Message
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:taking both makes absolutely no sense.
Why? My kid is taking BC this year after AB last year. I encouraged it. In math, there is nothing quite like practice and I live that she is reinforcing concepts again.
Most kids would find it quite boring as most of the material in BC is a repeat of AB.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My neighbor pushed her kid into algebra in 6th grade. Lots of tutoring and discussions with the school months in advance. Kid placed into it though and did well. Attempted geometry over the summer before 7th grade and did horribly. Kid needed to retake geometry in 7th, and that ended the parents pushing the kid ahead. The mom tells me she now regrets what they did in 6th.
Why did they do this in the first place?
I keep telling you guys this there is 0 point
There is a point for some highly gifted children. You're just unwilling to see it since you don't have children who would benefit. There's also a point in learning proper grammar, but you apparently don't see that either.
What on earth is your highly gifted child going to take senior year of high school?
DP, but there are a myriad of possible other options outside of math courses offered by the school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The real question is why does the district, that’s already facing teacher shortages, think finding and printing random worksheets is a better use of time for staff than having an established curriculum using textbooks and corresponding workbooks?
Equity
Textbooks actually tend to give suggested differentiation strategies. They suggest intervention, enrichment, and SEL modifications teachers can use with students. I have met people who say textbooks do not work because of differentiation but that's just far from true.
Wait, what?! I teach high school math, I have a half dozen versions of textbooks for each prep I teach (teacher editions). Not ONE has a single piece of differentiation included. The closest thing to it is, "Students may struggle with ________. Be sure to emphasize ________." Once in a while it will say, "Refer back to unit 2-4 for additional clarification" in the margins. Textbooks come with one set of problems, one method of teaching a topic, and one voice. Some of the publishers include a "challenge" problem at the end of every unit that aren't really extensions, they just use fractions or negatives instead of whole numbers, but are the same rote solving, even at a precalc level.
I use them to pull problems to throw into my worksheets, but I pull a problem from here, one from there, some from books, some from online sites, some I create from scratch, etc. I think it gives a much more comprehensive look at the material and guarantees I'm hitting the Virginia standards instead of a random publisher.
If you're arguing that teachers need help with differentiation (we do!), the online problem banks are actually much better. I can assign levels of problems to different kids, if they struggle it scales down, if they prove mastery it scales up. If they get it wrong it offers support videos and more of that type of problem. The implementation of math online is a disaster though--kids give up seeing red x's and shut down when it tells them they are wrong.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's not going back to prescribed textbooks, at least not at the secondary level.
If you are looking for books filled with interesting and challenging problems, I highly recommend checking out the AoPS algebra, geometry, precalc textbooks. You will not find rote problems, and many of the problems have fully explained solutions, often in multiple ways highlighting the logic and problem solving techniques behind the problem. They are unique and a whole new world compared to typical K12 textbooks. I actually suggest these books primarily to teachers to help them really understand and enjoy the beauty of math, but pulling problems from these for your strong students would also work out well. Note that there is also a separate solution manual which has full solutions to the remaining problems in the book that do not have them (the exercises + end of chapter review questions).
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.
AAP teacher here.
The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.
Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.
That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.
This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?
It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.
Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:
There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.
Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.
I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.
You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:
Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.
There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.
I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure
Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your ownI think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.
You're setting up a straw man argument. I didn't say speed = intelligence. I said it's correlated. And that point is absolutely 100% true.
Here's the concluding sentence of your original claim, which is definitely disinformation: "Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent." You're clearly implying causality here and that's just silly. There are many kids who enjoy thinking about things more deeply, are you saying they're less intelligent? There are many adults who like to consider things before they pass judgement or make assumptions, they may be perceived as slow.. are they any less intelligent?
Correlation is not the same as causation, this is a key idea in statistics.
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.
AAP teacher here.
The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.
Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.
That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.
This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?
It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.
Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:
There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.
Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.
I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.
You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:
Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.
There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.
I notice you responded to all the unsupported arguments with your own unsupported arguments, but you still have not responded to the scientific articles I cited which prove you wrong. Go figure
Randomly googled internet links don't really warrant anything here because they are not important, but I can certainly respond if you would like to share some coherent thoughts of your own
I think my point stands that attributing speed to having great intelligence is quite silly. It's even more dangerous and detrimental to instill/suggest that idea to your child, as it will likely be detrimental to their growth if they believe that they cannot accomplish things if they are not fast enough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.
AAP teacher here.
The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.
Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.
That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.
This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?
It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.
Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:
There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.
Huh? The question isn't whether kids who are fluent with math are smarter than other kids or even are more ready for Algebra. The fluent kids might be ready for Algebra. The non-fluent kids aren't yet ready for Algebra because they still need a bit more fluency. Otherwise, their computations will take forever and they will become very frustrated. They ultimately might become better mathematicians, but they simply aren't ready *now* for that level since they lack the foundational skills.
I don't think you appreciate just how awful some of these kids are with fluency. I've encountered AAP 6th graders who were still counting on their fingers. Or ones that would need like 5 minutes to solve 6/7-3/5. It should be entirely possible to complete the SOLs in like an hour. Some kids take the entire day. Shoving them into Algebra without trying to address whatever underlying gaps in understanding or fluency would be a mistake.
You're correct in that of course there are many kids who do not understand fractions well enough, (if they did, they would know how to make a common denominator why it works, i.e equivalent fractions, etc.), and nobody is saying to rush them to algebra if they're not ready, they should certainly wait. At the same time, there are kids who might be ready from an understanding point of view, but they were close but just not at the cutoff of the test needed to place them in. Those kids could very well do quite well in algebra, but they will not be allowed to take it, because perhaps they couldn't quite calculate certain things quickly enough, or more likely they were spending a few extra minutes checking their work, etc, or just did not take any practice tests to help them move more quickly and manage their time. While being very fast at long division and multi-digit computations might be slightly helpful in learning algebra from a time spent perspective, in the end it doesn't matter that much. Here's what matters much more:
Understanding the rules of algebra and how to correctly use them to solve equations, introducing variables to solve problems with unknown quantities, understanding why the rules of algebra work the way they do (i.e interpreting the rules as keeping an equation balanced, etc), writing out steps logically and cleanly on a sheet a paper when solving multi-step algebra problems so that the critical portion of checking one's work can be done easily, understanding what an informal "proof" is (i.e a logically connected explanation) is... these and others are all critical skills to learning and understanding algebra well. None of these skills necessarily demand being very fast at doing computations. If a kid really understands fractions, really understands place value and can use it to understand multiplication, understands division as repeatedly subtracting multiples and can use their own algorithm to divide, etc... but is not very fast with calculations, it doesn't mean they will necessarily have a hard time with algebra. Maybe they'll take longer working through calculations, but as long as they understand the concepts and ideas well, they will naturally pick up speed along the way.
There is an analogy to chess, many chess players think that playing a lot of blitz (speed chess) will help improve their chess skill. But by itself it does not at all. In reality, playing lots of slow chess games (at time controls 10x or greater than speed chess) is what leads to great improvement at blitz chess. The reason is that improving at chess first and foremost requires improving one's understanding of the game, and to do that one has to think about things (especially lost games, what went wrong, how to fix mistakes, how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, etc, basically undergo the learning process). The wonderful thing is if one does this, their chess skill improves... and with it their blitz chess skill also naturally improves, even if they did not play much blitz chess. This is because speed is naturally acquired through pattern recognition, which is naturally built up from understanding of ideas and concepts.
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.
AAP teacher here.
The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.
Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.
That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.
This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?
It's not about whether the kid is smart enough or not. It's about having sufficient fluency to handle the multistep algebra problems. I worked with some AAP students, and surprisingly many of them took forever to do something as simple as two digit multiplication. Either, they didn't have their facts memorized cold, or they were still using very inefficient algorithms. Algebra would have been torture, because every single homework set intended to take 30 minutes would have required 2 hours. The IAAT might be too fast of a test, but at least some test to ensure that the kids are sufficiently fluent and don't require inordinate amounts of time to complete their work would be appropriate.
Or they just didn't understand the concept well enough. But there are other possibilities too, perhaps they were still trying to understand the efficient algorithm because it didn't make sense to them and they didn't want to just memorize it (as instructed by their teacher), and they were comfortable still using a slower but more logical algorithm that made sense to them. For instance, it would be a very rare kid in elementary school who can show a great understanding of how the traditional long division algorithm taught in school actually works; after all almost all adults also do not understand it! But almost everyone can automatically use it... without thinking. So... does being able to do long division very quickly using the traditional algorithm mean they're ready for algebra? Not necessarily. Does it help them score well on that specific portion of that specific exam? Definitely. Does it then mean it's generally a good idea to memorize and become 'fluent' in algorithms without a good understanding? Definitely not, and here's why:
There comes a point where it will not be enough for students to just rely on speed (what many of you here are essentially calling 'fluency') with procedural steps. At some point kids will tackle problems that defy standard algorithms and where they will have to figure out what and how to use a particular tool/algorithm. They will need to slow down a little and rely on their understanding of ideas and concepts and how to put them together to solve the particular problem at hand, much like how one has to use logic and reasoning to solve a puzzle. Maybe this point comes before algebra, but for many kids (many who are 'fast' at calculations), this point tends to occur in algebra (or perhaps geometry, or later in high school). At that point slowing down and focusing on why things work they way they do is immensely helpful in improving one's ability to solve math problems.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Parent here, so a different perspective... In my experience, kids who were in AAP or otherwise advanced in math in ES typically take Honors Algebra in 7th, not Math 7 Honors. Our MS has already moved to an Honors for all strategy so all 7th graders not enrolled in Algebra or a remedial course take Math 7 Honors. Based on what you've stated about your child, I assume they would be fine.
AAP teacher here.
The above is absolutely incorrect. Approximately 20%-50% of my students, depending on the year, take Algebra HN in 7th grade. The others take Math 7 HN.
Different AAP teacher here. Agree. It also varies year to year. Some years more test in than others. Honestly, if the IAAT wasn’t 10 mins per section, you would see more students qualifying. I hate the Iowa because kids think they are dumb if they can’t work as fast, which is completely false.
That's a very feel-good statement but processing speed has always been considered a major component of intelligence. It is a big contributor to IQ scores. In addition, even in practice (like in a work environment), people who very quickly solve a problem or pick up new information and are able to quickly form a judgment about it are considered by others to be more intelligent. Therefore, if a student cannot solve math problems quickly, they are in fact less intelligent.
This statement is completely false. Speed is an artificial construct of the standard k-12 curriculum and standardized testing, that's it. It has nothing to do with problem solving abilities and should never be used to assess intelligence. In particular, speed becomes almost meaningless at higher levels where problems are difficult enough to demand insight and ingenuity. Nobody in college, in jobs or academia, or at the IMO olympiad is complaining that they cannot do well because they are too slow. There many other contributing factors but speed is not going to be one of them. It's quite a terrible thing to test children on something as trivial as speed and then suggest that they are not smart enough because they needed a few more minutes because they were not rushing through something. We wouldn't expect our engineers, scientists, and doctors to rush through things and we certainly wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of a rushed solution, so why don't we give children enough time to think?
Anonymous wrote:How do you sign up for the screentime reports?
https://itweb.fcps.edu/itsupport/lightspeed/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why don’t all of you just opt your kids out of the 1:1 program and get on with your lives instead of complaining online?
And how does one do that?
It’s not an optional program, it’s a county initiative. 1 device for every student.
My point exactly. PP is full of shit.
Huh, wonder why there’s an opt-out form on the FCPS website, then.
https://www.fcps.edu/resources/technology/fcpson/fcpson-technology-support-fee" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.fcps.edu/resources/technology/fcpson/fcpson-technology-support-fee
This is for middle /high school and it says you can opt out if you want your child to bring their own device to you. Tech isn’t going anywhere.
The 1:1 program is district wide and so is the opt-out form. I know logic and reason are hard for some of y’all to understand. I love that people keep giving you solutions, but all you want to do is complain. Maybe it’s time for homeschooling? But then I’d be very afraid of any kid schooled by some of y’all.
OK sweetie, so what does your child do when his/her classmates are on their laptops at school? How are they doing research for their social studies projects or putting together slides for their classroom presentation? How are they doing the standardized testing / other assessments? Please tell us, I really want to know.
Do you even hear yourself? Elementar age kids should NOT be making google slides.
Oooooh I see. You didn't opt your kids out, you are just full of shit and deflecting. Loser.
Someone who doesn't think kids need to be making useless slide shows instead of actual learning is a loser?
NP, but real question: you really don’t think building the ability to effectively present data is pertinent learning in 2022? Building slide shows helps kids learn how to present data and reinforces their learning on the topic.
Sure it is. They can do research and present their findings on a poster, in a diorama, or
Handwrite a paper with drawings. There is nothing important about learning to make a slide show on a laptop.
You are living in the 80’s. There are other products kids can make with tech besides Google Slides. They can create videos, websites, books, infographics, etc. Upper ES should absolutely be creating things using technology and using it for research.
Sure, it's fine if they work on something once a week, but not good when the bulk of their social studies daily time and grade is on a presentation that requires them to 100% be on the computer. Learning social studies in social studies class should be the priority over learning how to use tech.
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some people support tracking others don't that's all this is.
Since this is the AAP forum most people support it. Why should your kid be slowed down by the other kids.
For the folks against tracking if kids can freely move between tracks from year to year is there still an issue? I think being tracked for life is the #1 issue against it.
Ideally more frequently; maybe every few months if it's determined that a kid is bored because it's too easy, or overwhelmed and needs to move down). If schools got better at managing logistics, i.e same teacher taught all the sections of a particular subject, and knew the students well, it might happen. But given the large size of classes and sections that a teacher teaches, schools wouldn't do it because it's too much of an administrative hassle.
You want teachers to reevaluate and shuffle kids every few months?That’s absurd and a huge waste of time.
The AAP kids have been identified and shouldn’t be punished just because you don’t like the way it’s done.
If some kids have not been placed in the correct class for their current ability and are struggling, it's certainly more beneficial to their learning experience and happiness/confidence to move them to the class where the teacher believes they will thrive best in. It's about caring for their well being in the classroom, not punishment. In any case, it would likely never happen because school logistics are rigid, and also because teachers (hopefully) already correctly placed them in the right class at the beginning of the year.
Anonymous wrote:Some people support tracking others don't that's all this is.
Since this is the AAP forum most people support it. Why should your kid be slowed down by the other kids.
For the folks against tracking if kids can freely move between tracks from year to year is there still an issue? I think being tracked for life is the #1 issue against it.
Ideally more frequently; maybe every few months if it's determined that a kid is bored because it's too easy, or overwhelmed and needs to move down). If schools got better at managing logistics, i.e same teacher taught all the sections of a particular subject, and knew the students well, it might happen. But given the large size of classes and sections that a teacher teaches, schools wouldn't do it because it's too much of an administrative hassle.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Analyze and explain why 1 +1 =3
That usually involves slipping in a division by 0.
Now this would be a great test question, show them the steps of a tricky proof that concludes something silly and ask them to figure out what went wrong. As usual these things can be cleverly prepped for, so it's important to create a fresh new test with different ideas for each year's class to throw off businesses that blindly prep based on past test questions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why don’t all of you just opt your kids out of the 1:1 program and get on with your lives instead of complaining online?
And how does one do that?
It’s not an optional program, it’s a county initiative. 1 device for every student.
My point exactly. PP is full of shit.
Huh, wonder why there’s an opt-out form on the FCPS website, then.
https://www.fcps.edu/resources/technology/fcpson/fcpson-technology-support-fee" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.fcps.edu/resources/technology/fcpson/fcpson-technology-support-fee
This is for middle /high school and it says you can opt out if you want your child to bring their own device to you. Tech isn’t going anywhere.
The 1:1 program is district wide and so is the opt-out form. I know logic and reason are hard for some of y’all to understand. I love that people keep giving you solutions, but all you want to do is complain. Maybe it’s time for homeschooling? But then I’d be very afraid of any kid schooled by some of y’all.
OK sweetie, so what does your child do when his/her classmates are on their laptops at school? How are they doing research for their social studies projects or putting together slides for their classroom presentation? How are they doing the standardized testing / other assessments? Please tell us, I really want to know.
Do you even hear yourself? Elementar age kids should NOT be making google slides.
Oooooh I see. You didn't opt your kids out, you are just full of shit and deflecting. Loser.
Someone who doesn't think kids need to be making useless slide shows instead of actual learning is a loser?
NP, but real question: you really don’t think building the ability to effectively present data is pertinent learning in 2022? Building slide shows helps kids learn how to present data and reinforces their learning on the topic.
I think it's impertinent of schools to substitute actual learning with a computer, especially when kids are badly lacking key skills such as writing (with a pencil), logical reasoning, and thinking critically. The computer essentially just removes building these core skills and substitutes them with passive versions in the best case scenario (via mostly shallow computer "learning" apps), and in the worst case it reinforces addictive behavior, i.e playing video games. As witnessed in the last 2 years, (in an AAP class), my kid along with a large chunk of his classmates became experts at finding new videogame sites that had not been banned by IT in order to overcome their boredom during their daily classroom computer time.
Effectively presenting data in elementary school is pretty unimportant (and honestly quite useless when looking at the cost vs benefit of time used that could be spent learning math, writing, science, critical thinking, and even art and music). First off, it's extremely easy for kids to build slides and fill them up with images (google for an image, save it, and paste into the slide), they are already doing much more complicated things on the computer (i.e Minecraft) that parents could barely do themselves.
The most important thing in elementary school is to challenge students and help develop their mind and not waste their time. Challenge them to ask questions and help them become curious about learning in order to overcome their boredom. Elementary years fly by really fast and many kids find themselves in middle school without core skills that can help them succeed. While they may be experts at using a computer to make a presentation, it's near worthless compared to the other things they need to be able to do to succeed.
Anonymous wrote:pettifogger wrote:
I don't want to detract from Buchholz and his math team's achievements (which are still impressive), but calling them greatest by the WSJ is not only meaningless without specific measures, but also just plain misinformed when compared to other elite high school math contests such as the AMCs and HMMT. Even at the middle school level, one will find many challenging questions on recent years of the national Mathcounts round that are significantly more difficult than what is found on the MAT.
I agree with everything you've posted, but it is worth noting that Buchholz had a very impressive performance on the AMCs, as well. They had over 20 AIME qualifiers from the AMC 12A alone.
Greatest math team in the country? No. Greatest math team in a low-middle income smallish town? Quite possibly.
Given the size of their math team and the amount of consistent, targeted practice, I'd definitely expect them to have multiple AMC qualifiers. Studying for the AMC would also provide benefits to improving on the MAT, and vice-versa, so it's in their best interest to tackle problems at the AMC level. However, I would not expect there to be very many kids that can pass the AIME and have some significant score at the olympiads. There should likely be a few, but not a significant number, unless they also target it (which requires additional skillsets than what's on the MAT, and significantly more time to learn more math).