Old VMPI plans & FCPS’s E3 Math Pilot

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:PP the US has fallen in the world educational rankings and like it or not the world now operates on a global scale. I suggest that math majors and engineers take a shot a UK A levels in math, samples available here - https://revisionmaths.com/level-maths/level-maths-past-papers . You are the products of American math programs. These are exams given to 17 & 18 year-olds to help determine which universities they will attend.

The US is currently ranked 24th in the world in math. How much farther do we have to fall.


What percent of UK students pass the math A levels with a high enough score to study in fields requiring them? And do you think that there would not be a similar percentage out of the US that would pass them?

Not every child in the UK takes A levels and not every child who takes A levels takes the math A level. We end up comparing test scores and results out of a US system that does not have tracked programs to programs in Europe and Asia were there is tracking. Students have to test into high schools in many Asian countries. I don’t end up buying that the US is 24th in math because I don’t think that they are comparing similar kids across the board and the US system doesn’t highlight our standouts the way the European and Asian systems do.


This. This is what I don't understand about the rankings. We're pushing *all* public school students to take Calculus in 12th grade? Or at least pre-Calculus in 11th? There are scores upon scores of kids in the UK who stop taking maths completely at 16. In fact, only 28% of students in the UK take the maths A-level which means that 72% of students stop taking math at 16. It feels impossible to compare with the US system.


No one is saying everyone should take Calculus in 12th grade, but for those students who want to pursue STEM careers or work in finance or economics need a strong math background to successfully compete at top colleges in the US and abroad. So, for those students, the ability to take math classes beyond Calculus is valuable. If that needs to be through dual enrollment that is fine. But let those options exist.


Most, if not all, STEM undergrad programs don't accept any credit beyond AP Calculus or IB Math Analysis. Math beyond calculus at the K-12 level is superficial at best and burdens teachers with another prep to teach for a relatively small fraction of kids.

Most universities are far more interested in students having deep breadth and rigor across all subjects. Dual enrollment should be the only option to access math beyond calculus. Not FCPS's responsibility.


It is not about the credit. FCPS "responsibility" is to enable each child to reach their full potential in all subjects, but in this case we are focusing on math. By and large advanced math is watered down at FCPS. Perhaps because they cannot find qualified teachers. Fine then set-up appropriate dual enrollment programs. Prepare students to thrive in college, not to just get admitted and have to take remedial math courses to catch up to better prepared students. People used to move to Fairfax County for the public school system. Those days if not already gone are surely short in number.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


I had Algebra 1 in 7th grade 50 years ago in a small town in PA, so really FCPS hasn't advanced beyond that standard. Ended Senior year with MV Calc. The world is passing FCPS by, fortunately San Francisco and other backward moving systems will help keep FCPS on top.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


I had Algebra 1 in 7th grade 50 years ago in a small town in PA, so really FCPS hasn't advanced beyond that standard. Ended Senior year with MV Calc. The world is passing FCPS by, fortunately San Francisco and other backward moving systems will help keep FCPS on top.

It just seems strange that people would openly support removing it as an option, even though it already exists and has existed for 20 years in FCPS. Why take it away?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.

Students may find it harder to qualify for 7th grade Algebra under the new path than the prior one, because they will have a shorter, more compacted acceleration. The goal of starting acceleration in third grade was to take a more gradual path that would generate deeper understanding. However, the earlier accelerated start doesn't catch kids who develop later, as you note, so there are benefits from delaying from that perspective. The decision when to accelerate involves trade-offs.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.


Take a look here - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics looks like Algebra 1 in 8th grade.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.


Take a look here - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics looks like Algebra 1 in 8th grade.



That’s the *minimum* requirements for the diploma types.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.


Take a look here - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics looks like Algebra 1 in 8th grade.



That’s the *minimum* requirements for the diploma types.


OK, so you are hoping they continue this - https://rockyrunms.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/inline-files/MATHEMATICS%20ACADEMIC%20SEQUENCE%20OF%20COURSES%202018.pdf
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.


Take a look here - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics looks like Algebra 1 in 8th grade.



That’s the *minimum* requirements for the diploma types.


OK, so you are hoping they continue this - https://rockyrunms.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/inline-files/MATHEMATICS%20ACADEMIC%20SEQUENCE%20OF%20COURSES%202018.pdf


I think it'd be best if they don't offer acceleration until 7th to have algebra 1 in 8th. But I'm not actively pushing for that.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.


Take a look here - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics looks like Algebra 1 in 8th grade.



I don't think that's a change. Some students who qualify for 7th grade Algebra 1 will simply move that 5 year option one to the left and have a 6th year. They don't designate it by grade level on purpose, simply call it "year 1". For some kids "year 1" is in 7th.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.

Unfortunately they are not teaching the 5th grade curriculum in 4th for e3. So kids will not be prepared for 6th grade math the following year.

If they were teaching 5th grade math in 4th, then they wouldn’t need e3. they could just teach everyone the current advanced math curriculum.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
I’d be fine with that. Certainly removing it for 6th graders. It’s a race to nowhere.


Ok, that's a strong and dismissive statement. Here is some data for you.

Between 2008 and 2022, 441 FCPS 6th grade students took the Algebra I SOL, or 34 per year on average. Assuming a rounded 15,000 students per grade, that's 0.23%, or less than 1 out of 400 students.

Of these 441 students, 440 passed the SOL. 413 passed at the "advanced level". By comparison, state-wide pass rates across all grades in the same SOL have never exceeded 75% and for advanced are typically below 10%.

Moving on to 7th graders taking the Geometry SOL and 8th graders taking the Algebra II SOL, you will find similarly perfect pass rates and near perfect advanced pass rates.

These students whom you so casually dismiss as "racing to nowhere" do, in fact, go somewhere. They go on to become successful scientists and engineers.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I’d be fine with that. Certainly removing it for 6th graders. It’s a race to nowhere.


Ok, that's a strong and dismissive statement. Here is some data for you.

Between 2008 and 2022, 441 FCPS 6th grade students took the Algebra I SOL, or 34 per year on average. Assuming a rounded 15,000 students per grade, that's 0.23%, or less than 1 out of 400 students.

Of these 441 students, 440 passed the SOL. 413 passed at the "advanced level". By comparison, state-wide pass rates across all grades in the same SOL have never exceeded 75% and for advanced are typically below 10%.

Moving on to 7th graders taking the Geometry SOL and 8th graders taking the Algebra II SOL, you will find similarly perfect pass rates and near perfect advanced pass rates.

These students whom you so casually dismiss as "racing to nowhere" do, in fact, go somewhere. They go on to become successful scientists and engineers.

+1
I do volunteer math enrichment with a few very advanced kids in elementary FCPS and one is in an E3 pilot school so I've looked into it a bit. I don't think the E3 approach will stop the very math advanced kids from doing the acceleration they are already doing. AAP math will still exist and kids who need faster acceleration than E3 can be place ahead in AAP math even if they are not in AAP. That's what the pilot schools are currently doing and when I talk to folks they seem to think it will help better identify advanced kids. I think the aim of this program is to prepare a wider group of students for 8th grade algebra. If anything, the differentiated groups seem to be good for the students who weren't flagged for AAP but are showing their aptitude in the smaller group. It seems like E3 is being used to improve math for gen ed but is keeping acceleration options open for those who would benefit from AAP in 7th or even 5th or 6th grade like they currently do. The latter two are unusual, but they are definitely there and there's no signs that they are ending that. I agree that for advanced kids math acceleration is not a race to nowhere--it's their way to thrive. I haven't seen ANY signal that FCPS is going to end acceleration for those kids.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:They said they were finding gaps appear down the road, even showing up in high school, for students who jump and skip a year of content (which all advanced math kids do at some point), and this new curriculum, which will eventually extend all the way down to Kindergarten (NOT up to replace the current advanced math path), is supposed to fill in those gaps so that every student with the ability is ready for the jump to advanced math.


This means they are planning on eliminating the math advancement in later grades as well, as they don't want students jumping a year ahead.
They just don't want to say it now and upset too many people.
Likely they will try to reduce the advancement by hiding the availability of advancement, pushing up SOL requirements, then when numbers have dropped, saying there isn't enough interest.

Just see the VMPI video where they argue calculus in high school is overrated.


It is overrated for most kids. And for STEM kids, one year of calculus is fine.


The plan is to get rid of that year of calculus as well. VMPI would have required students to learn precalc on their own, though they claimed it would be part of their plans.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.


Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?


Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.


PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?


Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.


Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.


Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.


Who said FCPS is removing this option? My child is in a pilot program for E3 and nothing is changing for 5th grade math and beyond. E3 math is supposed to prepare MORE children to be ready to work at the current 6th grade level as 5th graders. These students will take the IOWA and if they qualify with that score and their SOLs, they can choose to do 7th grade Algebra. Nothing is changing with that. The goal of E3 is to get even more children ready for 8th grade Algebra, and especially a more diverse group. Studies show that beginning math tracking in 3rd and 4th grade leave out certain demographics and I think they are hoping that waiting just another year or two to begin firm tracking will create a more diverse population taking Algebra in 8th grade.

What SOLs will current E3 fourth graders take next year in fifth grade -- the Grade 5 SOL or the Grade 6 SOL? If the latter, are schools planning to compact both 5th and 6th grade content into 5th grade next year?
post reply Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: