If they accelerated math, did you regret it later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

No. FCPS would prefer preventing academic acceleration in hopes of achieving equity. The former argument about saving incapable kids from a bad scholastic choices is just a concern troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

This is the problem with wealthy public school districts. Everyone wants to accelerate their kid.

Go to a title one school and tell them you want your 6th grader in alg 1 and it is done. They won’t even ask for test scores. Literally no one else will be asking this of the school besides you and they will assume you have your child’s best interest in mind. You might be on your own to figure out and coordinate math for 7th and 8th grade, but they pretty much accommodate you the best they can. Super easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

This is the problem with wealthy public school districts. Everyone wants to accelerate their kid.

Go to a title one school and tell them you want your 6th grader in alg 1 and it is done. They won’t even ask for test scores. Literally no one else will be asking this of the school besides you and they will assume you have your child’s best interest in mind. You might be on your own to figure out and coordinate math for 7th and 8th grade, but they pretty much accommodate you the best they can. Super easy.

One of my kids was off the charts, but at our title 1, they just said we don't offer that here. You have to attend one of the wealthy schools where many parents demand acceleration for that to be a real option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

No. FCPS would prefer preventing academic acceleration in hopes of achieving equity. The former argument about saving incapable kids from a bad scholastic choices is just a concern troll.

Exactly! The optics of the achievement gap can only be improved by removing these opportunities from the high-achieving cohort. Nothing else works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

This is the problem with wealthy public school districts. Everyone wants to accelerate their kid.

Go to a title one school and tell them you want your 6th grader in alg 1 and it is done. They won’t even ask for test scores. Literally no one else will be asking this of the school besides you and they will assume you have your child’s best interest in mind. You might be on your own to figure out and coordinate math for 7th and 8th grade, but they pretty much accommodate you the best they can. Super easy.

One of my kids was off the charts, but at our title 1, they just said we don't offer that here. You have to attend one of the wealthy schools where many parents demand acceleration for that to be a real option.

If your kid attends FCPS, that's a load of BS, and you're a troll or liar. There aren't any principals who would directly state that you would need to attend a wealthy school to be granted the acceleration that your kid merits. It's absurd, and they'd get in a ton of trouble with upper administration. They can much more easily state that your kid didn't meet the FCPS benchmarks for acceleration, the school can't make the logistics work, or even that they asked, but Gatehouse refused the skip.

Also, my kid was actually off the charts and skipped ahead in math at a FCPS Title I school. They can and will handle things on a case by case basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

Middle school AIME qualifiers will never be served by public school. I think the best thing is for FCPS to allow RSM/AOPS classes to substitute for FCPS courses, as long as the kid can take a qualifying exam. This way, high achievers can get the alg-calc math track out of the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If have to struggle hard to meet the requirements for 7th grade Algebra, it’s more likely they are going to regret accelerating. You want a kid who is very self motivated and reeeeeeally has that foundation rock solid. If that’s not your kid right now, consider holding off.

—Middle School Math Teacher

+1. My son is in 7th grade algebra and has never struggled. But he's also the type who will go to Khan academy and do practice problems if he doesn't understand something, and will do all the extra credit problems the teacher assigns. I would have pulled him from the class if he wasn't like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

This is the problem with wealthy public school districts. Everyone wants to accelerate their kid.

Go to a title one school and tell them you want your 6th grader in alg 1 and it is done. They won’t even ask for test scores. Literally no one else will be asking this of the school besides you and they will assume you have your child’s best interest in mind. You might be on your own to figure out and coordinate math for 7th and 8th grade, but they pretty much accommodate you the best they can. Super easy.

We're in DCPS and our Title 1 MS would never allow placement without strong recommendations for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s less about how hard the subject is, and more about how organized they are in middle school. If the kid won’t do his homework or study with any basic effort then it stinks to miss out on what for most bright kids should be a straightforward A for the high school transcript.

Hard disagree. I'm with the poster who said there's a brain development step you cannot predict that helps students process higher level math concepts. The same kind of brain development I firmly think also helps with computer science concepts like recursion. Pushing those too early is just painful and doesn't accomplish much, where as after the brain development step they are easy.

I've heard this fairy tale of "brain development" so many times. Even from math teachers who should know better.
It sounds to me to be similarly pseudo-scientific as "learning styles" or the "growth mindset" BS that's so prevalent in our schools - both never verified BS hypotheses.

Haven't read the research. But I do believe there are likely some late blooming math thinkers. What about kids who have ADHD? Their minds don't develop the same as a neurotypical student's. The subject of this article is a shining example of someone who came to math late, academically speaking, and subsequently excelled.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-wins-the-fields-medal-20220705/

This is anecdotal evidence that's comparable to the story of the chain smoker who turned 100 when it comes to frequency.

Also, to be clear: the argument of the brain development folks is that no one should be accelerated because they are all too young and their brains haven't matured, rather than making individual distinctions between kids who have developed faster and the ADHD kid you're mentioning. In their world, everyone must be held back because if they have not reached a certain age where their brains "develops" or whatever. It's not a call for accommodating neurodiversity, it's a call to lump all children together.

The problem is that many DCUM posters believe their DC is that genius kid that is 4+ SD higher than the mean and deserves special treatment. But it's more likely that their DC is in the lumpy middle of the distribution (maybe 0.5-1.5 SDs above the mean) and is only testing high because of prep. And many kids in this lump middle may actually be worse off by tailoring their education as if they were 4+SDs higher.

The schools administer tests every year. 2SD is 98%ile. 3SD is 99.9%ile.
Parents who are curious can easily know where their kids are on the curve .

FCPS kids tend to score high on these standardized tests. Is it because FCPS kids are (on average) higher on the curve than other regions' kids? I would argue that FCPS kids are more "prepped" than other regions' kids, so their test scores are artificially high. Which leads to parents assuming that their 148 CoGAT kid (who prepped for 2 years prior) is some super genius.

My data: FCPS kids are not scoring higher than other regions on non-standardized tests that are difficult even for the brightest kids (e.g. AMC tests).

CogAT has a very low ceiling, and the difference between a 148 and a 132 in a section is around 2 correct answers. It isn't possible to decide that your kid is 99.9th percentile in intelligence based on CogAT, since prepping matters a lot, the test isn't comprehensive enough, and the ceiling is too low. Some parents do know that their kids are very high on the curve based on other data. Unfortunately, FCPS throws up a lot of roadblocks even if your kid is a +3SD or +4SD type.

My data: My kid first qualified for AIME in 6th grade and has made the top 1% honor roll on the AMC 10 in 7th and 8th. He's well positioned to make JMO this year in 8th. In ES, my kid's principal and math resource teacher wanted to accelerate him more than 1 year in math based on all of their data and interactions. Gatehouse said no.

If you meet the needs of the +3SD and +4SD types, then a decent number of less talented kids with pushy parents will squeeze into whatever program accommodates the highly gifted. If you want to prevent these kids from overaccelerating to their own detriment, it's likely that the highly gifted kids will also be prevented from accelerating. You can't have it both ways. I'd prefer to see the schools accommodate the highly gifted and let the other kids who squeeze into the program take responsibility for their own possibly bad choices. FCPS would prefer saving them from themselves to the detriment of the handful of highly gifted.

This is the problem with wealthy public school districts. Everyone wants to accelerate their kid.

Go to a title one school and tell them you want your 6th grader in alg 1 and it is done. They won’t even ask for test scores. Literally no one else will be asking this of the school besides you and they will assume you have your child’s best interest in mind. You might be on your own to figure out and coordinate math for 7th and 8th grade, but they pretty much accommodate you the best they can. Super easy.

We're in DCPS and our Title 1 MS would never allow placement without strong recommendations for it.

FCPS wouldn't either. I'm the PP with the kid who was accelerated in a Title I FCPS school. The option to accelerate was only on the table after extensive testing. In FCPS, kids can't be skipped ahead unless Gatehouse signs off on the skip. They won't do so without pretty compelling evidence.