Math league competition for 2nd grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

First, you seem like you know what you are talking about rare on here

Do you really think lower income, ELL, and yes stereotypically black and hispanic parents/kids know about all of this?

For me the whole TJ thing could probably be solved if you identify say 25-50 kids in the prior category that are brilliant in math but simply aren't identified/nurtured because they have no idea the things up above exist.

Thanks. I coach math competition teams, so I've seen quite a bit.

Kids who are naturally brilliant in math (like 99.9th percentile and above) will stick out somewhere, whether it's to their parents, or whether it's to their teachers, on standardized tests, etc. Someone with some level of power to help the kid will notice. It's a different story for kids who are not "naturally brilliant," but still quite bright, eminently capable of TJ, and underprivileged. I'd love to see stronger Young Scholars programs to help nurture kids who are underprivileged and at least somewhat level the playing field.

Even for the underprivileged kids, it won't matter that much if they wait until middle school to enter math competitions and receive coaching. In my experience, a lot of kids who have been taking weekend math classes since K, but aren't naturals at math will get competent scores in Mathcounts or AMCs, but they won't break into the top. Kids who are naturally brilliant may start out a little lower at the beginning, but by the end of the year and after getting some contests under their belts, they leave the other kids behind in the dust. It is advantageous to be exposed to more math, but ultimately the natural brilliance matters more than the practice. Lower tier, elementary school contests like CML and MOEMS won't make any long term differences in the kid's problem solving ability.

TJ really is unlikely to be that impressed by middling scores in math contests achieved by traditionally privileged kids. If anything, it would probably work against a kid to look like someone who has invested a lot of time in math competitions, but still doesn't have any notable achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also don't think there are any truly naturally brilliant in math kids who haven't been identified and aren't already competing in high level contests. Kids who are that far ahead in math and that brilliant are certainly taking AMCs before and during middle school. Many of them are also posting on AoPS, doing Alcumus problems, and generally teaching themselves math.

I could not disagree more with the above. You’ve only got kids with means and loads of tutoring competing in the high level contests in middle school. These are kids who have been either lucky enough to be in a school that recognizes and supports raw math talent, or, and more likely to be the case, these are the kids who have parents pushing them ahead in math and are aware of these math comps.

Also, the kids who had to over prepare to do well in math counts and AMC 8 and 10 are not the ones doing the best on later competitions where you can see true math talent.

I think we're defining "naturally brilliant" differently. Just like there are kids speaking in full, coherent paragraphs at 15 months and reading by 2-3 years, there are kids who intuitively grasp and can handle multi-digit multiplication, division with remainders, fractions (including all operations), and can solve quite a lot of word problems before starting K. There is a threshold of giftedness where you, the kid's teachers, and even random strangers are just going to notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also don't think there are any truly naturally brilliant in math kids who haven't been identified and aren't already competing in high level contests. Kids who are that far ahead in math and that brilliant are certainly taking AMCs before and during middle school. Many of them are also posting on AoPS, doing Alcumus problems, and generally teaching themselves math.

I could not disagree more with the above. You’ve only got kids with means and loads of tutoring competing in the high level contests in middle school. These are kids who have been either lucky enough to be in a school that recognizes and supports raw math talent, or, and more likely to be the case, these are the kids who have parents pushing them ahead in math and are aware of these math comps.

Also, the kids who had to over prepare to do well in math counts and AMC 8 and 10 are not the ones doing the best on later competitions where you can see true math talent.

I think we're defining "naturally brilliant" differently. Just like there are kids speaking in full, coherent paragraphs at 15 months and reading by 2-3 years, there are kids who intuitively grasp and can handle multi-digit multiplication, division with remainders, fractions (including all operations), and can solve quite a lot of word problems before starting K. There is a threshold of giftedness where you, the kid's teachers, and even random strangers are just going to notice.

But who is exposing these bright youngsters to math problems at young ages? Many bright underprivileged kids aren’t even exposed to math before K, and even if the parents notice a their child has a gift, no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I'm making my point poorly. For math contests, TJ is only going to care about standouts. These would be the kids who are likely to be strong members of TJ's math team and in the top 10 or so in their grade at TJ. These are the kids who are making it to Mathcounts nationals or qualifying for AIME in middle school. TJ is not going to care about elementary school math contests or mediocre results in middle school ones.

If a kid from Longfellow middle school places 10th at Mathcounts chapters, TJ will not likely be interested in that kid. It's an okay result, but most likely achieved by a kid who has been preparing for many years. Perhaps if a kid from Sandburg or Glasgow scored in the top 10, TJ would care, as those kids are unlikely to be the products of extreme prep.

The whole context, though, is that a PP argued that it's unfair for TJ admissions that some kids are getting CML while others aren't. CML is a lesser contest and will not make a difference in the kids' problem solving ability or their ability to access TJ. It's just not an important or good enough test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But who is exposing these bright youngsters to math problems at young ages? Many bright underprivileged kids aren’t even exposed to math before K, and even if the parents notice a their child has a gift, no one cares.

They glean a lot from reading books, watching educational cartoons, playing on their iPads, and just plucking ideas out of thin air. Also, kids who are above a certain threshold of giftedness catch on to everything they are taught at lightning speed. Mine was already reading "how to" books for Minecraft, implementing what he read, and even figured out multiplication and unit conversions via crafting in Minecraft at ages 3-4. He had memorized the standard multiplication and division tables when he was 3, and then at 4 learned remainders because I asked him what 84/9 was equal to. He replied that "it didn't work." I told him that there would be some left over, and he needed to tell me how many groups and how many leftovers. Just like that, in the span of 30 seconds, my 4 year old mastered an entire unit taught in FCPS 4th grade math. As a preschooler, he also intuitively understood that 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 and other simple fraction additions. I have no idea how he learned it, other than that he just saw that that was the way it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But who is exposing these bright youngsters to math problems at young ages? Many bright underprivileged kids aren’t even exposed to math before K, and even if the parents notice a their child has a gift, no one cares.

They glean a lot from reading books, watching educational cartoons, playing on their iPads, and just plucking ideas out of thin air. Also, kids who are above a certain threshold of giftedness catch on to everything they are taught at lightning speed. Mine was already reading "how to" books for Minecraft, implementing what he read, and even figured out multiplication and unit conversions via crafting in Minecraft at ages 3-4. He had memorized the standard multiplication and division tables when he was 3, and then at 4 learned remainders because I asked him what 84/9 was equal to. He replied that "it didn't work." I told him that there would be some left over, and he needed to tell me how many groups and how many leftovers. Just like that, in the span of 30 seconds, my 4 year old mastered an entire unit taught in FCPS 4th grade math. As a preschooler, he also intuitively understood that 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 and other simple fraction additions. I have no idea how he learned it, other than that he just saw that that was the way it should be.

I just asked my 6 year old what 1/2+1/4= and DC answered 75%. DC has been levels ahead since birth in most areas, I should maybe schedule testing, but not sure if it will make any difference knowing his IQ. DC can be so awkward around kids his age.

[Anonymous]

You do realize that the kids described above are few and far between. These kids would make up around 1/4 of an incoming class at TJ. As for the rest, they'll need to practice. When a few schools are offering clubs or provide opportunities like CML IN CLASS when others don't, that's not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that the kids described above are few and far between. These kids would make up around 1/4 of an incoming class at TJ. As for the rest, they'll need to practice. When a few schools are offering clubs or provide opportunities like CML IN CLASS when others don't, that's not fair.

Having a robust middle school math club will make a difference for TJ admissions. Attending outside tutoring will make a difference. Practicing for the TJ test will make a difference. CML in elementary school will do absolutely nothing to help a kid get into TJ. There are plenty of iniquities in the system, but CML is not one of them. It's not a test that will kindle a love of math, detect previously unnoticed talent, or develop problem solving skills in any meaningful way. Honestly, CML, MOEMS, and even things like word masters are completely meaningless and only given in school so the principal can brag about the school or as a way to placate helicopter parents. None of these contests do anything meaningful for the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that the kids described above are few and far between. These kids would make up around 1/4 of an incoming class at TJ. As for the rest, they'll need to practice. When a few schools are offering clubs or provide opportunities like CML IN CLASS when others don't, that's not fair.

Having a robust middle school math club will make a difference for TJ admissions. Attending outside tutoring will make a difference. Practicing for the TJ test will make a difference. CML in elementary school will do absolutely nothing to help a kid get into TJ. There are plenty of iniquities in the system, but CML is not one of them. It's not a test that will kindle a love of math, detect previously unnoticed talent, or develop problem solving skills in any meaningful way. Honestly, CML, MOEMS, and even things like word masters are completely meaningless and only given in school so the principal can brag about the school or as a way to placate helicopter parents. None of these contests do anything meaningful for the children.

DP -

First, I agree that kids described above are few and far between (and more likely than not exposed to some type of math/numbers/quantitative environment.) My child has over 150+ IQ in fluid reasoning, which supposedly means that DC is likely to have a particular strength in math and inductive reasoning. If you had asked DC about fractions, multiplication or written problems in first grade, the child would have looked at you with a blank stare and would not have been able to answer any questions. But, with repeated exposure to math games like CML and other types in 2nd and 3rd grades, DC has been able to pick up the concepts quickly and easily. So, exposure and practice do matter even with extremely highly gifted kids.

Second, in the past, I would have agreed generally with the PP's point that CMLs don't matter all that much for AAP etc. However, I think they are more important than before. My observation is that CMLs are being used by certain schools to distinguish kids for GBRS ratings and sample collection. Not the only factor but one of the more "objective" and quantitative driven factors. Given that this year's full-time AAP assessment will be mainly dependent on GBRS and school samples, I do think that CMLs will matter more than usual for lower grades (like 2nd and 3rd grade).

[Anonymous]

If CML is being used on 2nd graders for GBRS purposes, it’s more likely to keep kids out of AAP than it is to help them get in. My experience with running CML and MOEMS is that many kids with good grades and high test scores who appear advanced or even gifted in math are exposed by these contests as being pretty unremarkable/average in math aptitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If CML is being used on 2nd graders for GBRS purposes, it’s more likely to keep kids out of AAP than it is to help them get in. My experience with running CML and MOEMS is that many kids with good grades and high test scores who appear advanced or even gifted in math are exposed by these contests as being pretty unremarkable/average in math aptitude.

I don't think that is the case. If a child does well, then it can really help with the GBRS. Technically, the job of the AART and the school is to highlight the strengths of a student, so if kids don't do that well on these types of problems, then they will look to other work samples and distinguishing factors. But, for children who do well on these types of problems, it can be a distinguishing factor. I think some parents understand this because I've heard more about kids practicing similar types of problems than in previous years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do realize that the kids described above are few and far between. These kids would make up around 1/4 of an incoming class at TJ. As for the rest, they'll need to practice. When a few schools are offering clubs or provide opportunities like CML IN CLASS when others don't, that's not fair.

Having a robust middle school math club will make a difference for TJ admissions. Attending outside tutoring will make a difference. Practicing for the TJ test will make a difference. CML in elementary school will do absolutely nothing to help a kid get into TJ. There are plenty of iniquities in the system, but CML is not one of them. It's not a test that will kindle a love of math, detect previously unnoticed talent, or develop problem solving skills in any meaningful way. Honestly, CML, MOEMS, and even things like word masters are completely meaningless and only given in school so the principal can brag about the school or as a way to placate helicopter parents. None of these contests do anything meaningful for the children.

DP -

First, I agree that kids described above are few and far between (and more likely than not exposed to some type of math/numbers/quantitative environment.) My child has over 150+ IQ in fluid reasoning, which supposedly means that DC is likely to have a particular strength in math and inductive reasoning. If you had asked DC about fractions, multiplication or written problems in first grade, the child would have looked at you with a blank stare and would not have been able to answer any questions. But, with repeated exposure to math games like CML and other types in 2nd and 3rd grades, DC has been able to pick up the concepts quickly and easily. So, exposure and practice do matter even with extremely highly gifted kids.

Second, in the past, I would have agreed generally with the PP's point that CMLs don't matter all that much for AAP etc. However, I think they are more important than before. My observation is that CMLs are being used by certain schools to distinguish kids for GBRS ratings and sample collection. Not the only factor but one of the more "objective" and quantitative driven factors. Given that this year's full-time AAP assessment will be mainly dependent on GBRS and school samples, I do think that CMLs will matter more than usual for lower grades (like 2nd and 3rd grade).

I am PP above and I have never ever ever practiced math with my child. He is the 6 year old converting fractions to percentages and he just pictures math problems in his head and has been doing so for a couple of years. We are far from wealthy or privileged and this is the first time I am hearing about these math programs available to elementary school children. While the teachers comment on his aptitude, nothing has been done, to the point that DC is becoming lazy and disinterested in school. If I don’t advocate for him, I doubt anything will ever be done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am PP above and I have never ever ever practiced math with my child. He is the 6 year old converting fractions to percentages and he just pictures math problems in his head and has been doing so for a couple of years. We are far from wealthy or privileged and this is the first time I am hearing about these math programs available to elementary school children. While the teachers comment on his aptitude, nothing has been done, to the point that DC is becoming lazy and disinterested in school. If I don’t advocate for him, I doubt anything will ever be done.

I'm the PP with the kid displaying math giftedness as a preschooler, and you're illustrating my point. You noticed at an early age that your son is much more advanced than he ought to be. You've also recognized that you're the one who will need to advocate for your son. Over the next year, I'm sure you'll do some research and find programs and contests to meet the needs of kids who are highly gifted in math, just like everyone else in the same position does. I wasn't born knowing about all of the math programs and contests. I sought them out when it became obvious to me that my kid was outside of the realm of normal and couldn't be well served even in AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, lots of envious people on this thread... It's not early to do travel soccer or other sports, why then do so many whine about doing outside math?

Insecure anti-intellectualism. But at least in VA you have your AAP forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am PP above and I have never ever ever practiced math with my child. He is the 6 year old converting fractions to percentages and he just pictures math problems in his head and has been doing so for a couple of years. We are far from wealthy or privileged and this is the first time I am hearing about these math programs available to elementary school children. While the teachers comment on his aptitude, nothing has been done, to the point that DC is becoming lazy and disinterested in school. If I don’t advocate for him, I doubt anything will ever be done.

I'm the PP with the kid displaying math giftedness as a preschooler, and you're illustrating my point. You noticed at an early age that your son is much more advanced than he ought to be. You've also recognized that you're the one who will need to advocate for your son. Over the next year, I'm sure you'll do some research and find programs and contests to meet the needs of kids who are highly gifted in math, just like everyone else in the same position does. I wasn't born knowing about all of the math programs and contests. I sought them out when it became obvious to me that my kid was outside of the realm of normal and couldn't be well served even in AAP.

I would bet you most lower income and by extension URM parents would have no idea what to do

That's the issue. We as a society need to a better job of identifying all of these kids earlier. These are the kids that should be in AAP and by extension TJ

NOT the kids that are pushed into camps and training who while smart are not top 1-5% smart.