New Math Program - NO Differentiation until Grades 11-12?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If my kid is currently in 8th grade and will graduate in 2025, will she at all be affected by this? (Looking at the timeline my guess is no?)

They will not. Mine will be in 11th. I wonder if he will be affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you don't understand how in-class differentiation works or how personalize learning can make tracking obsolete means that you need to keep up with the world of education. It's not the 80s any longer. Your genius child will be just fine.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you don't understand how in-class differentiation works or how personalize learning can make tracking obsolete means that you need to keep up with the world of education. It's not the 80s any longer. Your genius child will be just fine.

Ha! Most of us DO know how it works even if we have kids in AAP because that is supposedly what was happening with our kids in K-2. Except what I meant in practice was that the advanced kids were ALWAYS the reading group that got skipped if the week was slightly shorter or missing class time for some reason and what was done extra in math was far from clear in most cases. At best it was a once a week pull out for a short but mostly computer time as a “reward” for done early.

“Many/most Singaporean schools shifted to in class differentiation at least in primary and we should be so lucky as to have their math outcomes “

I am sure it CAN be done well. Montessori does this too. What I am positive of is that FCPS cannot as they already show they do not do this well in the cases where classes are mixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tracking kids early leaves some kids behind FOREVER. My kid is gifted in math. Does he need to be in a separate class. No he does not. Public schooling is not for every snowflake. It's for ALL kids. For once can you broaden your circle of concern beyond your own child?


No?

That's your problem. Not the state's. Grow up.

I don't see why tracking has to be permanent. Start kids in the same place and move them between tracks (or groups or however you'd like to do it) once or even twice a year depending on how they're doing with a concept. I went to a high school with a couple different honors tracks and it was NBD to be in honors algebra but not honors geometry.

Somewhat off topic but I think you could get good results with single-gender math groups also. There's been some research on that, especially for girls.

[Anonymous]

What grade will this "awesome new plan" start for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you don't understand how in-class differentiation works or how personalize learning can make tracking obsolete means that you need to keep up with the world of education. It's not the 80s any longer. Your genius child will be just fine.

Ha! Most of us DO know how it works even if we have kids in AAP because that is supposedly what was happening with our kids in K-2. Except what I meant in practice was that the advanced kids were ALWAYS the reading group that got skipped if the week was slightly shorter or missing class time for some reason and what was done extra in math was far from clear in most cases. At best it was a once a week pull out for a short but mostly computer time as a “reward” for done early.

“Many/most Singaporean schools shifted to in class differentiation at least in primary and we should be so lucky as to have their math outcomes “

I am sure it CAN be done well. Montessori does this too. What I am positive of is that FCPS cannot as they already show they do not do this well in the cases where classes are mixed.

+100. I don’t trust our school system to implement anything properly*. Because of that, they should stick to the easiest way of doing everything.

* I believe many awesome teachers in FCPS can do basically anything. It’s Gatehouse I don’t trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What grade will this "awesome new plan" start for?

Starts in 2025 and it appears they don’t plan to grandfather in kids already in Advanced Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are other systems that work this way, with good math outcomes. Many/most Singaporean schools shifted to in class differentiation at least in primary and we should be so lucky as to have their math outcomes

Before anyone gets any ideas, no not everyone in Singapore is rich, despite that global stereotype.

Singaporean schools have legal corporal punishment for students. In America, a teacher giving a failing grade means multiple angry calls from parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tracking kids early leaves some kids behind FOREVER. My kid is gifted in math. Does he need to be in a separate class. No he does not. Public schooling is not for every snowflake. It's for ALL kids. For once can you broaden your circle of concern beyond your own child?


No?

That's your problem. Not the state's. Grow up.

Forcing dumb kids into the same class as smart kids means the dumb kids grow resentful and the smart kids grow bored and have their potential stunted.

The result of this will be parents with means moving their kids into charter or private schools. Those without the means will be stuck with the dumbed down curriculum and peers for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tracking kids early leaves some kids behind FOREVER. My kid is gifted in math. Does he need to be in a separate class. No he does not. Public schooling is not for every snowflake. It's for ALL kids. For once can you broaden your circle of concern beyond your own child?


No?

That's your problem. Not the state's. Grow up.

I don't see why tracking has to be permanent. Start kids in the same place and move them between tracks (or groups or however you'd like to do it) once or even twice a year depending on how they're doing with a concept. I went to a high school with a couple different honors tracks and it was NBD to be in honors algebra but not honors geometry.

Somewhat off topic but I think you could get good results with single-gender math groups also. There's been some research on that, especially for girls.

I can admit I don’t know what research you are referring to (in fairness you didn’t cite any) but as the only girl in my AP calculus class I would have been screwed if I was limited to what there was critical girl only mass for. I have no problem with flexible non-gender-based math tracking. The idea this post is based on it not that though. There is no reason a robust educational system can provide collegiate math tracks and also non-collegiate math. It shiuldn’t be either one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you don't understand how in-class differentiation works or how personalize learning can make tracking obsolete means that you need to keep up with the world of education. It's not the 80s any longer. Your genius child will be just fine.

Ha! Most of us DO know how it works even if we have kids in AAP because that is supposedly what was happening with our kids in K-2. Except what I meant in practice was that the advanced kids were ALWAYS the reading group that got skipped if the week was slightly shorter or missing class time for some reason and what was done extra in math was far from clear in most cases. At best it was a once a week pull out for a short but mostly computer time as a “reward” for done early.

“Many/most Singaporean schools shifted to in class differentiation at least in primary and we should be so lucky as to have their math outcomes “

I am sure it CAN be done well. Montessori does this too. What I am positive of is that FCPS cannot as they already show they do not do this well in the cases where classes are mixed.

NP and agree. I'd love to see the data from any school system in the US that has tried this approach, especially at the secondary level. There's a reason math teachers were not onboard when it was proposed at the meeting by VDOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tracking kids early leaves some kids behind FOREVER. My kid is gifted in math. Does he need to be in a separate class. No he does not. Public schooling is not for every snowflake. It's for ALL kids. For once can you broaden your circle of concern beyond your own child?


No?

That's your problem. Not the state's. Grow up.

Forcing dumb kids into the same class as smart kids means the dumb kids grow resentful and the smart kids grow bored and have their potential stunted.

The result of this will be parents with means moving their kids into charter or private schools. Those without the means will be stuck with the dumbed down curriculum and peers for their children.

Both my kids are in advanced math and I hope this doesn’t pass but damn PP calling kids dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you don't understand how in-class differentiation works or how personalize learning can make tracking obsolete means that you need to keep up with the world of education. It's not the 80s any longer. Your genius child will be just fine.

You mean the thing where my kids teacher sticks him in a breakout room and never visits?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps this decision will also involve textbooks???

Differentiation can be done a lot easier.

[Anonymous]

the "math pathways" program doesn't place kids in Algebra in 8th. It looks like no one gets Algebra until 9th. The kids who want to take calculus would have to cram the entire content of Algebra II and pre-calc into 11th grade (or do summer school?), so I'm not sure that high school calc will even be feasible for most kids. Not providing honors classes for Algebra and Geometry, and then asking kids to cram two of the more important classes into a single year will greatly decrease kids' critical foundational knowledge.