Eliot-Hine Experiences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If acceleration doesn't produce kids that are better at math, what does? Seems like most ppl here are often complaining there isn't enough acceleration.

People overly fixate on acceleration in math. The push comes from a small subset of overzealous parents who (1) expect kids to go into STEM subjects in college no matter what, (2) believe that more APs is always better for college admissions, and (3) think additional AP math in HS will result in kids skipping a year or more of college math.

These are all myopic and incorrect ideas. First off, go ahead and talk to some of those kids who got pushed hard into computer engineering over the last decade or so, about whether they are happy about it in light of what AI is doing to that job market. Second, talk to actual college admissions officers about how many math APs they want to see -- you won't find a single AO who will tell you that 3-4 math APs is necessary or even desirable, especially if it comes at the expense of taking other academic courses or a more balanced app. Most AOs will tell you that for the kids who are genuinely really good at math and want more, taking classes at an actual college their junior or senior year is a better option, which means high schools really do not need to be offering this special accelerated track with all the APs -- they can just let advanced kids take class with older students and then pick up classes at a local college/university if they want to continue.

And that's because it turns out that AP classes rarely actually save kids a year of college math. It is common for kids in STEM majors to have to retake calculus in college because the AP classes simply do not adequately cover the material or get kids to the necessary fluency, even with a good AP score. It's because HS is structured too differently from college. You can't go into the same depth, and HS kids often have too much else going on. It's not the same thing.

But just try to tell the acceleration people this. They are convinced that RSM staring in 1st grade plus hyper-accelerated math tracks at school will be the key to their child's future success, and there's no dissuading them. Not even a bunch of unemployed coders or kids getting Cs in college math because there accelerated track went too fast and too shallow.

I agree with the bolded.

However everything else sounds like a way to excuse bad schools.

Sometimes parents in DC get wound up about math acceleration because they really just how badly math is being taught. And math acceleration seems like one way to push schools to actually provide rigorous math instruction.

It is not just acceleration. If a class is tuaght correctly, there is also depth and challenging problems.

As to AP Calculus. It depends how the class was taught. Some kids actually do skip Calcukus and go into more advanced math. Some kids don’t but they have an advantage because the material is familiar from high school.

BTW, taking AP Calculus is the floor for STEM majors for any competitive school. It’s not absolutely required but you are the outlier if you have not taken it. Even non-STEM majors manage have taken it at competitive colleges.

It’s easy to see how low PP’s standards are here excusing not taking AP Calculus.
j

Taking AP Calculus in HS is not acceleration. Taking Calc AB your senior year would be a standard track (non-mathy kids might skip AP math altogether, or take AP statistics). A moderately advanced track would take Calc AB junior year and Calc BC senior year. That would be for kids who are very good at math from a young age and can bump into next-grade math classes starting in middle school. Makes sense for some kids. In either case, most kids will do best not to skip any college level math classes and treat any AP math classes as a good introduction to college level math so they aren't entering it cold.

The above post is talking about the parents pushing aggressive acceleration with the goal of taking Calc AB sophomore year of high school. These are parents determined to max out AP classes (both AP Calc, AP Statistics, plus max out AP science classes which will be easier if you've already completed both calc classes prior to senior year). This has absolutely been a push among some parents in recent years and it complicates the conversation about improving math curriculum in the US. Because parents get distracted by "accelerated" math tracks when really we should be addressing depth and fluency, starting in elementary school. There is no point in developing accelerated tracks when kids' math fluency is shallow and many students have a weak grasp of basic math facts and functions. I'd rather have my kid on a standard track with Calc AB senior year and no other advanced math, but getting a really strong math education *at school* (not at an after school tutor). I don't care if my kid goes into STEM or not. But for instance I work in the humanities and use statistics daily and regularly encounter young people in my field who can't do extremely basic statistical analysis even with custom tools to help them. Math education in the US is broken, and it's not due to lack of acceleration.

I agree that Cal AB in 12th is standard track today.

But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial. And many kids who even get to Algebra 1 by 8th, end up repeating it in 9th because they are so weak in math.

Your argument that you would prefer your kid to get to just Calculus AB in 12th as long as there is good math teaching with depth and fkicency. But the issue is that there is not in DCPS and why kids end up repeating Algebra 1 in high school and not even testing on grade level on CAPE which is a low bar.

Second, getting to Cal AB in 11th isn’t that hard or very accelerated. Your above average kid can do that. Lots of kids can do that.

Now getting to Cal AB by 10th is for mathy superstar kids and not your above average everyday Joe.

The issue here is that you need to have a rigorous screening with objective data also and gatekeep who can get into the advance math class. And once in, if the kid is not performing or struggling, then move them back down. Schools don’t do this and so classes get bogged down with kids who shouldn’t be in the class and it doesn’t help them. It also holds back the kids who can handle it as things slow down. That is the crux of the problem, not that no kid can handle acceleration to Cal by 10th.

But there is absolutely a small subset of kids who can definitely handle getting to Cal ABby 10th and good for the schools who can provide this and meet their needs.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If acceleration doesn't produce kids that are better at math, what does? Seems like most ppl here are often complaining there isn't enough acceleration.

People overly fixate on acceleration in math. The push comes from a small subset of overzealous parents who (1) expect kids to go into STEM subjects in college no matter what, (2) believe that more APs is always better for college admissions, and (3) think additional AP math in HS will result in kids skipping a year or more of college math.

These are all myopic and incorrect ideas. First off, go ahead and talk to some of those kids who got pushed hard into computer engineering over the last decade or so, about whether they are happy about it in light of what AI is doing to that job market. Second, talk to actual college admissions officers about how many math APs they want to see -- you won't find a single AO who will tell you that 3-4 math APs is necessary or even desirable, especially if it comes at the expense of taking other academic courses or a more balanced app. Most AOs will tell you that for the kids who are genuinely really good at math and want more, taking classes at an actual college their junior or senior year is a better option, which means high schools really do not need to be offering this special accelerated track with all the APs -- they can just let advanced kids take class with older students and then pick up classes at a local college/university if they want to continue.

And that's because it turns out that AP classes rarely actually save kids a year of college math. It is common for kids in STEM majors to have to retake calculus in college because the AP classes simply do not adequately cover the material or get kids to the necessary fluency, even with a good AP score. It's because HS is structured too differently from college. You can't go into the same depth, and HS kids often have too much else going on. It's not the same thing.

But just try to tell the acceleration people this. They are convinced that RSM staring in 1st grade plus hyper-accelerated math tracks at school will be the key to their child's future success, and there's no dissuading them. Not even a bunch of unemployed coders or kids getting Cs in college math because there accelerated track went too fast and too shallow.

I agree with the bolded.

However everything else sounds like a way to excuse bad schools.

Sometimes parents in DC get wound up about math acceleration because they really just how badly math is being taught. And math acceleration seems like one way to push schools to actually provide rigorous math instruction.

It is not just acceleration. If a class is tuaght correctly, there is also depth and challenging problems.

As to AP Calculus. It depends how the class was taught. Some kids actually do skip Calcukus and go into more advanced math. Some kids don’t but they have an advantage because the material is familiar from high school.

BTW, taking AP Calculus is the floor for STEM majors for any competitive school. It’s not absolutely required but you are the outlier if you have not taken it. Even non-STEM majors manage have taken it at competitive colleges.

It’s easy to see how low PP’s standards are here excusing not taking AP Calculus.
j

Taking AP Calculus in HS is not acceleration. Taking Calc AB your senior year would be a standard track (non-mathy kids might skip AP math altogether, or take AP statistics). A moderately advanced track would take Calc AB junior year and Calc BC senior year. That would be for kids who are very good at math from a young age and can bump into next-grade math classes starting in middle school. Makes sense for some kids. In either case, most kids will do best not to skip any college level math classes and treat any AP math classes as a good introduction to college level math so they aren't entering it cold.

The above post is talking about the parents pushing aggressive acceleration with the goal of taking Calc AB sophomore year of high school. These are parents determined to max out AP classes (both AP Calc, AP Statistics, plus max out AP science classes which will be easier if you've already completed both calc classes prior to senior year). This has absolutely been a push among some parents in recent years and it complicates the conversation about improving math curriculum in the US. Because parents get distracted by "accelerated" math tracks when really we should be addressing depth and fluency, starting in elementary school. There is no point in developing accelerated tracks when kids' math fluency is shallow and many students have a weak grasp of basic math facts and functions. I'd rather have my kid on a standard track with Calc AB senior year and no other advanced math, but getting a really strong math education *at school* (not at an after school tutor). I don't care if my kid goes into STEM or not. But for instance I work in the humanities and use statistics daily and regularly encounter young people in my field who can't do extremely basic statistical analysis even with custom tools to help them. Math education in the US is broken, and it's not due to lack of acceleration.

I agree that Cal AB in 12th is standard track today.

But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial. And many kids who even get to Algebra 1 by 8th, end up repeating it in 9th because they are so weak in math.

Your argument that you would prefer your kid to get to just Calculus AB in 12th as long as there is good math teaching with depth and fkicency. But the issue is that there is not in DCPS and why kids end up repeating Algebra 1 in high school and not even testing on grade level on CAPE which is a low bar.

Second, getting to Cal AB in 11th isn’t that hard or very accelerated. Your above average kid can do that. Lots of kids can do that.

Now getting to Cal AB by 10th is for mathy superstar kids and not your above average everyday Joe.

The issue here is that you need to have a rigorous screening with objective data also and gatekeep who can get into the advance math class. And once in, if the kid is not performing or struggling, then move them back down. Schools don’t do this and so classes get bogged down with kids who shouldn’t be in the class and it doesn’t help them. It also holds back the kids who can handle it as things slow down. That is the crux of the problem, not that no kid can handle acceleration to Cal by 10th.

But there is absolutely a small subset of kids who can definitely handle getting to Cal ABby 10th and good for the schools who can provide this and meet their needs.

Also want to add that you can do depth md accelerate. This is exactly what AOPS does. They introduce the concept and expect kids to pick it up quickly and then move into problem solving a standard problem. This takes maybe 10-15 minutes. Then they jump right into more complex problems. You cannot do that if 1/3 rd of the kids in the class can’t quickly grasp concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

Maybe remedial is another way of saying "lowest track."

It's helpful to see what the suburban districts are doing. Here is MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

you can see algebra in 9th is the lowest level offered.

FCPS also has all kids doing Algebra by 8th. so when a PP said this:

"But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial."

It's because algebra in 9th grade is remedial by the standards of most public school jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

You can use NWEA data which I understand is what DCI uses to track kids in math. I believe dcps uses i-Ready Math- why not use it for tracking? Or the CAPE is a great test. Why isn’t this used?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can use NWEA data which I understand is what DCI uses to track kids in math. I believe dcps uses i-Ready Math- why not use it for tracking? Or the CAPE is a great test. Why isn’t this used?

DCPS does use iReady for math tracking. For some reason someone from DCI repeatedly claims that they don't, someone will respond that DCPS does use iReady for tracking, and then a few days later the same question comes up.

Maybe this will be the last time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can use NWEA data which I understand is what DCI uses to track kids in math. I believe dcps uses i-Ready Math- why not use it for tracking? Or the CAPE is a great test. Why isn’t this used?

DCPS does use iReady for math tracking. For some reason someone from DCI repeatedly claims that they don't, someone will respond that DCPS does use iReady for tracking, and then a few days later the same question comes up.

Maybe this will be the last time?

As far as I can tell no one here is from dci and very few kids would be looking at Eliot Hine and dci given the distance. I know from reading other threads that dci uses NWEA because it’s been confirmed they do tracking. You don’t have to be a hostile jerk every time you see a charter school. Please calm down.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I was so impressed with the thoughtful way that the OP and later posters talked about Eliot. My personal experience hasn’t been great- lots of heavy pressure from sanctimonious moms informing me of “how wonderful” it is and the “importance of choosing your local dcps” and “investing in your local school” while being very light on details and specifics. I think it’s important to know the warts and all of a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

Maybe remedial is another way of saying "lowest track."

It's helpful to see what the suburban districts are doing. Here is MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

you can see algebra in 9th is the lowest level offered.

FCPS also has all kids doing Algebra by 8th. so when a PP said this:

"But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial."

It's because algebra in 9th grade is remedial by the standards of most public school jurisdictions.

But "remedial" doesn't mean lowest track. It means there's something that needs to be *remedied*. Like below grade, needs to catch up. That's different from being the lowest track, because being the lowest track at a particular school doesn't tell you whether it's below grade level.

And I am very skeptical that those jurisdictions have everyone actually doing Algebra that is truly high school level in 8th, even if they say that's their curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

Maybe remedial is another way of saying "lowest track."

It's helpful to see what the suburban districts are doing. Here is MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

you can see algebra in 9th is the lowest level offered.

FCPS also has all kids doing Algebra by 8th. so when a PP said this:

"But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial."

It's because algebra in 9th grade is remedial by the standards of most public school jurisdictions.

But "remedial" doesn't mean lowest track. It means there's something that needs to be *remedied*. Like below grade, needs to catch up. That's different from being the lowest track, because being the lowest track at a particular school doesn't tell you whether it's below grade level.

And I am very skeptical that those jurisdictions have everyone actually doing Algebra that is truly high school level in 8th, even if they say that's their curriculum.

My sisters kids are in fcps and are truly doing high school level algebra in 7th and geometry in 8th. This is not even considered advanced by the way. However dc standards are such a joke of course you should be skeptical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

Maybe remedial is another way of saying "lowest track."

It's helpful to see what the suburban districts are doing. Here is MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

you can see algebra in 9th is the lowest level offered.

FCPS also has all kids doing Algebra by 8th. so when a PP said this:

"But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial."

It's because algebra in 9th grade is remedial by the standards of most public school jurisdictions.

But "remedial" doesn't mean lowest track. It means there's something that needs to be *remedied*. Like below grade, needs to catch up. That's different from being the lowest track, because being the lowest track at a particular school doesn't tell you whether it's below grade level.

And I am very skeptical that those jurisdictions have everyone actually doing Algebra that is truly high school level in 8th, even if they say that's their curriculum.

My sisters kids are in fcps and are truly doing high school level algebra in 7th and geometry in 8th. This is not even considered advanced by the way. However dc standards are such a joke of course you should be skeptical.

That's not the point. Nobody disputes that *some* of the kids in FCPS are doing very well in math. The point is what's the minimum level in FCPS-- the actual minimum, not what they *say* is the minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I was so impressed with the thoughtful way that the OP and later posters talked about Eliot. My personal experience hasn’t been great- lots of heavy pressure from sanctimonious moms informing me of “how wonderful” it is and the “importance of choosing your local dcps” and “investing in your local school” while being very light on details and specifics. I think it’s important to know the warts and all of a school.

Your personal experience at the school? Or your personal experience talking to people?
Either way, there are ‘warts’ at every school, I think for middle school the good outweighs the bad at EH, but that’s just my view.
PS, if you want a sneak peek into the school, their play is this weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I was so impressed with the thoughtful way that the OP and later posters talked about Eliot. My personal experience hasn’t been great- lots of heavy pressure from sanctimonious moms informing me of “how wonderful” it is and the “importance of choosing your local dcps” and “investing in your local school” while being very light on details and specifics. I think it’s important to know the warts and all of a school.

Your personal experience at the school? Or your personal experience talking to people?
Either way, there are ‘warts’ at every school, I think for middle school the good outweighs the bad at EH, but that’s just my view.
PS, if you want a sneak peek into the school, their play is this weekend.

Thanks for letting me know. And I was referring to my personal experience of talking to people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I was so impressed with the thoughtful way that the OP and later posters talked about Eliot. My personal experience hasn’t been great- lots of heavy pressure from sanctimonious moms informing me of “how wonderful” it is and the “importance of choosing your local dcps” and “investing in your local school” while being very light on details and specifics. I think it’s important to know the warts and all of a school.

Your personal experience at the school? Or your personal experience talking to people?
Either way, there are ‘warts’ at every school, I think for middle school the good outweighs the bad at EH, but that’s just my view.
PS, if you want a sneak peek into the school, their play is this weekend.

Why do you think the good outweighs the bad and do you have another middle school experience to compare it to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand who decides what is grade level vs advanced vs remedial. People make these assertions about it but is there any sort.of policy document, statute, regulation, etc., that determines it? Or are people just stating their opinions and saying "actually" to make it sound authoritative?

Maybe remedial is another way of saying "lowest track."

It's helpful to see what the suburban districts are doing. Here is MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

you can see algebra in 9th is the lowest level offered.

FCPS also has all kids doing Algebra by 8th. so when a PP said this:

"But in DCPS that track is actually the high level track which gets you to Algebra 1 by 8th. The “regular” track in DCPS which gets you to precal in 12th is actual remedial."

It's because algebra in 9th grade is remedial by the standards of most public school jurisdictions.

But "remedial" doesn't mean lowest track. It means there's something that needs to be *remedied*. Like below grade, needs to catch up. That's different from being the lowest track, because being the lowest track at a particular school doesn't tell you whether it's below grade level.

And I am very skeptical that those jurisdictions have everyone actually doing Algebra that is truly high school level in 8th, even if they say that's their curriculum.

My sisters kids are in fcps and are truly doing high school level algebra in 7th and geometry in 8th. This is not even considered advanced by the way. However dc standards are such a joke of course you should be skeptical.

That's not the point. Nobody disputes that *some* of the kids in FCPS are doing very well in math. The point is what's the minimum level in FCPS-- the actual minimum, not what they *say* is the minimum.

PP give replied to that saying all kids in FCPS are doing Algebra by 8th and why the PP above is saying her kids are not considered advance. This is the floor in FCPS.

Standards are so damn low in this town is a fact.