Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, they SHOULD eliminate Algebra in 6th and 7th grade. The course at that level is so watered down that the kids who enter my high school Algebra 2 and up courses are way behind in both Algebra skills and Algebra concepts. One example: They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems. I much prefer my Algebra 2 students to have taken Algebra 1 in 8th at the earliest, or ninth, because they have more mature brains and can usually learn the math faster and the concepts more in depth. I don't have to spend so much time reviewing Algebra 1 concepts that I can't get all the way through the Algebra 2 course, which then means I have to spend too much time reviewing Algebra 2 concepts in Trig/PreCal, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems.

Do you think those watered down 6th and 7th grade algebra classes are teaching how to factor quadratic equations with a =/= 1? Is this skill part of the algebra 1 standards? Why do you think algebra 1 SOL performance decreases with the age at which algebra 1 is taken?

The factoring example was just that - an example. Of course factoring, no matter what "a" is, is part of the Algebra 1 standards. You can look it up. I'm saying that it's frequently not taught or not taught to the necessary depth in 6th and 7th grade Algebra 1 courses because most kids aren't ready to learn those concepts. Or they can learn it, but it takes way too long to teach it, going over and over it, lots of practice, taking up a lot of time, so we can't get to some of the rest of the concepts in a full Algebra 1 course. That leaves the kid missing concepts they need for upper level math courses.

Algebra is the basic stepping stone of upper level math - the kids need to be fluent in it. If they aren't, and/or if they were never exposed to concepts because we didn't have time because we were reviewing concepts that should have been covered in the previous course, I'll have to re-teach the missing concepts in Trig/PreCal or Cal, using up time we need to cover all the concepts in those classes...it's a "snowball effect."

I'm sure some 6th/7th grade classes provide a full breadth and depth Algebra 1 course and that some 6th/7th kids who take it do well. I'm just telling you that in my experience, from many years of teaching high school math, that most kids I have in my advanced classes who had Algebra in 6th, 7th, and even 8th grade do not have the depth and breadth and application of Algebra 1 course knowledge that most kids who took Algebra 1 in 9th grade have. There's something about the time in which the course was take, that the brain seems to be more ready to learn and apply the Algebra skills and concepts when the kid is older.

This is my experience, and it's based on many years of teaching. I know there are exceptions to this because I've seen it myself, but in general, taking Algebra 1 when the kid is older usually means the kid has more algebra skills, knowledge and application ability, and makes the next courses in the math sequence much more accessible to them because they have that in-depth Algebra knowledge.

If your school district doesn't gatekeep Algebra I at all, then that is the problem. The problem isn't allowing access for 6th and 7th graders who merit it. It's hard to take you seriously when your solution is to eliminate Algebra for younger students, rather than adopt one of the very reasonable, very obvious solutions of either only letting kids enroll who demonstrate on a placement test that they belong there, or maintaining high, non-watered down standards in the middle school algebra class, such that kids who don't belong will struggle and need to repeat the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems.

Do you think those watered down 6th and 7th grade algebra classes are teaching how to factor quadratic equations with a =/= 1? Is this skill part of the algebra 1 standards? Why do you think algebra 1 SOL performance decreases with the age at which algebra 1 is taken?

The factoring example was just that - an example. Of course factoring, no matter what "a" is, is part of the Algebra 1 standards. You can look it up. I'm saying that it's frequently not taught or not taught to the necessary depth in 6th and 7th grade Algebra 1 courses because most kids aren't ready to learn those concepts. Or they can learn it, but it takes way too long to teach it, going over and over it, lots of practice, taking up a lot of time, so we can't get to some of the rest of the concepts in a full Algebra 1 course. That leaves the kid missing concepts they need for upper level math courses.

Algebra is the basic stepping stone of upper level math - the kids need to be fluent in it. If they aren't, and/or if they were never exposed to concepts because we didn't have time because we were reviewing concepts that should have been covered in the previous course, I'll have to re-teach the missing concepts in Trig/PreCal or Cal, using up time we need to cover all the concepts in those classes...it's a "snowball effect."

I'm sure some 6th/7th grade classes provide a full breadth and depth Algebra 1 course and that some 6th/7th kids who take it do well. I'm just telling you that in my experience, from many years of teaching high school math, that most kids I have in my advanced classes who had Algebra in 6th, 7th, and even 8th grade do not have the depth and breadth and application of Algebra 1 course knowledge that most kids who took Algebra 1 in 9th grade have. There's something about the time in which the course was take, that the brain seems to be more ready to learn and apply the Algebra skills and concepts when the kid is older.

This is my experience, and it's based on many years of teaching. I know there are exceptions to this because I've seen it myself, but in general, taking Algebra 1 when the kid is older usually means the kid has more algebra skills, knowledge and application ability, and makes the next courses in the math sequence much more accessible to them because they have that in-depth Algebra knowledge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.

NP. That comment is pretty insulting, though. I have a kid with dyslexia who is advanced in math. As the teacher said, there are many kinds of learning disabilities, and plenty of kids who have them absolutely belong in some advanced classes.

Nope. This was meant as stated.

If your child has a learning disability where the accommodation is that they can walk out of class any time and take a break, and if they actually do that and don't spend time in class, then they don't belong. This was also my read of what the teacher wrote.

From personal experience, most kids I see with special accommodations struggle with keeping up with their normal school work and definitely should not be accelerated.

PP (was it you?) literally wrote:

“ Kids with learning disabilities should not be in accelerated math classes.”

They did not give all the caveats you gave, they made a blanket statement. And that statement is wrong.

If there are exceptions, I haven't seen them. The stigma associated with IEPs must remain, or else everybody would be getting them. (I'm working in the educational field, too, and I've seen a tremendous increase here. Students are now openly discussing whether to get accommodations for a course just because it has timed exams.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems.

Do you think those watered down 6th and 7th grade algebra classes are teaching how to factor quadratic equations with a =/= 1? Is this skill part of the algebra 1 standards? Why do you think algebra 1 SOL performance decreases with the age at which algebra 1 is taken?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.

NP. That comment is pretty insulting, though. I have a kid with dyslexia who is advanced in math. As the teacher said, there are many kinds of learning disabilities, and plenty of kids who have them absolutely belong in some advanced classes.

Nope. This was meant as stated.

If your child has a learning disability where the accommodation is that they can walk out of class any time and take a break, and if they actually do that and don't spend time in class, then they don't belong. This was also my read of what the teacher wrote.

From personal experience, most kids I see with special accommodations struggle with keeping up with their normal school work and definitely should not be accelerated.

PP (was it you?) literally wrote:

“ Kids with learning disabilities should not be in accelerated math classes.”

They did not give all the caveats you gave, they made a blanket statement. And that statement is wrong.

If there are exceptions, I haven't seen them. The stigma associated with IEPs must remain, or else everybody would be getting them. (I'm working in the educational field, too, and I've seen a tremendous increase here. Students are now openly discussing whether to get accommodations for a course just because it has timed exams.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.

NP. That comment is pretty insulting, though. I have a kid with dyslexia who is advanced in math. As the teacher said, there are many kinds of learning disabilities, and plenty of kids who have them absolutely belong in some advanced classes.

Nope. This was meant as stated.

If your child has a learning disability where the accommodation is that they can walk out of class any time and take a break, and if they actually do that and don't spend time in class, then they don't belong. This was also my read of what the teacher wrote.

From personal experience, most kids I see with special accommodations struggle with keeping up with their normal school work and definitely should not be accelerated.

PP (was it you?) literally wrote:

“ Kids with learning disabilities should not be in accelerated math classes.”

They did not give all the caveats you gave, they made a blanket statement. And that statement is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.

NP. That comment is pretty insulting, though. I have a kid with dyslexia who is advanced in math. As the teacher said, there are many kinds of learning disabilities, and plenty of kids who have them absolutely belong in some advanced classes.

Nope. This was meant as stated.

If your child has a learning disability where the accommodation is that they can walk out of class any time and take a break, and if they actually do that and don't spend time in class, then they don't belong. This was also my read of what the teacher wrote.

From personal experience, most kids I see with special accommodations struggle with keeping up with their normal school work and definitely should not be accelerated.

Anonymous wrote:They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: The "best" ever was when some kids in my Honors Algebra 2 class were earning low Cs or below, so I gave a list to the counseling department so they could transfer them out to a lower class, as per written policy. They refused the transfer. I showed them a printout of the policy, dated the current year. Their response? "We don't follow that any more." I keep a copy of that written policy, my request and their response, to look at when I need a wry laugh.

That's really f**ked up.

Kids with learning disabilities should not be in accelerated math classes.

Oh no, these were not kids with learning disabilities. They just weren't able to keep up their grades for many reasons, from lack of prerequisite knowledge to lack of work ethic. I'm very willing to spend lots of time helping a kid who has a good work ethic, but at some point some just can't keep up, and another class is best placement for them.

...and I have no problem with having kids with learning disabilities in my basic or advanced classes, if they can do the work and aren't causing disruptions - and if there aren't so many in my class, and if they don't have so many modifications and accommodations that I'm required to spend hours and hours dealing with it, that I just cannot do the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: The "best" ever was when some kids in my Honors Algebra 2 class were earning low Cs or below, so I gave a list to the counseling department so they could transfer them out to a lower class, as per written policy. They refused the transfer. I showed them a printout of the policy, dated the current year. Their response? "We don't follow that any more." I keep a copy of that written policy, my request and their response, to look at when I need a wry laugh.

That's really f**ked up.

Kids with learning disabilities should not be in accelerated math classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a MS/HS parent who was really worried about it when they started talking about it, I have to say its been a total nothing burger. My current 7th grader was offered all of the same options as my high schooler, and just as many 7th graders are taking Algebra as they did before. Its a distinction without a difference.

That's because people voted for Youngkin in 2021. Had they not, Virginia would be in the same boat as California, which is what Prof. Conrad warns us about. And that's not empty speculation: these groups were working closely together.

^ This is exactly the crux. People forget that ! You might not agree with his politics but he has helped fight the equity reformers

Again, more lies that have already been debunked in countless earlier threads.

VMPI was focused on blending algebra & geometry concepts. It never proposed to eliminate advanced math or acceleration. Calculus/IB were *always* included as possible paths.

The original vision was very clear about not providing any acceleration/differentiation until 11th grade. It's in the original materials and videos. They walked it back pretty quickly because it was incredibly unpopular.

Agreed. Many people never saw the original proposal. Only the spin and the walk back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.

NP. That comment is pretty insulting, though. I have a kid with dyslexia who is advanced in math. As the teacher said, there are many kinds of learning disabilities, and plenty of kids who have them absolutely belong in some advanced classes.

Anonymous wrote:The learning disabilities comment is probably coming from a sheltered place. There’s a pretty wide range, not all of which would preclude doing well in an advanced math class. Glad the teacher here gets this. You seem like a good dude.