Article on benefits of eliminating math tracking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

DP By the former director of Brookings' Brown Center on Education Policy: "San Francisco Unified School District embarked on a detracking initiative in 2015, followed by an extensive public relations campaign to portray the policy as having successfully narrowed achievement gaps. The campaign omitted assessment data indicating that the Black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps have widened, not narrowed, the exact opposite of the district’s intention ... Whether detracking can assist in the quest for greater equity is an open question. It could, in fact, exacerbate inequities by favoring high achieving children from upper income families—who can afford private sector workarounds--or with parents savvy enough to negotiate the bureaucratic hurdles SFUSD has erected to impede acceleration." https://tomloveless.com/posts/san-franciscos-detracking-experiment/

See also Families for San Francisco: https://www.familiesforsanfrancisco.com/updates/inequity-in-numbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should just stop teaching math in third grade. Since by 4th grade the majority of kids > 60% are below standard in the US, so tracking becomes a fait accompli.

That would be the equitable thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Most public schools are not equipped to provide kids with a deep mastery of math (versus a mile-wide-inch-deep intro to too many areas in too short a time).

So most kids aren’t going to be where they need to be absent systemic out-of-school supplementation (ie, AOPS, RSM, informed parents, other tutoring, etc.)

I’m not saying that schools couldn’t do it, but most just aren’t structured that way and most families aren’t going to supplement until they discover their kids are behind (making it more of an intervention than supplementation).

It’s a terribly inequitable reality but a reality nonetheless that parents need to understand sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous]

In some ways it kind of makes sense. The people who put in extra work will do better.

In San Francisco, the whites and Asians got ahead by supplementing outside of class. They put in additional work.

In Nassau county, the "low performers" caught up by attending the additional workshops. They put in additional work.

There is no free lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

DP By the former director of Brookings' Brown Center on Education Policy: "San Francisco Unified School District embarked on a detracking initiative in 2015, followed by an extensive public relations campaign to portray the policy as having successfully narrowed achievement gaps. The campaign omitted assessment data indicating that the Black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps have widened, not narrowed, the exact opposite of the district’s intention ... Whether detracking can assist in the quest for greater equity is an open question. It could, in fact, exacerbate inequities by favoring high achieving children from upper income families—who can afford private sector workarounds--or with parents savvy enough to negotiate the bureaucratic hurdles SFUSD has erected to impede acceleration." https://tomloveless.com/posts/san-franciscos-detracking-experiment/

See also Families for San Francisco: https://www.familiesforsanfrancisco.com/updates/inequity-in-numbers

I live in the SF Bay Area, so true about the lies told about how great detracting us etc. People find workarounds the bureaucracy, there are requests for acceleration that most parents are not aware of because there’s no formal process, you can take classes through outside organizations and get them recognized.

My observation is that detracting is actually making education less equitable, especially for kids with parents that aren’t savvy enough to understand the nuances and implications of the math coursework that is followed.

This is a good summary of that detracting experiment
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/san-francisco-insisted-on-algebra-in-9th-grade-did-it-improve-equity/2023/03

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

+1
Nobody ever says that their kids are strong readers, but they would be fine having to read BOB books with the rest of the class rather than chapter books. Math seems to be the only subject where people want to force advanced kids to be bored out of their minds and learning absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

Progressives hate disparity so much that they are perfectly happy to chop the top down at the knees to "fix the problem" as evidenced by this entire thread. This is equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

The PP is correct. There was also an exodus of white families from the public school system entirely to privates once they started implementing progressive ideas. Now instead of having a few strong public schools and many weak ones, they’re all weak. Talented LMC kids have no hope of a better future there.

True. There have been several studies and articles on San Francisco’s failed experiment. Everyone knows about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

Progressives hate disparity so much that they are perfectly happy to chop the top down at the knees to "fix the problem" as evidenced by this entire thread. This is equity.

Equity includes: “closing the achievement gap, from the top down.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with tracking from an equity point of view is that research has shown it to increase the racial achievement gap.

The kids in the advanced classes progress faster than kids in the general classes, and the advanced classes are generally white and Asian. The kids in the general classes almost never make the leap to the advanced classes, and it often starts at an early age.

Unfortunately, detracking just doesn't seem to be the answer. It mostly just drags down the advanced kids.

Detracking did work with the Nassau county schools, but they are a special case that can't be broadly replicated.

In San Francisco detracking worsened the racial achievement gap. The white and Asian families often sought outside enrichment and tutoring while the black and brown kids mostly didn't. The white and Asian kids were still able to accelerate while the black and brown kids got stuck without the advanced public school classes.

Citation?

DP By the former director of Brookings' Brown Center on Education Policy: "San Francisco Unified School District embarked on a detracking initiative in 2015, followed by an extensive public relations campaign to portray the policy as having successfully narrowed achievement gaps. The campaign omitted assessment data indicating that the Black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps have widened, not narrowed, the exact opposite of the district’s intention ... Whether detracking can assist in the quest for greater equity is an open question. It could, in fact, exacerbate inequities by favoring high achieving children from upper income families—who can afford private sector workarounds--or with parents savvy enough to negotiate the bureaucratic hurdles SFUSD has erected to impede acceleration." https://tomloveless.com/posts/san-franciscos-detracking-experiment/

See also Families for San Francisco: https://www.familiesforsanfrancisco.com/updates/inequity-in-numbers

I live in the SF Bay Area, so true about the lies told about how great detracting us etc. People find workarounds the bureaucracy, there are requests for acceleration that most parents are not aware of because there’s no formal process, you can take classes through outside organizations and get them recognized.

My observation is that detracting is actually making education less equitable, especially for kids with parents that aren’t savvy enough to understand the nuances and implications of the math coursework that is followed.

This is a good summary of that detracting experiment
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/san-francisco-insisted-on-algebra-in-9th-grade-did-it-improve-equity/2023/03

Here is more background on San Francisco’s failed experiment with “detracking”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

It's even worse -- Calculus is not advanced math! But we have poorly designed courses. Calculus can easily be introduced as soon as students learn what a function graph and a slope is in algebra. It can be extended when the student learns geometry of plane figures and solids, and extended further when students learn trigonometry.
The idiotic "Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus" progression does a huge disservice to students.

Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, and Calculus should be taught together, side by side, for 4-6 years, not in artificially separated yearlong courses.


In English and social studies, students aren't punished for thinking harder, caring more, and writing better essays. The librarian doesn't prevent kids from borrowing above grade level literature books, yet the school library is almost entirely missing math books. In arts, students aren't restricted to only create or play up to a certain level of complexity.

STEM is the exception in advancement and enrichment. I believe it is because K-12 educators are bad at STEM, don't enjoy it, and are afraid of it, so they think kids can't handle it, or they feel insecure and treatened that kids can go what the adults can't do.

All these poor kids getting 95%+ grades on assignments are being robbed of the opportunity to excel in their studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think students should learn the same type of math-- that is everyone takes algebra 1 in 7th grade, but it is at a different level. Say Algebra 1 level A or Algebra 1 level B. I think the issue is kids being behind in terms of not covering certain math topics than if they are separated by ability. It helps both the slow and fast students as a tracked class allows for the teacher to teach at their level.

That's what "Honors" is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

It's even worse -- Calculus is not advanced math! But we have poorly designed courses. Calculus can easily be introduced as soon as students learn what a function graph and a slope is in algebra. It can be extended when the student learns geometry of plane figures and solids, and extended further when students learn trigonometry.
The idiotic "Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus" progression does a huge disservice to students.

Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, and Calculus should be taught together, side by side, for 4-6 years, not in artificially separated yearlong courses.


In English and social studies, students aren't punished for thinking harder, caring more, and writing better essays. The librarian doesn't prevent kids from borrowing above grade level literature books, yet the school library is almost entirely missing math books. In arts, students aren't restricted to only create or play up to a certain level of complexity.

STEM is the exception in advancement and enrichment. I believe it is because K-12 educators are bad at STEM, don't enjoy it, and are afraid of it, so they think kids can't handle it, or they feel insecure and treatened that kids can go what the adults can't do.

All these poor kids getting 95%+ grades on assignments are being robbed of the opportunity to excel in their studies.

Depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These studies are always from the perspective of kids that are behind. We don’t seem to care about on-track or advanced kids. Their needs don’t seems to matter. Parents don’t care about kids overall — they care about the impact on their kids.

My kids are advanced and I do care about other kids. My kids would be fine if they were only the standard track or accelerated one year. There is zero advantage to accelerating multi years.

Why do people always say this about math but not about other fields of achievement? I mean, I really disagree. What is so sacred about understanding what a derivative is that you have to wait for junior year?

+1
Nobody ever says that their kids are strong readers, but they would be fine having to read BOB books with the rest of the class rather than chapter books. Math seems to be the only subject where people want to force advanced kids to be bored out of their minds and learning absolutely nothing.

Yep, or sports. Like yeah I know my kid could play in the NBA one day but let’s just practice throwing and catching only until we’re at least 15 years old because there are a few kids in the class who still have trouble with that.