Message
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.



+1 and for some kids acceleration destroys the future of a math mind because steps are skipped way too often; whereas, slow and deep would have been the better way to nurture a natural math genius.

Which schools go slow and deep?


Schools mostly go slow. In terms of understanding and rigor, they rarely go deep, i.e prove things, almost never try to solve more difficult problems as opposed to toy exercises, etc. Simply put, few kids (and teachers!) are ready for that because of a weak understanding of basic principles stemming from elementary school. Elementary school mathematics is by far the most damaging aspect in American schools, which leads to majority of kids being checked out by middle school. As for schools that go fast (usually high school classes), they generally do a very superficial job of teaching for understanding, instead relying on procedural understanding (i.e lists and recipes of steps to follow) as they cruise along all the standards they want to hit. This is about as far from actually learning and understanding mathematics as it gets. A few of the selective magnets will go fast and deep mainly because many of the kids can handle it, but rarely will they go slow, which can make the learning a stressful experience for some kids.

If you want slow and deep, i.e learning math for understanding why something is true, the best resource is enrichment outside of school and/or self study. As an example, many top kids who have a very strong understanding of math (i.e as documented by contest results, etc), are almost fully checked out in their math class in school, simply because there is nothing for them to learn. Luckily, many of them get leeway to basically do whatever they want which means they will be studying/working on their own math problems during class time.

Are you talking about public, private, or both?


Both. Very few schools go deep into math, and if they do, it would likely be a small specialized program within the school. As it relates to depth, the speed of topic coverage doesn't matter.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.



+1 and for some kids acceleration destroys the future of a math mind because steps are skipped way too often; whereas, slow and deep would have been the better way to nurture a natural math genius.

Which schools go slow and deep?


Schools mostly go slow. In terms of understanding and rigor, they rarely go deep, i.e prove things, almost never try to solve more difficult problems as opposed to toy exercises, etc. Simply put, few kids (and teachers!) are ready for that because of a weak understanding of basic principles stemming from elementary school. Elementary school mathematics is by far the most damaging aspect in American schools, which leads to majority of kids being checked out by middle school. As for schools that go fast (usually high school classes), they generally do a very superficial job of teaching for understanding, instead relying on procedural understanding (i.e lists and recipes of steps to follow) as they cruise along all the standards they want to hit. This is about as far from actually learning and understanding mathematics as it gets. A few of the selective magnets will go fast and deep mainly because many of the kids can handle it, but rarely will they go slow, which can make the learning a stressful experience for some kids.

If you want slow and deep, i.e learning math for understanding why something is true, the best resource is enrichment outside of school and/or self study. As an example, many top kids who have a very strong understanding of math (i.e as documented by contest results, etc), are almost fully checked out in their math class in school, simply because there is nothing for them to learn. Luckily, many of them get leeway to basically do whatever they want which means they will be studying/working on their own math problems during class time.
Anonymous wrote:Have a DS who was invited to RMIB and Blair STEM for the upcoming year. He is undecided about his passion. Likes science/math but enjoys the humanities almost as much. He plays soccer and hoping to be involved in HS sports. Also is involved in the band although I am not sure how far he would take it in high school. For those with a kid who doesn't have a definitive leaning towards STEM or humanities, is it just better to stay at the local school and let him explore?


Consider some worst case scenarios: If he decides he loves math or CS at some point during high school, attending RMIB would be rough, both due to the amount of humanities work taking time away from him pursuing math/CS in any depth, as well as the regret that he could have gone to a math/CS program that operates at a totally different level than what is found at RMIB... (The vice-versa case is also similar; he chooses Blair and finds he hates math/CS for some reason, feels stuck and wishes he tried RMIB).

The programs take a VERY different focus (despite some here saying RMIB is well rounded; I don't believe it is), so it's definitely worth it for him to do some research/introspection, trying to find other kids in the programs to talk to, etc. and where he imagines himself fitting in better/happier. If you had initially said he loves math/CS, I would suggest Blair hands down, as their program is unparalleled. RMIB is basically the opposite, deep focus in humanities but not so much on math/CS which would not make it very different from typical AP style courses for CS/math courses.

Tough decision.
Anonymous wrote:At our HS Calc AB is a co or pre-req to taking AP Physics. I would check on the pre-reqs at your school.


If the physics course is without calculus (I believe it might be as I heard there is now a distinction between AP Physics 1 vs AP Physics C), then precalculus should be good enough as understanding of trigonometry and geometry is important in understanding physics. If it's Physics C definitely at least take Calculus as a corequisite, and ideally having already taken a calculus course would make the AP Physics C experience easier, as the math can sometimes be a significant portion of the difficulty).
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:^^ that is an interesting perspective PP. I also don’t think it helps when people consistently blame parents for pushing acceleration. I don’t want super fast just for the sake of it, but if my kid loves math, truly, I’d like for them to be at least challenged.


100% correct, they should absolutely be challenged! However the trap here is thinking that acceleration necessarily leads to doing more challenging things. In many situations, nothing could be further from the truth!

Acceleration usually means they're now doing the next 'level' or set of topics, it doesn't necessarily mean they're thinking at a higher level. This is even truer in today's watered down curriculums which focus on covering a breadth of topics, but mastery of none. In a situation where your kid needs a challenge because they're bored, school acceleration is often the wrong thing to do, instead it's actually better to slow down and look for challenging and interesting enrichment.

Consider the fact that I can give numerous problems from elementary and middle school math contests that only make use of very elementary techniques, (i.e properties of whole numbers, algebra, geometry, logic) to high schoolers in AP calculus and they would be completely stuck (worse they would likely give up right away and think they are intrinsically bad at math, even though that may not be true at all). That tells us that something is wrong; kids are not learning how to think and problem solve in math class, if they were they would struggle tremendously with simple things that mostly require a bit of logic combined with basic principles to solve.


oops *wouldn't*
Anonymous wrote:^^ that is an interesting perspective PP. I also don’t think it helps when people consistently blame parents for pushing acceleration. I don’t want super fast just for the sake of it, but if my kid loves math, truly, I’d like for them to be at least challenged.


100% correct, they should absolutely be challenged! However the trap here is thinking that acceleration necessarily leads to doing more challenging things. In many situations, nothing could be further from the truth!

Acceleration usually means they're now doing the next 'level' or set of topics, it doesn't necessarily mean they're thinking at a higher level. This is even truer in today's watered down curriculums which focus on covering a breadth of topics, but mastery of none. In a situation where your kid needs a challenge because they're bored, school acceleration is often the wrong thing to do, instead it's actually better to slow down and look for challenging and interesting enrichment.

Consider the fact that I can give numerous problems from elementary and middle school math contests that only make use of very elementary techniques, (i.e properties of whole numbers, algebra, geometry, logic) to high schoolers in AP calculus and they would be completely stuck (worse they would likely give up right away and think they are intrinsically bad at math, even though that may not be true at all). That tells us that something is wrong; kids are not learning how to think and problem solve in math class, if they were they would struggle tremendously with simple things that mostly require a bit of logic combined with basic principles to solve.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.



Sorry but you just have an idiosyncratic opinion about "acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math" - opinions like yours without any real fact-based evidence are the people who do tremendous damage to mathematically gifted children by justifying these urban myths which are then used to shut down acceleration pathways in maths - to the detriment of these children who would benefit from it and to the detriment of society more broadly


This is not an opinion. I teach kids who are very accelerated and a significant number of them have serious basic math gaps. I.e kids in precalculus or calculus who are having a hard time doing basic algebra, or manipulating fractions, etc. The root cause in these situations is often the fact that the kids are being pushed to compete by their parents with an eye towards schools/college, but they don't have a true interest in math, or they're just burned out/more interested in other things. I also teach kids who are accelerated (by normal standards) but not necessarily super accelerated, and they are excellent problem solvers, i.e they can handle difficult math contest problems, etc. even if they've only studied algebra and geometry and not necessarily been exposed to higher level math yet. It's not clear to me based on OP's response if they understand the difference between skill at math and acceleration when they mentioned 'exceptional' student. In today's world (and certainly in this area) acceleration does not necessarily imply exceptional. The things I mentioned above are far more likely to be found in exceptional kids.

The mathematical damage that is done to our children is related to 1) Parents who don't understand how important it is to encourage a love of learning and curiosity in kids and push them to higher levels without checking whether they're actually learning/enjoying the experience, 2) Watered down math curriculums in schools that focus on repetitive drills, and teaching to the test instead of developing understanding and intuition 3) Teachers who are not allowed to actually teach and have to strictly abide by the watered down standards above, as well as teachers who have no real understanding of mathematics and teach essentially by rote, often a product of ed schools 4) Lack of challenge via a lack of any kind of mathematical problem solving in elementary school which results in kids missing great opportunities to develop grit and try things without fear of failure and learn a lot from them 5) A general math phobia in our culture combined with an almost complete misunderstanding of what it means to learn and do math by the overwhelming majority of our population.

I'm not against acceleration at all and would love to see more advanced math and problem solving in schools, but I am against acceleration that doesn't actually result in learning things well.


It isn't always parents pushing. The schools test kids and place them. Parents trust them to know what they are doing. Unfortunately, they often don't. And when your clearly bright kid is better at math than you are, it is hard to see when the school is messing up. I questioned acceleration every step of the way at three different schools, public and private, and no one thought this kid should slow down. Hindsight is 20/20.


Yes, the best thing to do for a child is to always be skeptical of what a school promises, look for proof/actual results. But even more importantly is figuring out if a child is actually learning how to think. If they are not developing their mathematical maturity (i.e logical reasoning, ability to explain, be skeptical of facts and not just accept things without proof or at least a good explanation, ask questions and try to understand things better), if they're not learning these things then they are not really doing math in math class. I agree that it's hard for parents to assess what they're learning without having mathematics training themselves.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.



Sorry but you just have an idiosyncratic opinion about "acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math" - opinions like yours without any real fact-based evidence are the people who do tremendous damage to mathematically gifted children by justifying these urban myths which are then used to shut down acceleration pathways in maths - to the detriment of these children who would benefit from it and to the detriment of society more broadly


This is not an opinion. I teach kids who are very accelerated and a significant number of them have serious basic math gaps. I.e kids in precalculus or calculus who are having a hard time doing basic algebra, or manipulating fractions, etc. The root cause in these situations is often the fact that the kids are being pushed to compete by their parents with an eye towards schools/college, but they don't have a true interest in math, or they're just burned out/more interested in other things. I also teach kids who are accelerated (by normal standards) but not necessarily super accelerated, and they are excellent problem solvers, i.e they can handle difficult math contest problems, etc. even if they've only studied algebra and geometry and not necessarily been exposed to higher level math yet. It's not clear to me based on OP's response if they understand the difference between skill at math and acceleration when they mentioned 'exceptional' student. In today's world (and certainly in this area) acceleration does not necessarily imply exceptional. The things I mentioned above are far more likely to be found in exceptional kids.

The mathematical damage that is done to our children is related to 1) Parents who don't understand how important it is to encourage a love of learning and curiosity in kids and push them to higher levels without checking whether they're actually learning/enjoying the experience, 2) Watered down math curriculums in schools that focus on repetitive drills, and teaching to the test instead of developing understanding and intuition 3) Teachers who are not allowed to actually teach and have to strictly abide by the watered down standards above, as well as teachers who have no real understanding of mathematics and teach essentially by rote, often a product of ed schools 4) Lack of challenge via a lack of any kind of mathematical problem solving in elementary school which results in kids missing great opportunities to develop grit and try things without fear of failure and learn a lot from them 5) A general math phobia in our culture combined with an almost complete misunderstanding of what it means to learn and do math by the overwhelming majority of our population.

I'm not against acceleration at all and would love to see more advanced math and problem solving in schools, but I am against acceleration that doesn't actually result in learning things well.

DP..

My 11th grader at a magnet is sleeping through the magnet level BC calc class (and I mean this literally) and still getting straight As. 800 on math portion of the SAT. But, DC makes really dumb mistakes on simple calculations - like fractions, subtraction, division.

I would not say DC is is lacking basic math foundation, just that DC is so used to doing harder level math that DC skims the "easy" part. My nephew who is also really good at math did the same thing .


Making occasional computation errors does not mean your DC is lacking a basic math foundation, I was referring to many other kids in precalc/calc classes, who cannot follow the algebra and/or do not understand how to do any problem that isn't just a pure repeat of an example shown in class. The system has failed them and they don't even know it; especially if they're still getting As or Bs and think they're doing fine (they are perhaps doing fine mimicking procedural steps, but that's about it). Your child is a completely different situation in a magnet program; if they didn't understand how to work with algebra and fractions not only would they have a hard time in Calc BC, they would not be able to get an 800 on the math SAT (which is not particularly special, but still requires a pretty good understanding of the basics to be able to do it).
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.



Sorry but you just have an idiosyncratic opinion about "acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math" - opinions like yours without any real fact-based evidence are the people who do tremendous damage to mathematically gifted children by justifying these urban myths which are then used to shut down acceleration pathways in maths - to the detriment of these children who would benefit from it and to the detriment of society more broadly


This is not an opinion. I teach kids who are very accelerated and a significant number of them have serious basic math gaps. I.e kids in precalculus or calculus who are having a hard time doing basic algebra, or manipulating fractions, etc. The root cause in these situations is often the fact that the kids are being pushed to compete by their parents with an eye towards schools/college, but they don't have a true interest in math, or they're just burned out/more interested in other things. I also teach kids who are accelerated (by normal standards) but not necessarily super accelerated, and they are excellent problem solvers, i.e they can handle difficult math contest problems, etc. even if they've only studied algebra and geometry and not necessarily been exposed to higher level math yet. It's not clear to me based on OP's response if they understand the difference between skill at math and acceleration when they mentioned 'exceptional' student. In today's world (and certainly in this area) acceleration does not necessarily imply exceptional. The things I mentioned above are far more likely to be found in exceptional kids.

The mathematical damage that is done to our children is related to 1) Parents who don't understand how important it is to encourage a love of learning and curiosity in kids and push them to higher levels without checking whether they're actually learning/enjoying the experience, 2) Watered down math curriculums in schools that focus on repetitive drills, and teaching to the test instead of developing understanding and intuition 3) Teachers who are not allowed to actually teach and have to strictly abide by the watered down standards above, as well as teachers who have no real understanding of mathematics and teach essentially by rote, often a product of ed schools 4) Lack of challenge via a lack of any kind of mathematical problem solving in elementary school which results in kids missing great opportunities to develop grit and try things without fear of failure and learn a lot from them 5) A general math phobia in our culture combined with an almost complete misunderstanding of what it means to learn and do math by the overwhelming majority of our population.

I'm not against acceleration at all and would love to see more advanced math and problem solving in schools, but I am against acceleration that doesn't actually result in learning things well.
Anonymous wrote:We have heard that privates often don’t accelerate math but would like to transition to private from public. Our daughter is in MS doing HS math courses. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


Define exceptional. Being in a 6th grade algebra class is certainly accelerated, but not exceptional by itself. Does she exhibit some of these?

- Gets bored in class because the questions are too easy.
- Curious about learning new math, asks questions about how things/numbers work, really wants to know why/understand things well.
- Enjoys solving puzzles/problems, i.e if given a book full of them she would do them for fun without any kind of prodding.
- Loves to try challenging problems and doesn't like giving up easily.

Acceleration these days rarely equates to being good at math. On the other hand, the above are much more likely to suggest an exceptional child.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm confused, as there's still a test. The test has not gone away.


There is no test, you're probably referring to the essay.


...and doesn't that count as a test? As I understand it, there's a logic element to the exam and then the essay-writing portion of the exam.


From what I understand there is one math problem to be solved and written up in essay format, that's it. I heard it was relatively straightforward, thus unsure how it would differentiate among many of the kids.
Anonymous wrote:DD, who is currently taking Geometry as a 9th grader, wants to take Algebra II over the summer so he can take IB Math Analysis I in 10th grade. He says he doesn't have a reason. He just wants to. Before I go down this road with his guidance counselor, I wanted to see if anyone has done this before.

Thanks in advance!


Condensing a year long class into 5 weeks without a very good reason would likely be a bad idea for the average student. Not only will it be delivered in a much more watered down "cram" like fashion due to the time constraints, it may also backfire into a long term burnout/hate of math due to having to do nonstop math for 5 summer weeks straight. Some very good reasons might be if child is extremely motivated and is already planning their course sequences through their final high school year, and they also did very well in prior math classes and can pick up new concepts quickly. Or perhaps they are talented in math and already know a large chunk of the material (perhaps via math contests or some other outside enrichment opportunities). But if they're just doing it without any of these reasons, i.e they want to be at the same level as their friends, etc. it's likely not a good idea long term.
Anonymous wrote:
pettifogger wrote:. Meanwhile I'm watching my kid in class now doing long division with decimals.... in 4th grade... why?? How can anyone believe that any kid starting 4th grade is actually ready to understand how the division algorithm works with decimals this early? How can they believe this is so important when they've barely properly covered how fractions work?


Not to nitpick, but some kids like mine took AoPS Algebra in 4th grade and could easily understand decimal long division. He taught himself how to do that around 2nd grade.

The bolded part is the true point, though. I have no idea why they think following a somewhat complicated algorithm is that important at such a young age, especially when it adds nothing to the kids' understanding. They'll pick up the complicated algorithms quite easily when their executive function has had time to catch up with everything else.


Sure, a few kids might understand why the algorithm works, i.e. why are they carrying numbers down when they're doing the algorithm, but I'm convinced most kids in AAP have NO idea why they're doing the steps they're doing here. There are not preparing them to understand the algorithm (e.g by studying fractions combined with place value, and looking to see what is actually happening at each step), they're just making them practice it repeatedly in the hope that they'll just learn it, but what they're really learning is to mimic a procedure of steps. Most adults do not understand how long division works, because it's not intuitive, especially the way it is symbolically set up in the US (with the bar on top of the dividend and the bringing down numbers). It's particularly hard to understand what's going on when they're doing it with decimals unless they break down what is happening at each step (i.e the "bringing down" numbers, or bringing down zeroes step is really breaking up a remainder into 10x into smaller pieces so that it can be further subdivided... that is pretty subtle stuff for kids to figure out on their own.

I think AoPS BA division with decimals near the end of their BA curriculum somewhere in level 5, because it's just not that important to understand before doing many more fundamental things first, that they can easily understand and are important.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I really do not see the point of threads like this. OP - why do you care?

My oldest DC did AAP at a centre and yes I think she needed it. Math was still a lot slower than she would like but at least better than gen Ed would have been. They did do multiple neat projects.

Youngest DC is LLIV. He does not “need it” I think and faster math beyond the pace they are doing would be too much for him. School mixes classes so the LLIV kids are integrated with the other kids for hometown, SS/S, specials. Not as challenging in my view as the version of AAP older DC got but a good fit for this kid. I do not think the LLIV model would have been enough for older kiddo given that it feels like a bit more watered down version.


OP here. I haven't checked in a few days and appreciate all the answers.

To address this question: I care for a lot of reasons, not all of them good, productive reasons. I admit that to a large degree I am just disappointed with the program and frustrated that it's so completely different from the way it is described. So it irks me when experienced parents use the FCPS language with prospective parents because it seems like we should know better. And I do not believe that people are "mocking" the application's language. It's quite clear that many people feel that way. It sounds so self-promotional, which I find embarrassing for kids in a program that just isn't all that special (though it could be... FCPS could do SO MUCH BETTER!) You look at a program like AOPS/Beast Academy and THAT is special. Even if your fifth grader is doing the third grade books, the kid would be approaching math in a different way. And, if anything, FCPS does an adequate job with Math, whereas language arts... Maybe its the SOLs and being forced to teach to the test? maybe it's that the classes are too large? I just wish this program delivered on it's promises. I feel that it's a program that selects for a certain kind of student and rewards that kind of student. And for what it's worth my kids are at one of the supposedly most coveted centers. I am willing to believe that there are some brilliant teachers out there but I doubt other schools are teaching wildly different content in wildly different ways.



I feel you OP, this is what completely bothered me realizing what AAP really is vs what it's marketed as, and what caused me to take matters in my own hands and teach my kid math myself. I can do it, but I realize not too many can afford to do that, and they rely on AAP thinking it promotes understanding and creativity (using their marketed words). Meanwhile I'm watching my kid in class now doing long division with decimals.... in 4th grade... why?? How can anyone believe that any kid starting 4th grade is actually ready to understand how the division algorithm works with decimals this early? How can they believe this is so important when they've barely properly covered how fractions work? Never mind even their understanding, but more importantly, imagine the pain this puts on the kids at this age to struggle to do some algorithm which seems completely alien to them, is just so misguided... this in my mind is how one kills a love of math.
Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any math creativity at my children's center. Both kids felt like they learned more from their once per week AoPS math and language arts classes than they did in an entire week of AAP instruction.

My kids "needed" something, but AAP certainly wasn't it.


Yep, but I'm not even expecting 'creativity', I think many here are using this term to mean something other than procedural stuff. Creativity to me would mean something that you'd more likely to see in things like math contests, i.e clever ways of finding alternate solutions, outside the box thinking, etc. I'm not so concerned about lack of this creativity, as this is not something school should primarily be focusing on. I'm concerned that there is no focus in school on building up their reasoning and logic skills, as math in elementary school is an excellent time to do that. I'm seeing 100% procedures and algorithms and no real proof that students are taught to think about why things are true. Kids aren't even taught to ask questions, which is really, really, critical when learning something that feels hard. That's not really creativity we're talking about here, just a basic foundations of logic, reasoning, asking lots of questions, etc. that they should have a chance to practice in math class, to see where things come from, why they are true, and be able to reason their way to solving problems. When my kid says to me he learns more things from playing videogames than in class, I'm sad not only because videogames are addictive and I should be limiting the amount of time spent on them, but also because I know that he's right in some sense.. that from his point of view he feels that videogames give him more pleasure in terms of novel things to figure out, than class does.
Go to: