APS 6th grade pre algebra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

at a very superficial level.

The depth of the math could be significantly more rigorous. Children need a much deeper understanding of the topics. A much stronger foundation.

This issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue of acceleration. Regardless of whether or not rigor is better than acceleration for gifted kids, acceleration with the standard rigor of honors highschool courses ("very superficial" according to you) is better than no acceleration with the standard rigor of honors highschool courses.

Obvious the best solution would be to allow kids to take math from other providers specializing in gifted education (AoPS, EMF math, mathacademy, RSM)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation. The students are accelerated because they can achieve (and are good at standardized tests), not the inverse where they're achieving because they're accelerated.

I'm a STEM PhD married to an engineer and totally agree that more acceleration isn't the best option and that it is a race to no where. There's really no benefit to taking advanced college math in high school, and there can be a significant detriment as students aren't taking it with the supporting science and engineering classes where you apply the math and reinforce the math concepts. Those supporting classes are where you really understand the importance of the math. Classes like Electricity and Magnetism, Statics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc.

I also don't think more math (e.g., Beast Academy) is the only option for more challenge. The best way to really understand math is to apply it to science and engineering problems. You want to grow students into top problem solvers, not math robots who can crank through rote math problems. Students should stretch to should learn to do things like calculate the load on a circuit or gear ratios or weather statistics. Intensifying science or STEM classes with applied math and moving some applications of math into advanced math classes would really add depth that is currently lacking. Don't just accelerate more. If you have a kid who is really good at math, have them use those skills to learn other advanced topics and solve problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation. The students are accelerated because they can achieve (and are good at standardized tests), not the inverse where they're achieving because they're accelerated.

I'm a STEM PhD married to an engineer and totally agree that more acceleration isn't the best option and that it is a race to no where. There's really no benefit to taking advanced college math in high school, and there can be a significant detriment as students aren't taking it with the supporting science and engineering classes where you apply the math and reinforce the math concepts. Those supporting classes are where you really understand the importance of the math. Classes like Electricity and Magnetism, Statics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc.

I also don't think more math (e.g., Beast Academy) is the only option for more challenge. The best way to really understand math is to apply it to science and engineering problems. You want to grow students into top problem solvers, not math robots who can crank through rote math problems. Students should stretch to should learn to do things like calculate the load on a circuit or gear ratios or weather statistics. Intensifying science or STEM classes with applied math and moving some applications of math into advanced math classes would really add depth that is currently lacking. Don't just accelerate more. If you have a kid who is really good at math, have them use those skills to learn other advanced topics and solve problems.

I generally agree, but you totally misunderstood what Beast Academy is. Beast Academy is thebfurst introduction to problem solving for most of its readers. Furthermore, math is the skeleton of science, so learning math is what enables you to understand science and engineering at a deep level. Without math, science is mostly stamp collecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation. The students are accelerated because they can achieve (and are good at standardized tests), not the inverse where they're achieving because they're accelerated.

I'm a STEM PhD married to an engineer and totally agree that more acceleration isn't the best option and that it is a race to no where. There's really no benefit to taking advanced college math in high school, and there can be a significant detriment as students aren't taking it with the supporting science and engineering classes where you apply the math and reinforce the math concepts. Those supporting classes are where you really understand the importance of the math. Classes like Electricity and Magnetism, Statics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc.

I also don't think more math (e.g., Beast Academy) is the only option for more challenge. The best way to really understand math is to apply it to science and engineering problems. You want to grow students into top problem solvers, not math robots who can crank through rote math problems. Students should stretch to should learn to do things like calculate the load on a circuit or gear ratios or weather statistics. Intensifying science or STEM classes with applied math and moving some applications of math into advanced math classes would really add depth that is currently lacking. Don't just accelerate more. If you have a kid who is really good at math, have them use those skills to learn other advanced topics and solve problems.

I generally agree, but you totally misunderstood what Beast Academy is. Beast Academy is thebfurst introduction to problem solving for most of its readers. Furthermore, math is the skeleton of science, so learning math is what enables you to understand science and engineering at a deep level. Without math, science is mostly stamp collecting.

All I said is that it's not the *only* option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation. The students are accelerated because they can achieve (and are good at standardized tests), not the inverse where they're achieving because they're accelerated.

I'm a STEM PhD married to an engineer and totally agree that more acceleration isn't the best option and that it is a race to no where. There's really no benefit to taking advanced college math in high school, and there can be a significant detriment as students aren't taking it with the supporting science and engineering classes where you apply the math and reinforce the math concepts. Those supporting classes are where you really understand the importance of the math. Classes like Electricity and Magnetism, Statics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc.

I also don't think more math (e.g., Beast Academy) is the only option for more challenge. The best way to really understand math is to apply it to science and engineering problems. You want to grow students into top problem solvers, not math robots who can crank through rote math problems. Students should stretch to should learn to do things like calculate the load on a circuit or gear ratios or weather statistics. Intensifying science or STEM classes with applied math and moving some applications of math into advanced math classes would really add depth that is currently lacking. Don't just accelerate more. If you have a kid who is really good at math, have them use those skills to learn other advanced topics and solve problems.

Agree with all of these points.

- engineer

[Anonymous]

Both my kids are on the accelerated math track. It has been good but I don't think *this* much acceleration is necessary, especially for the one who wants to be an artist when she grows up. The fact that generally speaking kids are getting six years of high school math or four years of high school math is a little odd. The tracks should be regular math or advanced math, instead of regular math or super duper intense intensified math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my kids are on the accelerated math track. It has been good but I don't think *this* much acceleration is necessary, especially for the one who wants to be an artist when she grows up. The fact that generally speaking kids are getting six years of high school math or four years of high school math is a little odd. The tracks should be regular math or advanced math, instead of regular math or super duper intense intensified math.

Advanced math is also a track. There are more tracks because there is a wide range in ability. It's shame that English and Social Studies don't have similar options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my kids are on the accelerated math track. It has been good but I don't think *this* much acceleration is necessary, especially for the one who wants to be an artist when she grows up. The fact that generally speaking kids are getting six years of high school math or four years of high school math is a little odd. The tracks should be regular math or advanced math, instead of regular math or super duper intense intensified math.

Advanced math is also a track. There are more tracks because there is a wide range in ability. It's shame that English and Social Studies don't have similar options.

They do offer intensified options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my kids are on the accelerated math track. It has been good but I don't think *this* much acceleration is necessary, especially for the one who wants to be an artist when she grows up. The fact that generally speaking kids are getting six years of high school math or four years of high school math is a little odd. The tracks should be regular math or advanced math, instead of regular math or super duper intense intensified math.

Advanced math is also a track. There are more tracks because there is a wide range in ability. It's shame that English and Social Studies don't have similar options.

They do offer intensified options.

Not in 6th grade. There's 3 years of acceleration (math 6/7/8) or regular 6th grade math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation. The students are accelerated because they can achieve (and are good at standardized tests), not the inverse where they're achieving because they're accelerated.

I'm a STEM PhD married to an engineer and totally agree that more acceleration isn't the best option and that it is a race to no where. There's really no benefit to taking advanced college math in high school, and there can be a significant detriment as students aren't taking it with the supporting science and engineering classes where you apply the math and reinforce the math concepts. Those supporting classes are where you really understand the importance of the math. Classes like Electricity and Magnetism, Statics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, etc.

I also don't think more math (e.g., Beast Academy) is the only option for more challenge. The best way to really understand math is to apply it to science and engineering problems. You want to grow students into top problem solvers, not math robots who can crank through rote math problems. Students should stretch to should learn to do things like calculate the load on a circuit or gear ratios or weather statistics. Intensifying science or STEM classes with applied math and moving some applications of math into advanced math classes would really add depth that is currently lacking. Don't just accelerate more. If you have a kid who is really good at math, have them use those skills to learn other advanced topics and solve problems.

You seem to have the same opinions as the creators of Beast Academy, so why aren't you a fan? Have you looked at their curriculum and found it "rote" compared to that of AAP? I doubt it.

So you're advocating for accelerating both math and science instead of just math. I agree with that; gifted students should have multiple acceleration options besides more math (such as more science in addition to more math, such as algebra-based physics during or the year after early algebra 1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

I think the goal for these “accelerated kids” should be the number of 5s on the AP BC Calc exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my kids are on the accelerated math track. It has been good but I don't think *this* much acceleration is necessary, especially for the one who wants to be an artist when she grows up. The fact that generally speaking kids are getting six years of high school math or four years of high school math is a little odd. The tracks should be regular math or advanced math, instead of regular math or super duper intense intensified math.

Advanced math is also a track. There are more tracks because there is a wide range in ability. It's shame that English and Social Studies don't have similar options.

They do offer intensified options.

Not in 6th grade. There's 3 years of acceleration (math 6/7/8) or regular 6th grade math.

6th graders can take intensified English, science, and history in APS.

Math has two levels in 6th (math 6 & prealgebra) with additional levels of differentiation in 7th & 8th. I do think an intensified math 6 would be a good offering.