Lots of assumptions there PP. Knew about the first acceleration but not the second until well into the first quarter when testing started coming up. We questioned the school citing py test scores but were told that the py teacher had reccomended it. We were still naive enough at that point to assume the school had DC best interests in mind. That was our only mistake.

I disagree PP. My then 2nd grader went from 2nd grade math to 4th grade math in 3rd grade succesfully and based on high test scores. Then he was accelerated again the next year the 6th grade math based on ??...likely the need to keep class sizes even between the math levels. He still suffers now many years later on missing certain skills (like long division!). I don't think the current wave of no acceleration is the answer but the old system was bad too. Without more staffing school are stuck with creating a whole class for acceleration or not offering it at all.

I wonder what role you played in the multiple accelerations? Not an innocent (and threatening) bystander I presume? Now you are looking for someone to blame, eh.

Do you even realize common core is designed to mimic how kids in foreign countries learn. The reason we are behind is the way we teach math. Sticking your head in the sand and yelling thats how we did it when I was a kid has failed...

Another knowledgeable and confused "mathematician" here.

I wonder what role you played in the multiple accelerations? Not an innocent (and threatening) bystander I presume? Now you are looking for someone to blame, eh.

Anonymous wrote:I work in a highly technical field - advance material and measurement. It IS extremely hard to find domestic researchers to fill the vacancies. We always have to hire oversea, China, India, France, Italy. . .
Academic-wise, US is behind in nurturing our own kids.
6th grade Algebra is really nothing when you turn around and look at the world. It is basic math in some sense.

Accelerated too much? Are you kidding?
Slow down? Is this a joke?

At our home, we don't follow MCPS's curriculum, we follow DC's readiness. She does her homework on her own, and take additional lessons from us.

Do you even realize common core is designed to mimic how kids in foreign countries learn. The reason we are behind is the way we teach math. Sticking your head in the sand and yelling thats how we did it when I was a kid has failed...

I disagree PP. My then 2nd grader went from 2nd grade math to 4th grade math in 3rd grade succesfully and based on high test scores. Then he was accelerated again the next year the 6th grade math based on ??...likely the need to keep class sizes even between the math levels. He still suffers now many years later on missing certain skills (like long division!). I don't think the current wave of no acceleration is the answer but the old system was bad too. Without more staffing school are stuck with creating a whole class for acceleration or not offering it at all.

[quote]I don't necessarily disagree with the pp's suggesting that kids were probably accelerated too much in the past. But, why do we think slowing everyone down is any better than speeding everyone up. Doesn't this set up the same issue of not meeting the needs of some of the kids. Isn't moving too slowly as big a risk for some (creating boredom, disinterest, etc.) as moving too fast? I don't understand why there is a need to paint with such a broad brush. Why not try to learn from past mistakes (moving too many ahead too fast) and take a more nuanced approach.[/quot

Funny. In my decades of observation, the only kids and parents feeling overaccelerated by the low bar of American primary school math competence were kids who were overaccelerated in lacrosse, swimming, gymnastics and video watching.

IMO it's also that kids don't want STEM careers. I worked with an intern from MIT; really smart guy. When it came time to graduate instead of working in a STEM field he got his MBA and went off into the business world so that he could make more money.

No one is talking about a STEM career. Sounds like the MIT kid is a really "smart" man. He took what challenged and interested him in school. Now he will have no problem counting his money after business school! Math and philosophy or economics or art are not mutually exclusive.

I agree with you 100%. None of my "non genius" children suffered from working ahead of the mathematics curriculum by years in the typical American educational system. It's the only solution for a failing American educational system in math and science -- particularly at the elementary and middle school level. This approach has uniformly worked in my family for well over 80 years. I would not change a thing and I will not wait for the rest of the lemmings to follow.

Anonymous wrote:I work in a highly technical field - advance material and measurement. It IS extremely hard to find domestic researchers to fill the vacancies. We always have to hire oversea, China, India, France, Italy. . .
Academic-wise, US is behind in nurturing our own kids.
6th grade Algebra is really nothing when you turn around and look at the world. It is basic math in some sense.

Accelerated too much? Are you kidding?
Slow down? Is this a joke?

At our home, we don't follow MCPS's curriculum, we follow DC's readiness. She does her homework on her own, and take additional lessons from us.

IMO it's also that kids don't want STEM careers. I worked with an intern from MIT; really smart guy. When it came time to graduate instead of working in a STEM field he got his MBA and went off into the business world so that he could make more money.

I work in a highly technical field - advance material and measurement. It IS extremely hard to find domestic researchers to fill the vacancies. We always have to hire oversea, China, India, France, Italy. . .
Academic-wise, US is behind in nurturing our own kids.
6th grade Algebra is really nothing when you turn around and look at the world. It is basic math in some sense.

Accelerated too much? Are you kidding?
Slow down? Is this a joke?

At our home, we don't follow MCPS's curriculum, we follow DC's readiness. She does her homework on her own, and take additional lessons from us.

I don't necessarily disagree with the pp's suggesting that kids were probably accelerated too much in the past. But, why do we think slowing everyone down is any better than speeding everyone up. Doesn't this set up the same issue of not meeting the needs of some of the kids. Isn't moving too slowly as big a risk for some (creating boredom, disinterest, etc.) as moving too fast? I don't understand why there is a need to paint with such a broad brush. Why not try to learn from past mistakes (moving too many ahead too fast) and take a more nuanced approach.

Anonymous wrote:I've often wondered what the advantages are for multiple year math acceleration for the vast majority of kids. Does it really help to have these kids doing calculus their freshman year in high school? In some ways I think 2.0 might have it right; spend more time having kids really understand vs. rushing them through. I've taught my 4th grade daughter some simple algebraic manipulation techniques. She easily picked them up and was able to use them effectively. I also believe that she really didn't understand in any real way what she was doing. It was simply a technique she learned. I think a lot of the kids who are accelerated are like that.

Exactly this is a marathon not a foot race. All I hear is blah blah now DC won't take Algebra yadda yadda in 7th grade.... So what... many Universities allow you to test in to math courses so if you are really that good at math and can do beyond grade level it will be reflected on entrance exams. This is not going to stop you from being an Engineer but it could help...

I've often wondered what the advantages are for multiple year math acceleration for the vast majority of kids. Does it really help to have these kids doing calculus their freshman year in high school? In some ways I think 2.0 might have it right; spend more time having kids really understand vs. rushing them through. I've taught my 4th grade daughter some simple algebraic manipulation techniques. She easily picked them up and was able to use them effectively. I also believe that she really didn't understand in any real way what she was doing. It was simply a technique she learned. I think a lot of the kids who are accelerated are like that.

FWIW, I attended a PTA meeting a few weeks ago at CCES where c2.0 was discussed for the regular curriculum and HGC my strong impression was that the HGC would implement an accelerated 4/5/6 math curriculum which has recently been announced as an option as one of the (now limited) C2.0 pathways. This is three years of c2.0 math in two years. It was unclear if this compacted version would be just the "basic" 2.0 or include the "enrichment". This would get some kids to Algebra in 7th grade (but a MUCH smaller number than in prior years). It was not clear if kids in the regular program at CCES will have any access to thus accelerated math track as they have had in prior years. Also unclear was whether the three years ahead track will be available - it seems not, neither to HGC kids nor to regular track kids at CCES.