most of pre-Algebra math instruction uses a spiral approach to curriculum. They introduce concepts in small doses each year and the next year they spiral around to the concept again. Theoretically, this is supposed to provide reinforcement. What it actually does is slow down/hinder learning. Students who mastered the material initially the first time get bored and frustrated. Meanwhile while students who didn’t master it the first time have a year to forget the material and get more muddled before they have to learn more complex material on a topic they remember being bad at.

Other pedagogical trends like teaching elementary students to rely on calculator and jumping to unrelated topics making it hard for students to see connections don’t help, either. Worse, many American teachers may not have a deep understanding of math themselves. The approach to teaching elementary mathematics tends to be remarkably inefficient. If smart, motivated students are effectively taught, it is entirely feasible that they could progress beyond Calculus. On the other hand, if some kids need more time to master basic math, that’s fine too. It isn’t a race. The key element is to make sure that every student has a solid mastery of the math up to their current level.

I think as long as kids have had Precalc in high school so that they are prepared for Calculus when they get to college, they can still flourish in any career (including STEM) that they wish to pursue. Calculus and advanced math classes may give students an edge in the admissions game as it relates to taking the most challenging courses, but degree programs still look at Calculus as a college level course, which is why those who take it in high school can get college credit for it.

Lots of really great points and very well written. I have a feeling those who don't want to listen to what you are saying (i.e. those who are in a big rush) will ignore it but you are spot on.

The only minor comment I will make is that Geometry is the one outlier to the curriculum path - it could largely be taught simultaneously with algebra and there would not be a great loss or challenge.

Back to your primary point, I have found a number of kids who were in a rush to race through math classes, thinking they knew it all. Then they get to a competitive college and realize that their allegedly top notch high school really hadn't taught them that well and they didn't have the fundamentals down. I actually often advocate for kids to start at the lowest level class possible in college (without being 100% overqualified and bored) and reinforcing the fundamentals there. There is no shame in it. They will generally end up in the same place. Most of these kids racing through math aren't going to actually major in math and/or do math research. So it doesn't really matter.

I guess you missed the part of PP detailing the failure of math instruction prior to HS/MS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some of it is that math is more linear.

Let's say that your school's 9th grade curriculum is early World History. It's not like a kid can be "finished" with that. There are adults with PhD's who are still finding things about World History to study and explore. Similarly, if your freshman English class is studying personal narratives, there is always more work to be done, always room for improvement. So, theoretically, even the very brightest kids can find ways to engage and grow in these topics. Acceleration makes less sense than enrichment.

But in math, there is a point at which there is no longer work on solving systems of linear equations that is meaningful. So, it makes sense to move on to the next thing.

I agree. If I had to retake my HS English classes now (as an adult lawyer) I would still learn a ton from writing, discussing, getting feedback, etc.). I wouldn't get anything out of taking a beginning algebra class.