Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

Offering Algebra 1 in 8th is a reasonable option. Pushing earlier seems excessive.

I disagree. Some kids are very ready for Algebra in 7th. They successfully take AP Calc BC junior year and then senior year they take come combo of AP Statistics, Multivariable or AP Physics (for which Calc BC is a pre or co requisite). I see no reason to not offer this path when it is clearly right for some, just because it isn't right for others.

I do think APS should do a better job of offering some option for those who aren't quite ready to jump into this path in 6th grade, but who need more than the regular path. I am also glad that APS is finally offering advanced classes in other subjects in middle school. Some bright kids may want to take those instead of the accelerated math track, which used to be their only option for taking a challenging class at their level, whether they were into math or not.

I just don’t see the value of accelerating so much in HS.

-STEM person

This. Multi variable calculus is a foundational course for a lot of engineering/stem careers. There is real value in taking it in college vs highschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree. Work with the school system to get an advanced sixth grade math class created.

Another thing that could be done is not automatically placing all the more advanced kids into super intensified higher math classes. Just because it was the right choice to go into a more advanced math class in sixth grade doesn't necessarily mean that you should take algebra2intensified/trig in 9th grade.

I don't think this is automatic. You can always take the non intensified version of the course.

You can, but the default (which is what I meant by automatic) is the intensified class.

If you take Pre-Algebra in 6th grade, then your only option is to take Algebra I Intensified in 7th grade. When APS redid the math pathways in 2019, they intended to only have a small group of students (i.e., one class) track to Pre-Algebra in 6th grade. The assumption was that those students were truly advanced in math, and therefore would have no issues taking Algebra I Intensified in 7th grade. All of the other students were supposed to track to Math 6. From there, they split to Pre-Algebra or Math 7, and then to Pre-Algebra, Algebra I or Algebra I Intensified in 8th grade. Parents lost their minds though because: (1) they couldn't cope with the thought of their kid not being the best at something and/or (2) they didn't want their above average math kid mixed with average math kids in Math 6. As a result, more and more parents started pushing to move their kid from Math 6 to Pre-Algebra, which might work out fine for 6th grade. However, not all the kids in Pre-Algebra in 6th grade are ready for Algebra I Intensified in 7th grade. But there is not a non-intensified Algebra I option available to 7th graders. Non-intensified Algebra I is only available to 8th graders. So it is all a big mess now and probably not serving any of the kids well. https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MS-Pathways-SY21.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree. Work with the school system to get an advanced sixth grade math class created.

Another thing that could be done is not automatically placing all the more advanced kids into super intensified higher math classes. Just because it was the right choice to go into a more advanced math class in sixth grade doesn't necessarily mean that you should take algebra2intensified/trig in 9th grade.

I don't think this is automatic. You can always take the non intensified version of the course.

You can, but the default (which is what I meant by automatic) is the intensified class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

That is completely different than saying that acceleration in and of itself doesn’t offer a challenge. It most certainly does. And I am not going to ask that my child be bored in math for years on the off chance that the non-accelerated track will be more likely to lead to lifelong curiosity in math.

I do understand that acceleration lends itself to more shallow knowledge, and deep knowledge is better than shallow. But I am honestly not sure that a kid in general ed even gets a deeper knowledge of the material (have you been to an APS math class?), and I am also okay with my child graduating from high school with a shallow knowledge of calculus. If they need a deeper knowledge of the material they can retake it in college like I did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

There is too much time spent on depth in the early part of elementary; they have gone overboard with multiple strategies for everything which can actually risk confusing and frustrating kids more than helping them.

All the strategies are confusing. Depth would be doing more problems like those used in Beast Academy that require kids to understand and apply math skills to solve complex problems, rather than only rotely working through repetitive problems (even with different strategies).

The other option is to have kids actually collect data/perform experiments and use math to answer questions. Applying math to real life to build that understanding.

I do have limited sympathies for parents who go to great efforts to accelerate their kid in math, only then to complain their kid is bored. It's ridiculous to pre-teach all the planned math content. Use your time at home for other enrichment--music, language, art, coding, robotics, whatever. (Cue all the parents swearing that their kid was born knowing advanced math and that they can't be at all responsible despite paying thousands of dollars for RSM and Beast Academy.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

Offering Algebra 1 in 8th is a reasonable option. Pushing earlier seems excessive.

I disagree. Some kids are very ready for Algebra in 7th. They successfully take AP Calc BC junior year and then senior year they take come combo of AP Statistics, Multivariable or AP Physics (for which Calc BC is a pre or co requisite). I see no reason to not offer this path when it is clearly right for some, just because it isn't right for others.

I do think APS should do a better job of offering some option for those who aren't quite ready to jump into this path in 6th grade, but who need more than the regular path. I am also glad that APS is finally offering advanced classes in other subjects in middle school. Some bright kids may want to take those instead of the accelerated math track, which used to be their only option for taking a challenging class at their level, whether they were into math or not.

I just don’t see the value of accelerating so much in HS.

-STEM person

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

There is too much time spent on depth in the early part of elementary; they have gone overboard with multiple strategies for everything which can actually risk confusing and frustrating kids more than helping them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea. BUT I will say my kid missed the cut off and I asked him to be placed in pre-algebra anyway. He was placed and his grade for Q1 is 98% and it's his favorite class. So, the cut offs aren't the best predicators for success in the class IMO.

There isn't much difference between Math 6 and Pre-Alg 6-7-8. The big difference happens in 7th grade, when the Pre-Alg 6-7-8 kids move to Intensified Algebra in 7th grade -- which is a high school credit class. In my experience, a lot of the parents who pushed their kids into Pre-Alg 6-7-8 in 6th grade were the same parents who ended up hiring math tutors in 7th grade. APS has the score cutoffs for a reason.

Do not assume that a family has a math tutor when their child is in advanced math since the child is struggling. It is just as likely that it is an overcrowded class with an over worked teacher who is also dealing with various students of different abilities and disabilities. We want our DC to have a strong basis in their math knowledge.

We had to get a tutor for a kid on the advanced math track, who was placed on the track through APS's recommendation, not parent placement. The problem was that DC was in math 6-7-8 in 6th grade the year that Covid hit meaning they didn't get the last quarter of that course at all. Then they took Algebra intensified virtually in 7th, which didn't go particularly well. They made it through geometry in person just fine, but then with Algebra II, it became very obvious that there were big holes in their learning. The schools have been trying to catch up from that missed quarter by adding it to the next year, so each class is making up content that was not taught. But that isn't very workable. So we had to get a tutor, and I don't regret it one bit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree. Work with the school system to get an advanced sixth grade math class created.

Another thing that could be done is not automatically placing all the more advanced kids into super intensified higher math classes. Just because it was the right choice to go into a more advanced math class in sixth grade doesn't necessarily mean that you should take algebra2intensified/trig in 9th grade.

I don't think this is automatic. You can always take the non intensified version of the course.

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

I am a parent and I don't think I misunderstand this at all. Math 6-7-8 in 6th grade was the first time my kids were appropriately challenged at their level in any class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

Offering Algebra 1 in 8th is a reasonable option. Pushing earlier seems excessive.

I disagree. Some kids are very ready for Algebra in 7th. They successfully take AP Calc BC junior year and then senior year they take come combo of AP Statistics, Multivariable or AP Physics (for which Calc BC is a pre or co requisite). I see no reason to not offer this path when it is clearly right for some, just because it isn't right for others.

I do think APS should do a better job of offering some option for those who aren't quite ready to jump into this path in 6th grade, but who need more than the regular path. I am also glad that APS is finally offering advanced classes in other subjects in middle school. Some bright kids may want to take those instead of the accelerated math track, which used to be their only option for taking a challenging class at their level, whether they were into math or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing wrong with getting a three on the exam. However, I think the previous poster is noting that students who get a three on the exam junior year might be better served waiting to take the class until senior year.

There is no reason to take BC calculus junior year not learn it at all that well and then go into multivariable calculus senior year.

Feels like over acceleration

A 3 means you learned the material perfectly well.

No it doesn't.

.

And these are the “accelerated” kids taking the more advanced course their junior year.

Whatever, in Arlington, all the kids are geniuses and should be accelerated in everything and don’t let anyone tell you differently.

Amen. Your kid doesn't have to be the tippy top in everything. I have a kid who is a very good, but not great, instrumental player. I am not trying to "parent place" him into making Honors Band because I think regular Wind Ensemble isn't "fast enough" for him. Please accept that there are kids within APS who are truly accelerated in math and they need a faster paced middle school math program. These are the kids who are going to hit 5s on all their math AP exams and likely go on to pursue advanced math in college. APS has slowed down the middle school math program for these kids by allowing so many parent placements. The 7th Grade Algebra 1 Intensified class should be offering extension work that gets into Algebra 2 concepts, but instead the teacher has to re-review content for the kids who don't belong in the class. That means the other half of the kids are bored out of their minds. Your kid is still above average in math if they go from Math 6 to Pre-Algebra to Algebra 1 Intensified in 8th Grade. Don't ruin the math experience for the kids who truly need acceleration.

This is a ridiculous statement. The Algebra I teacher should be making sure the kids learn all of the topics in Algebra I as thoroughly as possible, not teaching topics for a class that will be taken two years later.

Extension activities make sense when you have all ability groupings. Advanced classes with intensive requirements don't offer further extension. That's not how it works in high school and Algebra I is a high school course. Any challenge problems would be reinforcing Algebra I concepts, not pushing kids further ahead.

There isn't any "Deep Algebra 1". Deep Algebra 1 is Algebra 2, which frees up time for honors/intensified Algebra 2 to go deeper into Algebra.

Yes there is Intensified Algebra 1 vs regular Algebra 1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

Offering Algebra 1 in 8th is a reasonable option. Pushing earlier seems excessive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

I guess the difference is what you believe the point of an education is. If your goal is to go fast and take as many tests as possible, forget it, and move on to your life, then the APS track is for you. If your goal is a rich and deep understanding of the material that may lead to a lifelong curiosity and ability to challenge conventional thinking, then the kind of challenge I am talking about is for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a misunderstanding among nonSTEM educators and parents that acceleration in and of itself equals challenge. The problem in APS is that they aren’t challenging the smart kids in math through depth and instead are just pushing them up/through material more quickly. They could go more slowly with harder problems.

What’s the difference between challenging students with depth and challenging them with breadth? Either way the class is harder. I do think that depth is better but a challenge is a challenge.

If you push through too quickly they won't get a deep understanding of the material and have to continually "relearn" it in later years.