Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they were finding gaps appear down the road, even showing up in high school, for students who jump and skip a year of content (which all advanced math kids do at some point), and this new curriculum, which will eventually extend all the way down to Kindergarten (NOT up to replace the current advanced math path), is supposed to fill in those gaps so that every student with the ability is ready for the jump to advanced math.

This means they are planning on eliminating the math advancement in later grades as well, as they don't want students jumping a year ahead.
They just don't want to say it now and upset too many people.
Likely they will try to reduce the advancement by hiding the availability of advancement, pushing up SOL requirements, then when numbers have dropped, saying there isn't enough interest.

Just see the VMPI video where they argue calculus in high school is overrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

+1. And, I was a math major! What’s the rush?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

Anonymous wrote:PP the US has fallen in the world educational rankings and like it or not the world now operates on a global scale. I suggest that math majors and engineers take a shot a UK A levels in math, samples available here - https://revisionmaths.com/level-maths/level-maths-past-papers . You are the products of American math programs. These are exams given to 17 & 18 year-olds to help determine which universities they will attend.

The US is currently ranked 24th in the world in math. How much farther do we have to fall.

Anonymous wrote:They said they were finding gaps appear down the road, even showing up in high school, for students who jump and skip a year of content (which all advanced math kids do at some point), and this new curriculum, which will eventually extend all the way down to Kindergarten (NOT up to replace the current advanced math path), is supposed to fill in those gaps so that every student with the ability is ready for the jump to advanced math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

+1. And, I was a math major! What’s the rush?

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Anonymous wrote:We are at a pilot school (I have a level 3 4th grader who would have done advanced math in 4th grade if we weren't piloting E3), and I had a lot of concerns, but they have all been addressed and I feel good about E3 math. First of all, we were told clearly by our principal and an FCPS math curriculum specialist that 5th and 6th grade advanced math is NOT changing. There will still be tracked advanced math, where 5th graders learn the 6th grade curriculum and take the 6th grade SOL, available to all students who qualify through SOL scores, teacher rec, beginning of the year pre-test, etc.

The change is that kids aren't tracked ahead in 3rd and 4th grade, instead they get extensions in the classroom. Yes, this puts a lot on the teachers. Because we're a pilot program, we do have a math specialist assigned to our school who lesson plans with the 3rd and 4th grade teams to develop extensions. There also seems to be more math in the Level 3 pull outs than there used to be. E3 philosophy is to go deeper into content rather than covering more skills at a surface level. They said they were finding gaps appear down the road, even showing up in high school, for students who jump and skip a year of content (which all advanced math kids do at some point), and this new curriculum, which will eventually extend all the way down to Kindergarten (NOT up to replace the current advanced math path), is supposed to fill in those gaps so that every student with the ability is ready for the jump to advanced math.

Like I said, I was REALLY not a fan of piloting this program, but I was impressed with the presentation from FCPS and relieved that advanced math in 5th grade and up isn't changing. I guess we'll see how my 4th grader does on the math SOL this year, after using this new curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.