Maryland could axe advanced math classes in elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is contradictory word salad.

https://go.boarddocs.com/md/msde/Board.nsf/files/DDCNW2617726/$file/Math%20Policy%20(INFORMATION%20ONLY).pdf

"includes a transition away from the
traditional Algebra-Geometry-
Algebra 2 sequence to Integrated
Algebra 1 & 2 beginning in school
year 2027-2028"

So are they eliminating Geometry?

Or accelerating 3 years into 2, to magically help kids who can't even learn it in 3 years?


My god, they'll try anything, anything, except having kids STUDY AND PRACTICE MATH MORE.

Geometry can easily be integrated. It's weird that it's a year long class all by itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the sort of thing that drives middle of the road Dems to vote Republican.

Sure, Republicans love education

Sure you aren't confusing the Rs "pull you up by your bootstraps" as a love of education

Don't get lost in D vs R.

Centrists have to pick a side, and often do based on issues close to home.

We used to have Rockefeller Republicans, who loved money but also liked society.

Time long gone.

Careful you don't get bit this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is contradictory word salad.

https://go.boarddocs.com/md/msde/Board.nsf/files/DDCNW2617726/$file/Math%20Policy%20(INFORMATION%20ONLY).pdf

"includes a transition away from the
traditional Algebra-Geometry-
Algebra 2 sequence to Integrated
Algebra 1 & 2 beginning in school
year 2027-2028"

So are they eliminating Geometry?

Or accelerating 3 years into 2, to magically help kids who can't even learn it in 3 years?


My god, they'll try anything, anything, except having kids STUDY AND PRACTICE MATH MORE.

Geometry can easily be integrated. It's weird that it's a year long class all by itself.

Of course! But, as you probably know, but the MSDE task force doesn't, 3 > 2.

[Anonymous]

I want to know what are the math credentials of the people who wrote this plan.

[Anonymous]

Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf

[Anonymous]

"spent 20 years failing to teach kids math" is not an inspiring credential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf


"One way to do this is to place a finger on their chest indicating that they have one
strategy to share. If they have two strategies to share, they place out two fingers on their chest and so on. If a highly advanced student has five strategies to share, and is very excited, they place five fingers on their chest and then raise up their arm. To avoid distracting other students who are still working, they should only lift their arm 2/3
toward vertical, and keep their palm down, in th style of a Roman Numeral Salute."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf

https://core-docs.s3.amaz...rade_3.pdf


"One way to do this is to place a finger on their chest indicating that they have one
strategy to share. If they have two strategies to share, they place out two fingers on their chest and so on. If a highly advanced student has five strategies to share, and is very excited, they place five fingers on their chest and then raise up their arm. To avoid distracting other students who are still working, they should only lift their arm 2/3
toward vertical, and keep their palm down, in the style of a Roman Numeral Salute."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf

From link says teachers to have number talks where “teacher is not to be the definite authority” and “simply records student thinking.” All depends on how teachers interpret this. Our DC’s teacher had it mean teacher should never correct any child. So number talks were kids giving all kinds of wrong answers to math problems and wrong ways of doing problem and maybe some right, but teacher never corrected or said what actual answers. That teaching method didn’t work for many in class and lots of parents got tutors that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

In practice, large group lecture means a poor live performance of what is already done better in a Khan or YouTube video, on a topic that half the kids already know and half the kids aren't ready for yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

In practice, large group lecture means a poor live performance of what is already done better in a Khan or YouTube video, on a topic that half the kids already know and half the kids aren't ready for yet.

But the debate here is small groups vs. ability tracking into separate classrooms for math. It's not small groups vs. heterogeneous whole class instruction. The only thing that is accomplished when you switch from having an advanced math class to having advanced math clusters in a heterogeneous class is that the teacher now has a group of kids she gets to ignore, and she has more time for struggling groups. It's a way to close the equity and achievement gaps from both the bottom up and the top down.

[Anonymous]

What is the best way to oppose this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

+1
because it is really unrealistic to expect teachers to be teaching multiple classes at once. And at least in my kids' cases, the county did not create the "deeper" math extensions - teachers had to come up with this themselves to supplement for the kids needing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

That’s an argument for having tracked classes! Not doing 10 time-wasting “pretests” every year and constantly changing the goal posts for each kid, such that parents have no idea what they are actually supposed to be learning.