Open enrollment for Math 7 Honors

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

[pettifogger]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

[Anonymous]

We know several AAP
Kids who really struggled in math 7 honors last year. A lot of kids who don't have private tutors have covid holes in their math knowledge.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

[pettifogger]

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

DP. If they need to use fingers to multiply, then they can take Algebra in 8th grade, one year ahead of schedule. That's not an insult or holding deserving kids back. It's taking the right math class at the right time.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

You're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say speed = intelligence. I said it's correlated. And that point is absolutely 100% true.

[pettifogger]

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

You're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say speed = intelligence. I said it's correlated. And that point is absolutely 100% true.

Here's the concluding sentence of your original claim, which is definitely disinformation: "Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent." You're clearly implying causality here and that's just silly. There are many kids who enjoy thinking about things more deeply, are you saying they're less intelligent? There are many adults who like to consider things before they pass judgement or make assumptions, they may be perceived as slow.. are they any less intelligent?

Correlation is not the same as causation, this is a key idea in statistics.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

You're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say speed = intelligence. I said it's correlated. And that point is absolutely 100% true.

Here's the concluding sentence of your original claim, which is definitely disinformation: "Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent." You're clearly implying causality here and that's just silly. There are many kids who enjoy thinking about things more deeply, are you saying they're less intelligent? There are many adults who like to consider things before they pass judgement or make assumptions, they may be perceived as slow.. are they any less intelligent?

Correlation is not the same as causation, this is a key idea in statistics.

DP: And societies tend to correlate access to opportunities with measures of intelligence/correlates of IQ (e.g., timed tests for admissions to gifted programs, timed tests for college admissions) so when people look at all the outcomes that higher IQ predicts (e.g. career success, academic success), it's important to consider that we have systematically tied hurdles to access opportunities through IQ tests or correlates of IQ. And since SES and IQ are also correlates, it's hard to disentangle the outcomes associated with IQ from the outcomes associated with SES. (Even the "gold standard" adopted twin studies are flawed because adoptive families don't represent the full range of families--they tend to be higher SES and higher IQ/education level on average). More qualitatively, Western culture tends to privilege speed over deliberation and effort in their conceptions of intelligence so we tend to reward and think people who think quick are smarter, but this is not a cultural universal. But in recent history a lot of opportunities have been awarded to those whose intelligence aligns with what Western culture emphasized (and what is embedded in IQ tests). My own thought is that IQ tests are solid measurement tools and have found a lot of correlates--biologically and in the world--with what they measure, some of which are meaningful--but they don't measure a lot of important things that people around the world consider intelligence--including in math.

That said, I think the timed test assesses fluency with mathematical concepts more than processing speed anyway--which I would say is important to moving on to algebra. So barring a general processing speed LD, I think the IAAT is a reasonably good hurdle IMO to get past to take Algebra 1 H early.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

You're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say speed = intelligence. I said it's correlated. And that point is absolutely 100% true.

Here's the concluding sentence of your original claim, which is definitely disinformation: "Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent." You're clearly implying causality here and that's just silly. There are many kids who enjoy thinking about things more deeply, are you saying they're less intelligent? There are many adults who like to consider things before they pass judgement or make assumptions, they may be perceived as slow.. are they any less intelligent?

Correlation is not the same as causation, this is a key idea in statistics.

I do statistics for a living my friend. And I hate to tell you, but whether causal or not, when one thing is correlated with another, a reduction in one means a reduction in the other. That's kinda how correlations work. Okay I'm obviously arguing with someone who didn't pass the Iowa test lol

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

AAP teacher here.

The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.

Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.

That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.

This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?

It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.

Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:

There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.

Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.

I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.

You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.

There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.

I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure

Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.

DP. It's not that speed = great intelligence. On the surface, though, being overly slow shows that something is lacking in terms of readiness to be accelerated an extra year. Many kids do fully understand all of the algorithms after 6th grade and aren't still trying to figure out how they work. The last thing a kid who is still trying to fully understand the long division algorithm or fraction adding algorithms needs is to be thrust into Algebra, where they'll be bombarded with even more complex materials. Also, the IAAT is not overly or unreasonably fast for kids who lack LDs. If an AAP level kid is told that the test is timed, they must work quickly, and they should only check work if they have time left over, but the kid is incapable of doing so, then the kid is most likely still too immature to handle a high school level class.

[Anonymous]

pettifogger wrote:
You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:

Generally, when kids are close to but not quite at the IAAT cutoff, get a very high SOL score, and have the support of their teacher, they're allowed to take Algebra I in 7th. The cutoffs are more of a guideline that is often waived when the MS deems it appropriate to do so.

[Anonymous]

OP, info I'm providing is a few years old ... DD was a kid who preferred working on math than any other subject. Math 7 Honors was definitely *extra* math, more than was necessary to advance to the next math class.

[Anonymous]

Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.

I wholeheartedly disagree - most of the kids in Advanced Math/AAP at our school took Math 7 Honors (which, if we need to put a name to it, is PreAlgebra), even if they scored high on the Iowa. There were a handful in Algebra I in 7th grade at our "all honors" MS.

To answer the OPs question, if you were at grade level in 6th and went to Math 7 Honors, that's still skipping a year of math. Math 7 Honors is still one year ahead in Math, Algebra I in 7th grade is 2 years ahead in Math.

I realize this area (and all these people talking about speed as it correlates to intelligence and passing percentage on the Iowa) is all about push push push but jeez, just let your kid (and more importantly YOU) be happy with where they are. Were YOU two grade levels ahead in 7th grade math? Even in 7th grade, they have a LONG way to go, even to finish high school. If they aren't ready for Math 7 honors and have been happy at grade level up until now, it will be fine. Really, I promise.