Anonymous wrote:

That's the worry, but I can't point to examples of it with my kids, the ES teachers were usually good with the concepts they were presenting. I did see faulty materials, and teachers who'd written their own problems that were poorly worded. Modeling math thinking requires concise language, and everyday English can be ambiguous. E.g., the statement "John shares a 20-inch licorice rope with each of five friends." Is this heading for a division problem or a multiplication problem? It's not clear if there's one rope or five. My DC definitely saw statements like this in ES, and even if the confusion was pointed out, the teacher tended to only hear the sentence as originally intended. Hopefully the editing in the new curriculum is better. If you can't get past issues like this, it's pretty hard to present proofs in ES.

I agree with this. 2.0 was particularly bad because it was home grown with zero quality control. At least an openly available curriculum would have some level of proof reading and editing.

A deeper problem with education in the US is that it does not follow child development guidelines and embrace more self guided learning. For some reason the US pushes reading earlier to no benefit and holds kids back on basic math concepts. Montessori kindergartens will have kids doing multiplication and division because developmentally they can easily grasp the concepts of grouping and separating sets. This is a great time to introduce those conceptual skills. In elementary school using games to ensure fluency and ensuring kids know their math facts is still important. You can't do more complicated math later on if you need to draw a picture or write a paragraph to do simple addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The same is true of foreign languages. Students are far more successful acquiring a foreign language in preschool and early elementary than middle school which is the worst time to introduce this subject.

Lack of rigor is another problem especially in MCPS. There is huge pressure to create data that every students has met the standard and is moving forward appropriately when many are not as a result of not coming into the class with the needed skills, a bad curriculum or bad instruction. It doesn't really matter as they are being pushed forward without grasping math as MCPS continues to lower the standards. This doesn't help the students that can perform either. Their parents feel proud that their kid is getting an A in a class with an impressive label but if you place that same kid in a real Algebra or Geometry class they will get a rude awakening.

Agreed. Another observation that seems more true to me now than years back, is that kids seem less interested/engaged in learning for learning sake. I often see even the advanced kids only wanting to learn something to get that grade, or pass but lacking genuine interest. I suspect technology (particularly touch screens) have played a role in this, not only because they're spending more time on them at home from a very young age, but also because schools are now using them at an alarmingly frequent rate. It's rare to find kids who can truly concentrate without distraction for a longer period of time. If they cannot focus well, they will not be able to solve more difficult problems (the ones requiring thought and some amount of creativity to crack).

The learning process in our schools has also changed over the years. The sheer teacher time spent on testing is terrible and really reduces the meaning of teaching. In particular I think this is really harmful in the elementary school years since that's the time when kids are still very curious and will actually ask many questions, as to how things work, why they work like that, what if something else happens, etc. So I think it's harder to teach math effectively in elementary school, which makes it even more critical that teachers at that level are experienced and be able to logically explain how/why things work the way they do, as well as keep a kid's interest and curiosity alive. If a kid has not been inspired, and has also not been able to understand the basics to the point where they can somewhat explain how/why they work, they will likely get lost in middle school and see mathematics as a meaningless, repetitive set of calculations to be memorized which is really the worst outcome to have.

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Example of an earlier poster's point that homes in the area are getting snatched up quick: https://www.wusa9.com/article/money/business/amazon-effect/falls-church-home-sells-170-thousand-over-asking-price/65-6cd15798-aeae-4b3f-946f-a93a48d70616

I live nearby that one and commute to Tysons. It's not too bad and there's a couple route options... with Waze I usually avoid the worst of it. My DCs are preschool so hopefully by the time they hit HS there'll have been some more substantial efforts to address overcrowding issues at McLean HS... we'll see... 10 years to solve a simple problem seems ambitious with this school board...

I remember this area when we were looking at houses in the Haycock/Longfellow schools 1.5 years ago... it was also crazy back then with almost no SFH on the market under 1 million. Even though the schools seemed amazing we didn't think the large premium was worth it and chose to buy in Vienna instead.

OP here which HS you are zoned for in Vienna and appreciate any feedback.

Madison.

Anonymous wrote:Example of an earlier poster's point that homes in the area are getting snatched up quick: https://www.wusa9.com/article/money/business/amazon-effect/falls-church-home-sells-170-thousand-over-asking-price/65-6cd15798-aeae-4b3f-946f-a93a48d70616

I live nearby that one and commute to Tysons. It's not too bad and there's a couple route options... with Waze I usually avoid the worst of it. My DCs are preschool so hopefully by the time they hit HS there'll have been some more substantial efforts to address overcrowding issues at McLean HS... we'll see... 10 years to solve a simple problem seems ambitious with this school board...

I remember this area when we were looking at houses in the Haycock/Longfellow schools 1.5 years ago... it was also crazy back then with almost no SFH on the market under 1 million. Even though the schools seemed amazing we didn't think the large premium was worth it and chose to buy in Vienna instead.

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is pretty spot on. This is probably the largest root cause:

One likely reason: U.S. high schools teach math differently than other countries. Classes here often focus on formulas and procedures rather than teaching students to think creatively about solving complex problems involving all sorts of mathematics, experts said.

I highly doubt the above will change anytime soon. Most teachers and parents do not even know what mathematics is, they think it is procedural and rote and it's all about calculations. In fact the exact opposite is true. Math is about imagination, creativity, problem solving and proof (i.e the art of explanation). In general our culture does not support thinking deeply and creatively about things, it instead opts for acceleration coupled with a superficial understanding (certainly in math class, if not in school in general). As a teacher, I can find and pose numerous examples of elementary problems (i.e given/shown to elementary students and only requiring the most basic tools) to many high school students and they would have a very hard time solving them, or not be able to at all. This proves that problem solving in our math classes is almost nonexistent, which is corroborated by the abysmal average SAT scores nationwide.

Oh, and the "geometry sandwich" is absolutely real:

Most American high schools teach algebra I in ninth grade, geometry in 10th grade and algebra II in 11th grade – something Boaler calls “the geometry sandwich. Other countries teach three straight years of integrated math – I, II and III — in which concepts of algebra, geometry, probability, statistics and data science are taught together, allowing students to take deep dives into complex problems.”

The lack of understanding of geometry (by both students and teachers) is so bad that it was hilariously featured in a chapter from a famous problem solving book a couple of years back called "Geometry for Americans" :

https://imgur.com/a/76qSUlh

Although MCPS still calls the sequence Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra2 it actually is integrated math and should be renamed--there are algebra topics all three years, there are geometry topics all three years. Plenty of other districts actually have renamed the classes. Plenty of other school districts, e.g. California, have renamed the classes. Now, the topics covered in MCPS are more cursory compared to what was covered in algebra/geometry a generation ago, but students are hitting the classes younger--the target is 80% in Algebra 1 by 8th grade.

There's plenty wrong with math education in the US but the article sounds out of date.

There is definitely no geometry being done in algebra classes, that is a myth.

In the MCPS algebra packets, it's quite common to have a problem that looks at area or perimeter of a simple figure as a function of side length. These are concepts, introduced in IM and revisited in geometry. Later in the year there's some discussion of optimizing area given constraints on perimeter.

The bigger question is how much traditional geometry is in geometry. The unit on proofs is one packet and about three weeks, straight edge and compass constructions are about the same. But there are frequent problems that use algebra. E.g. there will be a figure with two unknown angles, and geometric relationships such that a system of two variables needs to be solved--algebra review.

Right but that's not really geometry, it's more of an algebraic afterthought. And constructions by themselves would not make sense without proving why the construction works, which is done using geometric principles. Those geometric principles (parallel lines, angles relationships, similar/congruent triangles, etc.) are not taught until geometry class. Without having these basics down, just doing a construction is akin to following a recipe without knowing why it works at all.

I also have reservations about proofs, I highly doubt an isolated proof unit will be helpful in understanding how to argue about what is/isn't true. Learning how to prove something (i.e. logically explaining why something is true via deductive reasoning) is something that should be done in all areas of mathematics throughout the school year (and kids in elementary school can handle it if developed correctly). Proof writing cannot be taught in a matter of weeks, since the development of the skill is highly dependent on doing lots of various types of problems from all subjects.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the MCPS geometry curriculum. There's a little lip service to constructions, a little to proofs--which mostly amounts to filling in a blank in an otherwise completed two-column proof. In fact most of euclidean geometry is swapped out for studying transformations in the coordinate plane: translations, reflections, and rotations by 90 degrees (arbitrary angle is too advanced). This is all a ground work for studying functions, and a direct continuation of the way lines and parabolas are introduced in MCPS algebra 1. This is applied further in algebra 2. The course are taught on a spiral and topics are revisited and expanded each year.

I agree proofs could be incorporated through out math education, but they are not. My DC is in calc now, and still not seeing proofs--there are some in the book, but none presented in class. There are very few teachers with the experience to model proof technique, even the most basic. Concise definitions aren't modeled either, and that's necessary for proofs. There aren't even textbooks before pre-calc, so where would the teachers get clear definitions, much less the students. I know for a fact my DC's teacher last year didn't know that a counter example suffices to show a statement is false, DC almost lost points on a test because of it, and when arguing was told grudgingly there could be points this once.

Yup it's a sad situation, I guess I was griping about the fact that what they call geometry is really not teaching them to think geometrically at all and they really only do that in geometry class. Regarding your DC, it's definitely a culture and teacher issue. This is typically what happens when teachers are teaching math without having majored in math (or any other technical subject), some having only "education" majors.

The problem is that this is not only happening in high school which is bad, but it's even more common in elementary school (where many teachers are truly scared of teaching math, and some "math phobia" can definitely get imparted to the kids).

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are fully ready for Algebra in or even before 7th. Making them take M7H when they've already mastered all of the pre-algebra concepts will do nothing for their algebra foundation. I don't like the idea of restricting access to early algebra for the kids who absolutely belong there, just because some kids or families are making poor decisions.

I'd prefer to have them use a much more comprehensive test and make it significantly harder to test into algebra if they're worried about unready kids in the program. Or, I'd prefer to have them force any kid who doesn't at least earn a B, B+ or whatever in 7th grade algebra to retake it in 8th. Or there could be a rule that any kids in 7th grade Algebra who don't at least have a B or whatever at the end of the first quarter are automatically dropped into M7H.

I agree with the bolded but I don't think kids should be forced to repeat a year class, unless absolutely necessary. I agree that for some of these schools with large groups of students who have been accelerated since elementary school (but who nevertheless have a large subset of these kids who really aren't fully ready to commit to the work/pace of a rigorous algebra class), they should definitely have a more selective test to be in an honors algebra program. For your second point, I think there should be a bit more choice; i.e. there should be two separate algebra tracks, regular and honors. If kids can't handle the pace/rigor/etc. in honors algebra, they can drop just down to either regular algebra which would move more slowly, or just repeat M7H as you suggested. I'm not sure why this isn't the norm in middle school given how two separate tracks is very typical in high school curriculums (I'm assuming it's mainly a resource/funding issue).

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is pretty spot on. This is probably the largest root cause:

One likely reason: U.S. high schools teach math differently than other countries. Classes here often focus on formulas and procedures rather than teaching students to think creatively about solving complex problems involving all sorts of mathematics, experts said.

I highly doubt the above will change anytime soon. Most teachers and parents do not even know what mathematics is, they think it is procedural and rote and it's all about calculations. In fact the exact opposite is true. Math is about imagination, creativity, problem solving and proof (i.e the art of explanation). In general our culture does not support thinking deeply and creatively about things, it instead opts for acceleration coupled with a superficial understanding (certainly in math class, if not in school in general). As a teacher, I can find and pose numerous examples of elementary problems (i.e given/shown to elementary students and only requiring the most basic tools) to many high school students and they would have a very hard time solving them, or not be able to at all. This proves that problem solving in our math classes is almost nonexistent, which is corroborated by the abysmal average SAT scores nationwide.

Oh, and the "geometry sandwich" is absolutely real:

Most American high schools teach algebra I in ninth grade, geometry in 10th grade and algebra II in 11th grade – something Boaler calls “the geometry sandwich. Other countries teach three straight years of integrated math – I, II and III — in which concepts of algebra, geometry, probability, statistics and data science are taught together, allowing students to take deep dives into complex problems.”

The lack of understanding of geometry (by both students and teachers) is so bad that it was hilariously featured in a chapter from a famous problem solving book a couple of years back called "Geometry for Americans" :

https://imgur.com/a/76qSUlh

Although MCPS still calls the sequence Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra2 it actually is integrated math and should be renamed--there are algebra topics all three years, there are geometry topics all three years. Plenty of other districts actually have renamed the classes. Plenty of other school districts, e.g. California, have renamed the classes. Now, the topics covered in MCPS are more cursory compared to what was covered in algebra/geometry a generation ago, but students are hitting the classes younger--the target is 80% in Algebra 1 by 8th grade.

There's plenty wrong with math education in the US but the article sounds out of date.

There is definitely no geometry being done in algebra classes, that is a myth.

In the MCPS algebra packets, it's quite common to have a problem that looks at area or perimeter of a simple figure as a function of side length. These are concepts, introduced in IM and revisited in geometry. Later in the year there's some discussion of optimizing area given constraints on perimeter.

The bigger question is how much traditional geometry is in geometry. The unit on proofs is one packet and about three weeks, straight edge and compass constructions are about the same. But there are frequent problems that use algebra. E.g. there will be a figure with two unknown angles, and geometric relationships such that a system of two variables needs to be solved--algebra review.

Right but that's not really geometry, it's more of an algebraic afterthought. And constructions by themselves would not make sense without proving why the construction works, which is done using geometric principles. Those geometric principles (parallel lines, angles relationships, similar/congruent triangles, etc.) are not taught until geometry class. Without having these basics down, just doing a construction is akin to following a recipe without knowing why it works at all.

I also have reservations about proofs, I highly doubt an isolated proof unit will be helpful in understanding how to argue about what is/isn't true. Learning how to prove something (i.e. logically explaining why something is true via deductive reasoning) is something that should be done in all areas of mathematics throughout the school year (and kids in elementary school can handle it if developed correctly). Proof writing cannot be taught in a matter of weeks, since the development of the skill is highly dependent on doing lots of various types of problems from all subjects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is pretty spot on. This is probably the largest root cause:

One likely reason: U.S. high schools teach math differently than other countries. Classes here often focus on formulas and procedures rather than teaching students to think creatively about solving complex problems involving all sorts of mathematics, experts said.

I highly doubt the above will change anytime soon. Most teachers and parents do not even know what mathematics is, they think it is procedural and rote and it's all about calculations. In fact the exact opposite is true. Math is about imagination, creativity, problem solving and proof (i.e the art of explanation). In general our culture does not support thinking deeply and creatively about things, it instead opts for acceleration coupled with a superficial understanding (certainly in math class, if not in school in general). As a teacher, I can find and pose numerous examples of elementary problems (i.e given/shown to elementary students and only requiring the most basic tools) to many high school students and they would have a very hard time solving them, or not be able to at all. This proves that problem solving in our math classes is almost nonexistent, which is corroborated by the abysmal average SAT scores nationwide.

Oh, and the "geometry sandwich" is absolutely real:

Most American high schools teach algebra I in ninth grade, geometry in 10th grade and algebra II in 11th grade – something Boaler calls “the geometry sandwich. Other countries teach three straight years of integrated math – I, II and III — in which concepts of algebra, geometry, probability, statistics and data science are taught together, allowing students to take deep dives into complex problems.”

The lack of understanding of geometry (by both students and teachers) is so bad that it was hilariously featured in a chapter from a famous problem solving book a couple of years back called "Geometry for Americans" :

https://imgur.com/a/76qSUlh

Although MCPS still calls the sequence Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra2 it actually is integrated math and should be renamed--there are algebra topics all three years, there are geometry topics all three years. Plenty of other districts actually have renamed the classes. Plenty of other school districts, e.g. California, have renamed the classes. Now, the topics covered in MCPS are more cursory compared to what was covered in algebra/geometry a generation ago, but students are hitting the classes younger--the target is 80% in Algebra 1 by 8th grade.

There's plenty wrong with math education in the US but the article sounds out of date.

There is definitely no geometry being done in algebra classes, that is a myth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Former MOCO resident here. MD does not an equivalent of TJ. PG has a TAG program which is similar to AAP. I think Howard's GT program is also similar to AAP. MOCO's magnet program is very fractured and frankly a PITA to navigate. None of the programs are truly county-wide. The more well known and top magnet programs - Blair SMAC, Poolesville, RM IB program pull from a broader subset of the county that encompasses the highest performing schools (Ws) and the local schools plus a handle of schools in the middle. There are a ton of other less rigorous special magnet programs all over the county accessible within your own school only or to limited set of surrounding ones. At best these offer some interesting subjects but the quality is not particularly high and the population is basically the rejects from the other magnets.

MCPS basically sees the magnet program as a way to lure families with more wealth and higher performing kids into low performing ,less desirable areas. Depending on where you live magnets may a VERY long bus ride. The biggest down side to this is that the magnets are narrowly focused so your child is not only getting bussed a long distance but they are being mixed in with the rest of the non-magnet local population that is pretty low performing for the non-magnet subjects as opposed to a whole magnet with high expectations in all subjects.


None of the magnets you mentioned are at truly low performing schools.

They certainly are at low performing schools. Heck Blair has two magnets (SMACS and CAP). CAP is one of the regional type magnets that pulls kids from fewer schools. Even with two magnets Blair is barely a 6 and without them it would end up being a 3. Poolesville would be so under enrolled it would close. It would be lucky to rank as a 5/6 without its magnets. RM was also in danger of being closed and was severely under enrolled as well as low performing when the magnet was placed there. It is a 6 with the magnet. RM and Poolesville are in safe places but Blair is in a higher crime area.

Another way to better understand the quality of education of one school or another is to perform more granular apples to apple analysis. Simple averages for standardized state test that GS uses for its ratings only serves to identify which high-schools draw a higher percentage of affluent kids. A better approach is to look at the granular data. When you isolate for race which is proxy a for socioeconomic status there is not much of a disparity between the performance of kids of the same backgrounds across these schools. For example, when you compare average SAT scores for MCPS schools for a larger demographic common to all these schools the GS narrative falls apart and it becomes clear they're not all that different.

Blair 1326
Walter Johnson 1275
Wooton 1262
Churchill 1257

https://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/shared...c_Perf%20Class%20of%202017.pdf

Not sure I understand the numbers you posted. These seem to be the overall averages at each school. However, Blair has magnet programs within the school, such as SMCS program, which by itself would have a very high SAT average (1500+) The average SAT score of the whole school would be significantly pulled upwards if you weigh in the magnet scores from SMCS and CAP into the average. So this is not an apples to apples comparison.

Anonymous wrote:when did this change happen ? As in AAP Copper kids at Cooper and not at Longfellow. I was looking at the enrollment rate and not just the accepted numbers and year over year it was highest for Longfellow among all middle schools.

Sorry we are relocating to the area and house hunting and have an AAP kid. What makes Longfellow so special ? TIA

Longfellow has had an extremely strong math team for many years, on par with some of the top middle school math teams in the country, even rivaling many great magnet middle schools. It also had Vern Williams who I believe spearheaded it, (he's no longer there).

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are no assigned readings or the children are not told to do any reading, just to complete the HW problems. The chapters are posted online, so a self motivated child may read the chapter.

Don't they still hand out the Beast Academy guidebooks? My kids loved those and had no problems with reading the material. My kids are in their 3rd year at AoPS, and the homework has never been a problem or a big deal. If it is for your child, I would look into whether your kid is in an inappropriate class level. Or, is it possible that your kid is reluctant to attempt problems that require any thinking, and instead over-asks for help?

Yes they do and kids can always read them on their own at home if they wish, even though they get read as a group during class.

A big problem that I've noticed is that kids have not learned how to ask for help outside of class. Each class has a dedicated online message board and if they are stuck, they can always post a question anytime. Usually within a few hours max, someone will provide a hint or guide to help them. The issue is that most kids do not use the message board and when they do, they say they need help with problem x, but don't provide any info about what they've tried. We're trying to teach them the skill that asking for help is very valuable in life, but it's hard to get them used to the fact that it's ok to do that (I suspect this is because not enough encouragement is given in school to ask questions and not be afraid of being wrong).

You're asking 2nd and 3rd and 4th graders to explain the question and ask why you need help in an online forum--that's a bit much for this age group. I think it works great when the kids are in the higher grades, but to expect the Beast Academy kids to do this and do it well doesn't quite make sense. Maybe 1 in 5 will be able to do so, but that still leaves 4 kids who aren't really learning the concepts well. I'm not saying that RSM does it any better, but at least having the younger kids do the homework on paper and having it checked by the instructor to understand what the kid is getting wrong is a better way to go. Also, I agree with one of the PPs, the Homework Help is a huge benefit of the RSM program. My child has used it several times to get better familiar with the concept that they were having trouble with on the homework.

Sorry you're correct, I should have clarified I was referring to older kids in the post Beast Academy curriculum, i.e. Prealgebra and up. I'm actually not even sure if the classroom message boards are open for the Beast academy classes like they are for the upper level curriculum.

I just checked, confirmed that the Message board help is for Prealgebra courses and up, see below:

Get help when you need it!
It's good to ask for help! Getting stuck can happen when you're learning new things. There are a couple ways you can get help:

Talk to Your Teacher. Teachers are always available before and after class to answer quick questions about the material. Arrive a couple minutes early or stick around a few minutes after class.
Go to Message Board / Office Hours. Math classes from Prealgebra through Calculus hold online Office Hours every weekday, 7:30-8:30 PM ET (4:30-5:30 PM PT). If you are enrolled in one of these classes, you can ask questions on the message board. Your question will be answered in the next office hour by teachers at AoPS National Headquarters. You can also live chat with Headquarters teachers on message board during office hours.
Talk to the Campus Director or an Assistant Campus Director. For in-depth questions that take more time, please set up a conversation with one of these content experts. Call the front desk to schedule a meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are no assigned readings or the children are not told to do any reading, just to complete the HW problems. The chapters are posted online, so a self motivated child may read the chapter.

Don't they still hand out the Beast Academy guidebooks? My kids loved those and had no problems with reading the material. My kids are in their 3rd year at AoPS, and the homework has never been a problem or a big deal. If it is for your child, I would look into whether your kid is in an inappropriate class level. Or, is it possible that your kid is reluctant to attempt problems that require any thinking, and instead over-asks for help?

Yes they do and kids can always read them on their own at home if they wish, even though they get read as a group during class.

A big problem that I've noticed is that kids have not learned how to ask for help outside of class. Each class has a dedicated online message board and if they are stuck, they can always post a question anytime. Usually within a few hours max, someone will provide a hint or guide to help them. The issue is that most kids do not use the message board and when they do, they say they need help with problem x, but don't provide any info about what they've tried. We're trying to teach them the skill that asking for help is very valuable in life, but it's hard to get them used to the fact that it's ok to do that (I suspect this is because not enough encouragement is given in school to ask questions and not be afraid of being wrong).

You're asking 2nd and 3rd and 4th graders to explain the question and ask why you need help in an online forum--that's a bit much for this age group. I think it works great when the kids are in the higher grades, but to expect the Beast Academy kids to do this and do it well doesn't quite make sense. Maybe 1 in 5 will be able to do so, but that still leaves 4 kids who aren't really learning the concepts well. I'm not saying that RSM does it any better, but at least having the younger kids do the homework on paper and having it checked by the instructor to understand what the kid is getting wrong is a better way to go. Also, I agree with one of the PPs, the Homework Help is a huge benefit of the RSM program. My child has used it several times to get better familiar with the concept that they were having trouble with on the homework.

Sorry you're correct, I should have clarified I was referring to older kids in the post Beast Academy curriculum, i.e. Prealgebra and up. I'm actually not even sure if the classroom message boards are open for the Beast academy classes like they are for the upper level curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are no assigned readings or the children are not told to do any reading, just to complete the HW problems. The chapters are posted online, so a self motivated child may read the chapter.

Don't they still hand out the Beast Academy guidebooks? My kids loved those and had no problems with reading the material. My kids are in their 3rd year at AoPS, and the homework has never been a problem or a big deal. If it is for your child, I would look into whether your kid is in an inappropriate class level. Or, is it possible that your kid is reluctant to attempt problems that require any thinking, and instead over-asks for help?

Yes they do and kids can always read them on their own at home if they wish, even though they get read as a group during class.

A big problem that I've noticed is that kids have not learned how to ask for help outside of class. Each class has a dedicated online message board and if they are stuck, they can always post a question anytime. Usually within a few hours max, someone will provide a hint or guide to help them. The issue is that most kids do not use the message board and when they do, they say they need help with problem x, but don't provide any info about what they've tried. We're trying to teach them the skill that asking for help is very valuable in life, but it's hard to get them used to the fact that it's ok to do that (I suspect this is because not enough encouragement is given in school to ask questions and not be afraid of being wrong).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid got in. We’ve never heard of CogAT until DC told us. Never heard of the distasteful Dr. Li either. I don’t understand why so many parents (and some teachers) I guess are so obsessed with math competitions. My kid has no real interests in math. So what?!

Has to support the pp. Seriously, how much math you need to do your job? Why is Mathcounts such a big deal at DCUM? DD was accepted to both eastern and TP. She is good at lots of things but math definitely does not click with her. She chose TP. I am not worried. Didn’t Thomas Edison hate math too?

I'm not a "prepper" and not a TPMS parent (or Frost parent), but I can't believe you're throwing shade at math generally and the general usefulness of math. I'm in a non-math field, and we use math CONSTANTLY. It drives me absolutely batty the number of Americans that can't think about numbers in any sort of intelligent way and think that math is just for the mathematicians. I wish I was better at it, and think it's phenomenal that these kids want to spend their time thinking about numbers. Good for them! We should only encourage this, not crap all over it. Mathcounts is one of many great options to make math a fun and attractive extracurricular for many kids -- that's a good thing!

+1000 ! Math = thinking, PP is hopefully a troll and not crazy enough to think that their DD will be fine without understanding math, especially in the TPMS program.

Mathcounts = thinking in a predefined way. Those skills can be acquired if you try hard enough to go through all the tricks. But why wasting the time??? I am glad TP “lost” to Frost. We can focus on something more useful.

Also glad that MCPS changed the selection process. It should do the same to Blair.

Any skill can be acquired through training. Mathcounts and other math competitions are called "recreational mathematics" for a reason; because they are fun, creative activities. They have no end goal in themselves, i.e lead to a professional career, etc. (although they can). Most of the kids who do Mathcounts and succeed at it do so because they are having fun, not because somebody is making them do it. Winning just happens to be a nice bonus. The real problem is that US culture views math as the opposite of both fun, and creativity. Recreational mathematics has always been popular in many European countries, it is part of their culture there. Here we instead have math "phobia" which is one of the causes of misinformed comments that math is not useful in the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

pettifogger wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What prompted the switch to RSM? We are currently with RSM and contemplating AoPS, so curious to know why? Is it because AoPS wouldn't allow your child to switch to a higher grade learning?

DP, but from what I can tell, a main difference between AoPS and RSM is how they handle the very advanced students. In AoPS, the kid tests into and takes class with a higher grade level. This can be a bit socially awkward, though, since the kid won't have a peer group of similar aged kids. A 3rd grader in 5th grade math will for the most part be in a class filled with 5th graders. RSM seems to have "advanced" grade level classes. So that same kid who would skip ahead two grades at AoPS could take the "advanced" class for their grade or one grade level up and be with other very smart kids around the same age.

So, it depends on how well your kid can function with kids who are much older, and how important the socialization aspect is for your kid.

I have not noticed any differences in kids on a social level at AoPS. While classes are primarily formed by ability level, most kids are +\- 1 grade within a target grade level of the subject. In any case classes cover a lot of content and there is limited time for socialization during class. The cases I’ve seen where kids do not seem socially engaged are mainly related to their interest level (I.e they cannot contribute much to discussions because they are behind and/or not grasping the material). There are also a few cases where kids are shy and prefer to work by themselves.

At the risk of "outing" myself, my kid is one of the ones +3 grades advanced at AoPS. We haven't experienced any social problems, but my kid certainly isn't set up to make friends there with other kids who love math. The age difference is just too large. I agree with the bolded bit, and that's kind of the point. AoPS will be great at teaching math, but it's not going to be a social outlet for your kid. RSM might be a better choice for kids who want that social outlet.

OP here, I'm not really looking for a social connection at either place--don't think it makes sense for kids who are in elementary school and have their own friend circle. The reason I'm contemplating a change is because of the teaching aspect of RSM--I'm not sure that there really is math being taught during the class time. Seems like they are given a worksheet and the teacher reviews how to answer the worksheet. So, it makes me wonder what is actually being taught. I'm hoping that AoPS isn't run the same way. For the folks who have their kids in AoPS--can you describe how math classroom teaching works?

I'll let others describe their own experiences but I can describe our classes from a teacher perspective. An AoPS class session is once per week for 1 hour and 45 minutes. There are a few slight differences between the Beast Academy series (lower level curriculum) vs the main AoPS textbooks (upper level curriculum). Beast Academy typically starts with a small core lecture on the content from the guidebooks (kids take turns doing the reading and we stop anytime questions are posed). This generally lasts up to 30 minutes. For approximately the next hour students work on problems in groups, and present solutions in front of class if they choose to. Techers circle around helping students who are stuck, or challenging students who are ahead. Problems are given based on the content/theory covered in the first 30 minutes of class and generally get more difficult to allow them to practice problem solving. The last 15-20 mins of class is spent on a tricky puzzle/game activity that engages the class and is usually on the same theme as the material covered in class. It can either be a collaborative exercise where they try to solve something together, or a mini competition/game, etc.

For the upper level classes (Prealgebra and above) the core is longer and typically lasts up to an hour (sometimes a bit more depending on how challenging/theoretical the material is, as well as the pace the particular class can handle). Unlike Beast Academy, there is no reading done in class, kids are expected to do the reading assignments before class to prepare. The core involves the teacher first introducing the topic/theory as well as working through some problems on the board which highlight that theory. We try to minimize "lecturing" and instead use an inquiry approach where we ask kids lots of questions, essentially leading/guiding them to try to discover the solutions on their own. This approach works very well if the kids have done the reading before class, if they have not and are therefore seeing the material in class for the very first time, they typically have a harder time answering questions and being able to take the lead through the material. In the last 45 minutes kids will then work in groups to solve a set of "extension" problems which take the core concepts learned in class and apply them to problems. Again they can work together or alone, can come up and present solutions, etc. When time permits we also have an end of class activity for the last 15 mins to further extend their understand of the concept, but in some classes there is not enough time to get to it (it again depends on the pace that a particular set of kids in a particular class can handle).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What prompted the switch to RSM? We are currently with RSM and contemplating AoPS, so curious to know why? Is it because AoPS wouldn't allow your child to switch to a higher grade learning?

DP, but from what I can tell, a main difference between AoPS and RSM is how they handle the very advanced students. In AoPS, the kid tests into and takes class with a higher grade level. This can be a bit socially awkward, though, since the kid won't have a peer group of similar aged kids. A 3rd grader in 5th grade math will for the most part be in a class filled with 5th graders. RSM seems to have "advanced" grade level classes. So that same kid who would skip ahead two grades at AoPS could take the "advanced" class for their grade or one grade level up and be with other very smart kids around the same age.

So, it depends on how well your kid can function with kids who are much older, and how important the socialization aspect is for your kid.

I have not noticed any differences in kids on a social level at AoPS. While classes are primarily formed by ability level, most kids are +\- 1 grade within a target grade level of the subject. In any case classes cover a lot of content and there is limited time for socialization during class. The cases I’ve seen where kids do not seem socially engaged are mainly related to their interest level (I.e they cannot contribute much to discussions because they are behind and/or not grasping the material). There are also a few cases where kids are shy and prefer to work by themselves.