really interesting article on math and acceleration

[Anonymous]

There is little evidence that "advanced math" in the elementary years makes anyone more likely to be a skilled mathematician. I agree with the status thing. It is blatantly about status. These parents trample on the system abusing teachers and administrators (and their own children) trying to get advanced math classes for Johnny. They don't care if their actions with advanced groupings actually hurt kids in the lower groups (which has been shown) or leads to incomplete understanding by Johnny. They just want Johnny to be in Trig by 8th grade. The worst part of this is that these parents would NEVER WANT JOHNNY TO BE A MATHEMATICIAN because they know that it does not pay. They want Johnny to be a lawyer or doctor or something more lucrative.
There are many many selfish parents out there.

Most elementary school kids in other countries (poor and relatively well off) are more advanced in Math than American elementary school kids. I suspect we have more of our kids in math graduate programs than the rest of the globe. Furthermore, we are probably at the top of the heap in regards math performance.

Is there evidence that redshirted math kids (e.g., held back and can't add, subtract, divide and multiply fractions and decimals in high school) are more likely to be skilled mathematicians? Do you need a randomized, prospective double blind study to answer the question for you (e.g. calculator) or is it ok to use one's brain (e.g., common sense) for the answer ( akin to math intuition and number sense).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is little evidence that "advanced math" in the elementary years makes anyone more likely to be a skilled mathematician. I agree with the status thing. It is blatantly about status. These parents trample on the system abusing teachers and administrators (and their own children) trying to get advanced math classes for Johnny. They don't care if their actions with advanced groupings actually hurt kids in the lower groups (which has been shown) or leads to incomplete understanding by Johnny. They just want Johnny to be in Trig by 8th grade. The worst part of this is that these parents would NEVER WANT JOHNNY TO BE A MATHEMATICIAN because they know that it does not pay. They want Johnny to be a lawyer or doctor or something more lucrative.
There are many many selfish parents out there.

Most elementary school kids in other countries (poor and relatively well off) are more advanced in Math than American elementary school kids. I suspect we have more of our kids in math graduate programs than the rest of the globe. Furthermore, we are probably at the top of the heap in regards math performance.

Is there evidence that redshirted math kids (e.g., held back and can't add, subtract, divide and multiply fractions and decimals in high school) are more likely to be skilled mathematicians? Do you need a randomized, prospective double blind study to answer the question for you (e.g. calculator) or is it ok to use one's brain (e.g., common sense) for the answer ( akin to math intuition and number sense).

Unfortunately, this is why we study using the prospective double blinded studies. Some things that seem intuitive do not always prove to be true.
It is not true that MOST elementary kids in other countries are more advanced than their US counter parts. It is true that most in the developed world are more advanced at the elem. level.
There are many foreign students in our math grad programs.
There is no evidence that red shirted kids are more likely to be skilled mathematicians. Gifted kids are also not likely to be mathematicians, any where in the world. The point is that for any society, at the elementary level it is imperative to teach to all kids and get them as functional as possible so that the RN administering your meds when you are in the hospital can quickly spot an erroneous dose. The genius kids who want to pursue math can do so after sitting next to the red-shirted kid in 4th grade. Let's just have reasonable goals, good teachers, and good curricula.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, this is why we study using the prospective double blinded studies. Some things that seem intuitive do not always prove to be true.
It is not true that MOST elementary kids in other countries are more advanced than their US counter parts. It is true that most in the developed world are more advanced at the elem. level.
There are many foreign students in our math grad programs.
There is no evidence that red shirted kids are more likely to be skilled mathematicians. Gifted kids are also not likely to be mathematicians, any where in the world. The point is that for any society, at the elementary level it is imperative to teach to all kids and get them as functional as possible so that the RN administering your meds when you are in the hospital can quickly spot an erroneous dose. The genius kids who want to pursue math can do so after sitting next to the red-shirted kid in 4th grade. Let's just have reasonable goals, good teachers, and good curricula.
[Report Post]

There is enough pilot data from math high school and college professors over the decade engaged in more and more remedial math education because their kids can't even add, subtract, multiply and divide positive and negative whole numbers, fractions and decimals and have weak foundations in algebra. We don't need to spend more millions of dollars on another study to roll out yet another math curriculum every decade in a field for which, at the primary and secondary school levels, there have been no fundamental or paradigm shifting new knowledge. Get back to basics and get the calculator out of the primary school math classroom (until teachers and students know how to use the device). This is a fast and cheap initial solution to a large part of our problem with math education in this country. Appropriately accelerated children in math (as in reading, writing, music, arts, languages, basketball, golf, chess and soccer) are not disadvantaged when it comes to mastery of their craft.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, this is why we study using the prospective double blinded studies. Some things that seem intuitive do not always prove to be true.
It is not true that MOST elementary kids in other countries are more advanced than their US counter parts. It is true that most in the developed world are more advanced at the elem. level.
There are many foreign students in our math grad programs.
There is no evidence that red shirted kids are more likely to be skilled mathematicians. Gifted kids are also not likely to be mathematicians, any where in the world. The point is that for any society, at the elementary level it is imperative to teach to all kids and get them as functional as possible so that the RN administering your meds when you are in the hospital can quickly spot an erroneous dose. The genius kids who want to pursue math can do so after sitting next to the red-shirted kid in 4th grade. Let's just have reasonable goals, good teachers, and good curricula.
[Report Post]

Americans always for want of looking for someone to blame and sue. Blame the teachers and curricula. Then blame the teachers when homework is handed out ... then blame the teachers when their child earns a C grade. A large part of the problem with math education lies squarely with the American parent and the American child.

Disclosure: I do not teach for my livelihood.

[Anonymous]

A little off topic, but I'm curious what these advanced children learn during their math education if they are on this advanced track and say know all their addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division by 2nd grade or so. I have a friend with a kindergartener who knows addition and subtraction very well even with high numbers and has been moving on to multiplication and division. I'm just wondering where does this child end up at the end of elementary, middle, or high school? Is there any benefit to this type of acceleration in a public school setting or do you basically have to find a private school to handle children at a level like that?

[Anonymous]

I should know better than to start a thread about math here. The article wasn't about calculators. It wasn't about blaming teachers. It was about curriculum and testing. And what it means to learn something -- e.g. the difference between memorizing an algorithm and being able to generate the correct answer from it vs. understanding why a particular algorithm works and how/when you use it. Or another way to put it might be the difference between math facts and mathematical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids need to be able to multiply, divide, add and subtract without thinking about it and without a calculator. It should be a split second response. Then and only then are the prepared to move on to higher math. If you don't have a solid foundation, their understanding of math from here on out will suffer.

That thinking is why kids in college are taking remedial math a class I taught in college.

No kids that can memorize random fact are not necessarily logical thinkers. Most dyslexic kids can not do this and without a doubt can do it on a timed test. Dyslexic kids are notofiously slow at basic recall of random fact but excel in logical thinking.

Your thinking is the exact reason we are behind in Math in the US but Kumon is rocking financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have a degree in Math. We programmed all our problems after the elementary levels of Math like calculus, diverential eq and linear algebra.

The idea that advanced Math needs to just be able to do calculations in your head is silly.

Sounds like one of those modern degrees in fuzzy math.

The problem high school and college teachers have is that these kids need remediation. They can't even do a multiple choice exam like the SAT math section tons of SAT prep and a calculator.

No wonder higher level math is difficult for them.

If you cannot add, subtract, divide and multiply effortlessly with whole numbers, fractions and decimals (NO CALCULATORS) before middle school...the ball game is pretty much over.

Exactly - you have left out a whole group of kids that are very good Engineers but they are relegated to Car Mechanic because the teaching theory believes this is the foundation of math - and it just is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Kids need to be able to multiply, divide, add and subtract without thinking about it and without a calculator. It should be a split second response. Then and only then are the prepared to move on to higher math. If you don't have a solid foundation, their understanding of math from here on out will suffer.

American kids could perform these tasks before the days of calculators decades ago. Kids going to school today in poorer countries without calculators can also perform these tasks. Perhaps this may explain who is getting advanced degrees in mathematics, engineering and physics today ... without the fears of dropping out and insecure inferiority.

I have an advanced Math degree and I disagree with you completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have a degree in Math. We programmed all our problems after the elementary levels of Math like calculus, diverential eq and linear algebra.

The idea that advanced Math needs to just be able to do calculations in your head is silly.

I do not have a degree in fuzzy math but only once you get to advanced Math do you have the license to use a calculator for computation. Many who relie on such a device in elementary school will never get to advanced Math. They make up the largest group of Math drop outs.

Wrong again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids need to be able to multiply, divide, add and subtract without thinking about it and without a calculator. It should be a split second response. Then and only then are the prepared to move on to higher math. If you don't have a solid foundation, their understanding of math from here on out will suffer.

Don't completely agree. It makes it easier to move on, but not impossible. They should give it a good try though. Every child by end of grade 4 should have multiplication tables down (even by end of 3rd grade). But if they do not, it does not automatically mean higher math is out. I have a math degree from a prestigious university and never completely learned my tables (GPA 3.6). Still have trouble with the 8's.

Me too - I know my sevens only because of football. Kids need to understand the concept but immediacy in 4 and 5 grade is shoudl not stop a kid from advanced math. You can tell all the kids that are great memorizers fail geormety because it requires understanding and logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let me see, kids don't need to learn to multiply because they can use a calculator, they don't need to learn to spell because they use spell-check, they don't need to learn to write because they can type on a keyboard, they don't need to speak because they can text. What exactly do they need to learn to do? I think we have a whole generation (of Americans) who are seriously fucked the first time the power goes out or they run out of batteries.

Well said...the entitlement and dependency generation.

No, they should play and have fun. Everything else is torture and abuse.

Actually these are the kids that invented the Internet and your precious iPad. These kids were constantly failing in school but showed up anyway because they understood that not being able to spell or learn phonics was not going to stop them. Yes they need spell check but they make your email work because when your write computer code you better get it right but it is not like english it actually make sense..

Their friends who are patted on their head for the 15 minutes of homework they do because and their straight A's are dropping out of college at an alarming rate because they actually have to work and sometimes fail and they can't handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should know better than to start a thread about math here. The article wasn't about calculators. It wasn't about blaming teachers. It was about curriculum and testing. And what it means to learn something -- e.g. the difference between memorizing an algorithm and being able to generate the correct answer from it vs. understanding why a particular algorithm works and how/when you use it. Or another way to put it might be the difference between math facts and mathematical thinking.

I agree - if the kid understand why or how then move on don't drive him crazy with math worksheets on the same thing over and over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids need to be able to multiply, divide, add and subtract without thinking about it and without a calculator. It should be a split second response. Then and only then are the prepared to move on to higher math. If you don't have a solid foundation, their understanding of math from here on out will suffer.

Don't completely agree. It makes it easier to move on, but not impossible. They should give it a good try though. Every child by end of grade 4 should have multiplication tables down (even by end of 3rd grade). But if they do not, it does not automatically mean higher math is out. I have a math degree from a prestigious university and never completely learned my tables (GPA 3.6). Still have trouble with the 8's.

Me too - I know my sevens only because of football. Kids need to understand the concept but immediacy in 4 and 5 grade is shoudl not stop a kid from advanced math. You can tell all the kids that are great memorizers fail geormety because it requires understanding and logic.

Agree, but at the elementary level they decide who is good at math based on this memory (I am not saying that memorization is not important, it is). The teachers will place a kid in a low ability group if that child can not rattle off their tables. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could squeak the tables out fast, but some are not fast, and not dumb. Some can go on to advanced math with little trouble, but it is unlikely since they will get tracked early to lower groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: You can tell all the kids that are great memorizers fail geometry because it requires understanding and logic.

Interesting. My kid is loving geometry and the geometry teacher is loving my kid.