I'm not from this country. Would you please explain to me WHY taking Algn 7th grade seems to be the

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We passed on that option. We had just come back from vacation the day of the Iowa test and fortunately they failed it. Went to TJ then Ivy. It’s VERY very important that the basics in math are well understood. Rushing at this level trips many kids up later in HS. They end up taking very advanced math they don’t even need. All it does is wreck their GPA.

We have to move away from this notion that slow and watered down math track = solid foundation. No, all that means is slow and watered down. It will just delay the inevitable to college and suffering in college/university. We need appropriate (whether slower or accelerated) math education for students. Many countries are way ahead of US in education including math education.

No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We passed on that option. We had just come back from vacation the day of the Iowa test and fortunately they failed it. Went to TJ then Ivy. It’s VERY very important that the basics in math are well understood. Rushing at this level trips many kids up later in HS. They end up taking very advanced math they don’t even need. All it does is wreck their GPA.

We have to move away from this notion that slow and watered down math track = solid foundation. No, all that means is slow and watered down. It will just delay the inevitable to college and suffering in college/university. We need appropriate (whether slower or accelerated) math education for students. Many countries are way ahead of US in education including math education.

No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

+1 It also happens in college. The kids can't remember anything. --a professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We passed on that option. We had just come back from vacation the day of the Iowa test and fortunately they failed it. Went to TJ then Ivy. It’s VERY very important that the basics in math are well understood. Rushing at this level trips many kids up later in HS. They end up taking very advanced math they don’t even need. All it does is wreck their GPA.

We have to move away from this notion that slow and watered down math track = solid foundation. No, all that means is slow and watered down. It will just delay the inevitable to college and suffering in college/university. We need appropriate (whether slower or accelerated) math education for students. Many countries are way ahead of US in education including math education.

No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

Algebra in 7th is not going to bite any intelligent kid in the butt. Algebra in 6th, you have a better argument, but schools are good about limiting that. In FCPS, advanced math covers the 7th grade sol in 6th grade- there is no reason to make a kid who does well on that SOL repeat the class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an immigrant also and I actually don't get the whole thing about starting algebra in any particular grade. Like, in my own country (first grade), children solve equations (e.g. x+10=21, 18-x=3 etc) in the first grade. in the fourth grade they are doing various combinations e.g. (x*3+23234234)-987987=234234. it builds from there. They also learn to translate increasingly complex word problems into equations. But there is no big announcement of "now we are starting algebra", it's all called math. and yes, all kids are doing the same program, but some are better in it than others. the good ones get higher grades, obviously, but that's about it.

This is why what the US call Algebra 1 is confusing with cross-cultural comparisons, because kids do those kinds of equations in elementary school and it's considered pre-algebra, whereas many countries from elementary on.

And algebraic thinking is spiraled through all math classes beginning in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an immigrant also and I actually don't get the whole thing about starting algebra in any particular grade. Like, in my own country (first grade), children solve equations (e.g. x+10=21, 18-x=3 etc) in the first grade. in the fourth grade they are doing various combinations e.g. (x*3+23234234)-987987=234234. it builds from there. They also learn to translate increasingly complex word problems into equations. But there is no big announcement of "now we are starting algebra", it's all called math. and yes, all kids are doing the same program, but some are better in it than others. the good ones get higher grades, obviously, but that's about it.

This is why what the US call Algebra 1 is confusing with cross-cultural comparisons, because kids do those kinds of equations in elementary school and it's considered pre-algebra, whereas many countries from elementary on.

And algebraic thinking is spiraled through all math classes beginning in kindergarten.

^^in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We passed on that option. We had just come back from vacation the day of the Iowa test and fortunately they failed it. Went to TJ then Ivy. It’s VERY very important that the basics in math are well understood. Rushing at this level trips many kids up later in HS. They end up taking very advanced math they don’t even need. All it does is wreck their GPA.

We have to move away from this notion that slow and watered down math track = solid foundation. No, all that means is slow and watered down. It will just delay the inevitable to college and suffering in college/university. We need appropriate (whether slower or accelerated) math education for students. Many countries are way ahead of US in education including math education.

No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

Algebra in 7th is not going to bite any intelligent kid in the butt. Algebra in 6th, you have a better argument, but schools are good about limiting that. In FCPS, advanced math covers the 7th grade sol in 6th grade- there is no reason to make a kid who does well on that SOL repeat the class

Algebra in 7th won't, but if you have a kid who's just getting by to get by because their parents want them to, and they're not investing any more mental energy than what's required to get through the class, then Pre-Calc in 10th and Calc BC in 11th sure as hell will. Faking your way through Geometry at Longfellow becomes a problem real fast when you get to the TJ equivalent of Alg2/Trig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the goal of every other parent on this board?

So, if you take Algebra I in 7th grade, what is the result? What is the difference in outcome for the student who takes algebra I in 7th vs. the student who takes it in 8th grade?

My child is in 6th grade btw.

I would really appreciate it if someone would explain this to me as my child will be going to 7th next year and, if she fulfill the requirements, I would like to make an informed decision.

Thanks.

Americans like to rush "smart" kids through math so that they get to complicated concepts sooner. However, they rarely do challenging problems so most of the progress is illusionary. I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it. Now, in my own country kids do proofs starting in fifth grade. But it is quite possible that those very same Americans wrote their first integral earlier than I did. But before starting on integrals I had to do a lot of difficulty problems with limits, epsilon delta type problems, proofs of theorems etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Americans like to rush "smart" kids through math so that they get to complicated concepts sooner. However, they rarely do challenging problems so most of the progress is illusionary. I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it. Now, in my own country kids do proofs starting in fifth grade. But it is quite possible that those very same Americans wrote their first integral earlier than I did. But before starting on integrals I had to do a lot of difficulty problems with limits, epsilon delta type problems, proofs of theorems etc.

I agree, but the problem is mostly with the schools. The curriculum is pretty slow and watered down, so smart kids are going to be bored and unchallenged. Schools can either provide more rigorous coursework and problem solving within the grade level math class, or they can accelerate the top kids. It's much easier to accelerate the kids and not provide the deeper work, so that's what the schools choose to do.

If the classwork in AAP looked more like Beast Academy/AoPS and less like gen ed math given one year earlier, there would be fewer parents clamoring to get their kids skipped ahead.

For what it's worth, the best teacher my DS had used a book of very challenging, outside the box math reasoning problems with the most advanced kids in the class. My DS was not at all bored, even though he already knew the base material being taught that year. My DD had a different teacher, and the teacher's solution for providing enrichment for the most advanced students was to just stick them on ST Math for longer periods. DD was eager to jump up to Algebra in 7th, because she was so bored in 5th and 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Americans like to rush "smart" kids through math so that they get to complicated concepts sooner. However, they rarely do challenging problems so most of the progress is illusionary. I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it. Now, in my own country kids do proofs starting in fifth grade. But it is quite possible that those very same Americans wrote their first integral earlier than I did. But before starting on integrals I had to do a lot of difficulty problems with limits, epsilon delta type problems, proofs of theorems etc.

I agree, but the problem is mostly with the schools. The curriculum is pretty slow and watered down, so smart kids are going to be bored and unchallenged. Schools can either provide more rigorous coursework and problem solving within the grade level math class, or they can accelerate the top kids. It's much easier to accelerate the kids and not provide the deeper work, so that's what the schools choose to do.

If the classwork in AAP looked more like Beast Academy/AoPS and less like gen ed math given one year earlier, there would be fewer parents clamoring to get their kids skipped ahead.

For what it's worth, the best teacher my DS had used a book of very challenging, outside the box math reasoning problems with the most advanced kids in the class. My DS was not at all bored, even though he already knew the base material being taught that year. My DD had a different teacher, and the teacher's solution for providing enrichment for the most advanced students was to just stick them on ST Math for longer periods. DD was eager to jump up to Algebra in 7th, because she was so bored in 5th and 6th.

So.... fewer is probably correct, because there are some who are genuinely concerned for their kids' boredom, but that doesn't account for the huge number of parents who seek acceleration for reasons of prestige and FOMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

Sure, but a lot of people seem to think that the solution for 2) is removing acceleration for everyone, including the kids in 1). I feel like the best solution in general is to make all of the math classes more rigorous and include more problems that can't be solved with rote application of an algorithm. The kids in 2) who are struggling in Algebra II or pre-calc because they never really grasped Algebra shouldn't be getting high grades in Algebra. Also, allowing kids to jump forward by taking summer Geometry is completely ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if the summer geometry kids struggle later because they effectively skipped geometry.

[Anonymous]

I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it.

How is that possible? I recall doing them sophmore year of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So.... fewer is probably correct, because there are some who are genuinely concerned for their kids' boredom, but that doesn't account for the huge number of parents who seek acceleration for reasons of prestige and FOMO.

In this case, though, the material itself would hold back kids from over acceleration. If you don't pass the class, you can't move on to the next one. At least in the AoPS classes, there are many kids who need to repeat pre-Algebra or Algebra because they didn't perform well enough to pass the class the first time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it.

How is that possible? I recall doing them sophmore year of high school.

Weird. Back in the day, we were doing formal proofs starting in either Algebra I or Geometry. Proofs were a pretty standard part of math instruction. If proofs are no longer being taught in high school math classes, then that's a great example of how modern high school math has been slowed down and watered down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Americans like to rush "smart" kids through math so that they get to complicated concepts sooner. However, they rarely do challenging problems so most of the progress is illusionary. I went to a top school in the US and nobody in my class was familiar with mathematical proofs, like, they literally never did it. Now, in my own country kids do proofs starting in fifth grade. But it is quite possible that those very same Americans wrote their first integral earlier than I did. But before starting on integrals I had to do a lot of difficulty problems with limits, epsilon delta type problems, proofs of theorems etc.

I agree, but the problem is mostly with the schools. The curriculum is pretty slow and watered down, so smart kids are going to be bored and unchallenged. Schools can either provide more rigorous coursework and problem solving within the grade level math class, or they can accelerate the top kids. It's much easier to accelerate the kids and not provide the deeper work, so that's what the schools choose to do.

If the classwork in AAP looked more like Beast Academy/AoPS and less like gen ed math given one year earlier, there would be fewer parents clamoring to get their kids skipped ahead.

For what it's worth, the best teacher my DS had used a book of very challenging, outside the box math reasoning problems with the most advanced kids in the class. My DS was not at all bored, even though he already knew the base material being taught that year. My DD had a different teacher, and the teacher's solution for providing enrichment for the most advanced students was to just stick them on ST Math for longer periods. DD was eager to jump up to Algebra in 7th, because she was so bored in 5th and 6th.

So.... fewer is probably correct, because there are some who are genuinely concerned for their kids' boredom, but that doesn't account for the huge number of parents who seek acceleration for reasons of prestige and FOMO.

is it FOMO or is it wanting to keep options open? If Jane and Jill and Jan are in a class and your kid isn't, and everyone progresses on that track, by the time the kids are applying for college I think the fear is that Jane and Jill and Jan will have an advantage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one reasonable is arguing that a "slow and watered down" math track is equivalent to a solid foundation for eventual advanced study.

What I think most reasonable people believe is:

1) There exists some number of kids who are genuinely extremely talented in math and who should be accelerated at a higher pace than even traditional "advanced" tracks

2) Those kids in 1) have historically received advantages in prestigious admissions processes and therefore there is an epidemic of parents who are desperate to make their child look like the kids in 1). In so doing, they are incentivizing their child to learn tricks and shortcuts instead of actually comprehending the mathematical concepts on a deep level - which eventually is going to bite them in the butt. You can only do that for so long before the house of cards falls on itself (which happens at TJ more often that folks realize).

Sure, but a lot of people seem to think that the solution for 2) is removing acceleration for everyone, including the kids in 1). I feel like the best solution in general is to make all of the math classes more rigorous and include more problems that can't be solved with rote application of an algorithm. The kids in 2) who are struggling in Algebra II or pre-calc because they never really grasped Algebra shouldn't be getting high grades in Algebra. Also, allowing kids to jump forward by taking summer Geometry is completely ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if the summer geometry kids struggle later because they effectively skipped geometry.

PP. You nailed it and we are in complete agreement. But you and I both know that they ARE currently getting high grades in Algebra.

Summer courses that are designed to have a kid skip a year in math or science are terrible ideas. Things are out of control at TJ partly because of summer Chemistry designed to allow students to take AP Bio and AP Chem in their sophomore year. Hugely problematic and has been for years.