Article on benefits of eliminating math tracking

[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?

I'm also fine with my advanced readers sticking with the grade-level curriculum in school. I never pushed for them to be accelerated in any subject.

[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.

Calculus is "advanced" for high school.

You think that those subjects should be blended? You must have been a big supported of VMPI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Yep. These are totally hypothetical numbers, but this is my question.

Let's say in the year 2015, 25% of low SES and/or Black/Hispanic students are proficient in reading. 70% of White/Asian students are. (Like I said, no clue what the actual numbers are but for the sake of my question).

In the year 2022, after a multi-year detracking effort, honors for all, etc. 30% of low SES/Black/Hispanic students are proficient and 60% of White/Asian/wealthy students are.

Is that success? It seems like to some of these districts, it would be bc the achievement gap is less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Calculus is "advanced" for high school.

You think that those subjects should be blended? You must have been a big supported of VMPI.

NP. I have no clue what VMPI is but at my kids' school they have Math 1, Math 2, Math 3 (i.e., integrated) instead of the subjects separated out by alg 1, geometry, etc. The progression does still lead to calculus and pre-calculus if that's what the student chooses to pursue, but the first three years of the sequence are integrated and students get algebra, geometry, and statistics all three years. It's great!

[Anonymous]

John Saxon, who was the original creator of Saxon Math textbooks, integrated Geometry rather than having it as a separate course. He felt that by having Geometry separate, the students forgot a lot of the Algebra during the Geometry year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

Yep. These are totally hypothetical numbers, but this is my question.

Let's say in the year 2015, 25% of low SES and/or Black/Hispanic students are proficient in reading. 70% of White/Asian students are. (Like I said, no clue what the actual numbers are but for the sake of my question).

In the year 2022, after a multi-year detracking effort, honors for all, etc. 30% of low SES/Black/Hispanic students are proficient and 60% of White/Asian/wealthy students are.

Is that success? It seems like to some of these districts, it would be bc the achievement gap is less.

Yes, that would be considered success. People who push these policies assume the white/Asian/wealthy students will be "fine."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a special ed teacher, I feel that you have to meet kids where they are. Math is so easy to track progress with, as there are discrete skills that build upon each other. I see no advantage to having a kid sit with peers that are well ahead of the kid. They feel demoralized and learn to cheat.

The best math instruction includes circling back to review prior concepts. It’s also terrible to have a very bright kid sit in class that is too easy.

Smaller class sizes and immediate remediation programs are key for math achievement.

As a general ed math teacher, I agree with all of this. This idea is bad for all students and would not meet any of their needs. This is a time in education where there is a serious lack of teachers, especially math teachers. Making instruction impossible by putting all levels together is a sure way to make the rest of us leave. It’s bad enough out there with open enrollment at many high schools and how that has had a negative impact and ripple effect for many students. Come sub in any school and then see if you think eliminating math tracking is a good idea.

I feel like this piece is always missing in these discussions. This seems like an impossible task for teachers, esp with 25+ kids per class and a single teacher. How can there be time to meet everyone at these different levels?

[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.

But then what happens the next year? Everyone moves on to Algebra 2 etc even though some learn d more material than others? Do you keep calling it A and B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid took algebra 1 in 9th grade. He took it in public MS, got an A, and then didn’t test out of it when he switched to a Catholic HS. He ended up in pre-calc in 12th grade. Not sure why the OP mentioned that students in this track would only get to algebra 2. He was required to take math all four years. He’s in college now and is doing well.

It sounds like you don't prioritize math since you picked a private school with a slow math track. That's fine and your choice. We are talking about what public schools should offer. It's not uncommon for people to want their kids to get to Calc in college. I was a science major and it was an advantage in what freshman science classes I could take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct--not offering more accelerated options just means that families that can afford to supplement (not just money - also time) will do so or exit the public system entirely. Families that can't afford to do that but could benefit from acceleration are left behind. The outcomes are worse for those families, who are more likely to be poor and of color.

Yes - they supplement, go to private schools, or leave large systems like SFUSD for more affluent suburbs with more accelerated cohorts and classes. I haven't seen any study that controls for those impacts.

[Anonymous]

Here's a report from another school that experimented with detracking to some success:

https://hechingerreport.org/racial-gaps-in-math-have-grown-could-detracking-help/

The key was to require students who had been in lower level middle school math classes to take an additional math seminar to help with Algebra.

Then the kids who couldn't keep up even with the extra support would be grouped into remedial classes.

Seems like a pragmatic approach that actually helped some kids. It greatly reduced the number of kids who needed remedial math.

They had to end the program last year, however, due to scheduling problems. The article was vague as to why, but at least it was more effective than the San Francisco experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Calculus is "advanced" for high school.

You think that those subjects should be blended? You must have been a big supported of VMPI.

NP. I have no clue what VMPI is but at my kids' school they have Math 1, Math 2, Math 3 (i.e., integrated) instead of the subjects separated out by alg 1, geometry, etc. The progression does still lead to calculus and pre-calculus if that's what the student chooses to pursue, but the first three years of the sequence are integrated and students get algebra, geometry, and statistics all three years. It's great!

It was an initiative by the VA DOE to modernize math education in VA public schools. But the RWNJs pushed a lot of misinformation around it and made it a campaign topic. Ignorant Republicans killed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a special ed teacher, I feel that you have to meet kids where they are. Math is so easy to track progress with, as there are discrete skills that build upon each other. I see no advantage to having a kid sit with peers that are well ahead of the kid. They feel demoralized and learn to cheat.

The best math instruction includes circling back to review prior concepts. It’s also terrible to have a very bright kid sit in class that is too easy.

Smaller class sizes and immediate remediation programs are key for math achievement.

As a general ed math teacher, I agree with all of this. This idea is bad for all students and would not meet any of their needs. This is a time in education where there is a serious lack of teachers, especially math teachers. Making instruction impossible by putting all levels together is a sure way to make the rest of us leave. It’s bad enough out there with open enrollment at many high schools and how that has had a negative impact and ripple effect for many students. Come sub in any school and then see if you think eliminating math tracking is a good idea.

I feel like this piece is always missing in these discussions. This seems like an impossible task for teachers, esp with 25+ kids per class and a single teacher. How can there be time to meet everyone at these different levels?

I think that’s a feature, not a bug. They know that teachers won’t be able to differentiate properly in a combined class so the top kids won’t get instruction to their level. Slowing down the fast kids and focusing on the slow ones closes the achievement gap. The goal is to close the gap, not educate the kids. At this point I don’t even think they’d care of they all failed, as long as they ALL failed. It’s a very sad time for America, and the future does not look bright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid took algebra 1 in 9th grade. He took it in public MS, got an A, and then didn’t test out of it when he switched to a Catholic HS. He ended up in pre-calc in 12th grade. Not sure why the OP mentioned that students in this track would only get to algebra 2. He was required to take math all four years. He’s in college now and is doing well.

It sounds like you don't prioritize math since you picked a private school with a slow math track. That's fine and your choice. We are talking about what public schools should offer. It's not uncommon for people to want their kids to get to Calc in college. I was a science major and it was an advantage in what freshman science classes I could take.

He did take calculus in college. You can still take calculus in college being on the "slow" math track in HS. The "slow" HS math track exists in public schools too. This area is full of strivers who can't stand for their kids to not be on an advanced track for everything. No wonder there are so many grumpy, nasty people in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Calculus is "advanced" for high school.

You think that those subjects should be blended? You must have been a big supported of VMPI.

Calculus is not advanced for middle school children in many countries. Algebra, Geometry, Statistics and Calculus education should occur at the same time as they overlap, not taught in isolation as they are in the US today.

VMPI is a joke and integrates basic math that should be taught in elementary school not middle or high school.