Old VMPI plans & FCPS’s E3 Math Pilot

[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.

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?

We were told that when our 4th grader is a 5th grader he'll do the advanced math we're all used to, learning 6th grade content and taking the 6th grade SOL. I think they think that what they have done with 4th grade E3 math extensions and some extra math work during Level 3 pull outs will be enough to make this jump. Remains to be seen how it will go!

My older son didn't move into advanced math until 5th grade, so he skipped 5th grade math as well and it worked really well for him. Hoping it works for my younger as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lies.

[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.

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?

We were told that when our 4th grader is a 5th grader he'll do the advanced math we're all used to, learning 6th grade content and taking the 6th grade SOL. I think they think that what they have done with 4th grade E3 math extensions and some extra math work during Level 3 pull outs will be enough to make this jump. Remains to be seen how it will go!

My older son didn't move into advanced math until 5th grade, so he skipped 5th grade math as well and it worked really well for him. Hoping it works for my younger as well.

Thanks. How often does your 4th grader get extensions and extra math during pull outs each week? Great things worked out so well for your older son. Had he covered the 5th grade material on his own before entering advanced math or did he pick up 5th grade content as he & the class did 6th grade work?

[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.

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?

We were told that when our 4th grader is a 5th grader he'll do the advanced math we're all used to, learning 6th grade content and taking the 6th grade SOL. I think they think that what they have done with 4th grade E3 math extensions and some extra math work during Level 3 pull outs will be enough to make this jump. Remains to be seen how it will go!

My older son didn't move into advanced math until 5th grade, so he skipped 5th grade math as well and it worked really well for him. Hoping it works for my younger as well.

Thanks. How often does your 4th grader get extensions and extra math during pull outs each week? Great things worked out so well for your older son. Had he covered the 5th grade material on his own before entering advanced math or did he pick up 5th grade content as he & the class did 6th grade work?

My 4th grader, I believe, gets extensions for every lesson that is taught. Because the FCPS math curriculum spirals, I think this works. So for any given lesson, when he and his more advanced peers finish the examples that the entire class is working on, the teacher leads them to take the next step. Like I said earlier, the extensions are planned ahead of time and intentional. But it also lets kids who are ready to go further in a certain math skill join in to the advanced group when they are ready and not move into when they aren't. The extra math pull outs are once a week, I believe. I think that part is a work in progress, because I think it's tied to being Level 3. And I'm not sure if that means they are doing math instead of some of the other work they should be doing in Level 3.

For my older son, he had zero problem moving into advanced math in 5th grade and skipping 5th grade content. We did no extra work or tutoring with him and I don't think his teacher did either. He ended up qualifying for Algebra 1 Honors for 7th grade, but we decided to just do Math 7 Honors instead of taking a class for high school credit as a 12 year old. It's been an easy A all year so far - maybe we should have let him do algebra, not sure!

[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:

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?

We were told that when our 4th grader is a 5th grader he'll do the advanced math we're all used to, learning 6th grade content and taking the 6th grade SOL. I think they think that what they have done with 4th grade E3 math extensions and some extra math work during Level 3 pull outs will be enough to make this jump. Remains to be seen how it will go!

My older son didn't move into advanced math until 5th grade, so he skipped 5th grade math as well and it worked really well for him. Hoping it works for my younger as well.

Thanks. How often does your 4th grader get extensions and extra math during pull outs each week? Great things worked out so well for your older son. Had he covered the 5th grade material on his own before entering advanced math or did he pick up 5th grade content as he & the class did 6th grade work?

My 4th grader, I believe, gets extensions for every lesson that is taught. Because the FCPS math curriculum spirals, I think this works. So for any given lesson, when he and his more advanced peers finish the examples that the entire class is working on, the teacher leads them to take the next step. Like I said earlier, the extensions are planned ahead of time and intentional. But it also lets kids who are ready to go further in a certain math skill join in to the advanced group when they are ready and not move into when they aren't. The extra math pull outs are once a week, I believe. I think that part is a work in progress, because I think it's tied to being Level 3. And I'm not sure if that means they are doing math instead of some of the other work they should be doing in Level 3.

For my older son, he had zero problem moving into advanced math in 5th grade and skipping 5th grade content. We did no extra work or tutoring with him and I don't think his teacher did either. He ended up qualifying for Algebra 1 Honors for 7th grade, but we decided to just do Math 7 Honors instead of taking a class for high school credit as a 12 year old. It's been an easy A all year so far - maybe we should have let him do algebra, not sure!

Thanks. So it sounds like they're differentiating in class. The question would be whether the extensions go deeper into grade level content or deeper and faster into the next grade's content. Either way, differentiating is not easy to do with a wide range of students in one class. Time will tell, as you mentioned. However, since all the incoming 5th graders have come from E3, that presumably gives the school more flexibility to compact some 5th grade content with 6th grade content next year if they notice gaps in incoming students.

[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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

You have zero evidence for this--when people with direct experience with the pilot and working with advanced students are telling you different. Sounds like you're just trying to stir things up.

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

No. FCPS' plan is Algebra for 8th grade at the minimum. Their plan is to make everyone take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, ready or not. And then if/when they fail, they expunge and take it again in 9th. They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready.

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

No. FCPS' plan is Algebra for 8th grade at the minimum. Their plan is to make everyone take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, ready or not. And then if/when they fail, they expunge and take it again in 9th. They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready.

Not according to the FCPS website on Course Sequencing: High School Mathematics - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

No. FCPS' plan is Algebra for 8th grade at the minimum. Their plan is to make everyone take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, ready or not. And then if/when they fail, they expunge and take it again in 9th. They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready.

Not according to the FCPS website on Course Sequencing: High School Mathematics - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics

These are the *minimum* requirements for each degree type.

Stop spreading misinformation.

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

You have zero evidence for this--when people with direct experience with the pilot and working with advanced students are telling you different. Sounds like you're just trying to stir things up.

Elections are coming up. Rs lie to push their agenda.

[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:

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

No. FCPS' plan is Algebra for 8th grade at the minimum. Their plan is to make everyone take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, ready or not. And then if/when they fail, they expunge and take it again in 9th. They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready.

Not according to the FCPS website on Course Sequencing: High School Mathematics - https://www.fcps.edu/academics/graduation-requirements-and-course-planning/high-school-course-sequencing/mathematics

These are the *minimum* requirements for each degree type.

Stop spreading misinformation.

This was in response to the PP who said "They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready." The FCPS website shows 4 diploma options where Algebra 1 starts in 9th grade. Perhaps reading more carefully will help.

[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.

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.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

No. FCPS' plan is Algebra for 8th grade at the minimum. Their plan is to make everyone take Algebra 1 in 8th grade, ready or not. And then if/when they fail, they expunge and take it again in 9th. They've got no interest in pushing Algebra 1 to 9th like San Francisco. They're shoehorning everyone into the Algebra no later than 8th path to the detriment of those who aren't ready.

You've made this argument before in other threads. Can you say what it is based on? At present, FCPS is trying to raise the share of underrepresented students taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade so they may be doing outreach and providing encouragement for these kids to consider taking Algebra 1. Are you in a school where this is occurring? But this effort is focused on the demographic shares of who takes Algebra 1 in 8th grade, not the overall share of students taking Algebra 1 itself. If anything, the theme in national math reform efforts (beginning with Common Core) is to encourage kids to delay Algebra 1 until 9th grade. There has been no signal that I can think of that indicates FCPS is advocating 8th grade Algebra 1 for all students. Can you elaborate on your thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One year of Calculus for STEM kids is not fine, especially the watered down version in FCPS.

Not everyone needs higher level math but some professions do. Kids coming out of FCPS are behind their peers from outside the US and most likely from quality schools in the US.

Don’t hold back the kids who have an affinity for math.

How is it watered down?

[Anonymous]

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.

It should only be a small portion of kids taking calculus in 12th grade, maybe 15%.
The problem is some school districts have a very high share of these kids who are capable of calculus, so you would have higher percentages at certain schools, and a cohort that can take calculus in 11th grade or even earlier.
VMPI had all kids taking algebra in 8th grade and algebra 2 in 10th grade, a blended version that had those classes plus geometry in grades 8-10.
However, this was a lie, and it would really have been all students with algebra in 9th grade, unless a school district decided to accelerate with their own curriculum.