Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can I just say "decomposing"? 3rd grade math--insane! Am considering private school to get away from this madness.
It's ok, PP. If you don't like the word "decomposing", you can say "borrowing". The Common Core Math Police won't come to get you.
Anonymous wrote:Can I just say "decomposing"? 3rd grade math--insane! Am considering private school to get away from this madness.
Anonymous wrote:What school was in that 20% took algebra in 6th grade? At my ES it was 1 or 2 kids a year. There are still 5th graders coming up for IM at the MS so I assume that there still are a few 6th grade exceptions to the rule.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You can claim the track is "projected" on average to be ahead by one year but it still does not benefit the smart kids. You are no longer allowed to take Algebra I in 6th grade. They dumb down the curriculum in elementary school so you can not make that pathway.
If you're saying that the entire math curriculum has been "dumbed down" because a very small number of students who previously would have taken Algebra I in 6th grade and calculus in 10th grade now must take Algebra I in 7th grade and calculus in 11th grade -- well, ok. But I disagree with you.
It is dumbed down for the smarter kids, yes. And at my daughter's ES school there were over 20 of 97 kids that went on to Algebra 1 years ago. It wasn't that small of a number. There are just many more uneducated children coming into the MCPS system these days and shrinking the percentage of these kids. Not the actual number but percentage. But that is not those kid's fault but yet they have to pay that price.
That's rare.
When my son was at Westland, I was in the office one day and happened to see the clipboard of kids who rode the bus to BCC in Algebra 2 (the kids who would have taken Algebra 1 in 6th). The list was maybe 12 kids, or about 1% of the student body. Now, there might have been more kids who took Algebra 1 in sixth and repeated a class along the way somewhere, but of kids who started on that track, and stayed on that track, there were 12 kids.
What's your point? That those 12 kids don't count? Seems to me that if they're ready and willing, we should teach them. And if it's just 12 kids, it doesn't seem that logistically hard to continue to provide that.
My point is that if a middle school, one with a reputation for advanced kids, usually has about 1% of their kids on that track, it would be rare for an elementary school to have more than 20% of their kids on that track, as reported by the PP. Do you disagree?
It's important to note that under the old system, in order to make it to Algebra 1 in sixth you needed to take the highest level of math offered to elementary schoolers (2 years ahead) and then skip the year between 5th (when they'd take math 7) and sixth (which would otherwise be IM). Under the new system, a kid who takes the highest level of math in 5th (compacted 5/6 math) would need to skip a year (math 7 which is now preAlgebra) to get to Algebra. I don't know if they allow this or not. The old pathway (skipping IM) wasn't listed as an option in many places, but it definitely happened. Since I don't have a middle schooler anymore, I don't know if the skip is still allowed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Never heard anyone on this board (no less real life) mention algebra in 5th grade.. Not doubting the kids ability but that was not a typical path. Exceptions are still made and if that kid is truly on that high a level, parents should be contacting people outside of the school for guidance.
Who cares about actual classes, the point is still the terrible decisions made with the implementation of 2.0 Math for Elementary school kids.
Anonymous wrote:Never heard anyone on this board (no less real life) mention algebra in 5th grade.. Not doubting the kids ability but that was not a typical path. Exceptions are still made and if that kid is truly on that high a level, parents should be contacting people outside of the school for guidance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You can claim the track is "projected" on average to be ahead by one year but it still does not benefit the smart kids. You are no longer allowed to take Algebra I in 6th grade. They dumb down the curriculum in elementary school so you can not make that pathway.
If you're saying that the entire math curriculum has been "dumbed down" because a very small number of students who previously would have taken Algebra I in 6th grade and calculus in 10th grade now must take Algebra I in 7th grade and calculus in 11th grade -- well, ok. But I disagree with you.
It is dumbed down for the smarter kids, yes. And at my daughter's ES school there were over 20 of 97 kids that went on to Algebra 1 years ago. It wasn't that small of a number. There are just many more uneducated children coming into the MCPS system these days and shrinking the percentage of these kids. Not the actual number but percentage. But that is not those kid's fault but yet they have to pay that price.
That's rare.
When my son was at Westland, I was in the office one day and happened to see the clipboard of kids who rode the bus to BCC in Algebra 2 (the kids who would have taken Algebra 1 in 6th). The list was maybe 12 kids, or about 1% of the student body. Now, there might have been more kids who took Algebra 1 in sixth and repeated a class along the way somewhere, but of kids who started on that track, and stayed on that track, there were 12 kids.
What's your point? That those 12 kids don't count? Seems to me that if they're ready and willing, we should teach them. And if it's just 12 kids, it doesn't seem that logistically hard to continue to provide that.
Anonymous wrote:
I guess I don't really understand what kind of explanation would be appropriate for the 1/4 vs 1/3 question. I mean, I could draw a picture that would show it. Or if I had to do it verbally, I'd say "because if you cut something into 4 equal pieces those pieces will be smaller than if you cut it into 3 pieces". Is that a sufficient answer?
I am a parent, and I was definitely a "math" kid. I'm also very verbal, so that part doesn't scare me. But it does seem like they've injected a lot of "edu-speak" into the "new math" that makes it unnecessarily inaccessible to parents (and it looks like some teachers as well).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You can claim the track is "projected" on average to be ahead by one year but it still does not benefit the smart kids. You are no longer allowed to take Algebra I in 6th grade. They dumb down the curriculum in elementary school so you can not make that pathway.
If you're saying that the entire math curriculum has been "dumbed down" because a very small number of students who previously would have taken Algebra I in 6th grade and calculus in 10th grade now must take Algebra I in 7th grade and calculus in 11th grade -- well, ok. But I disagree with you.
It is dumbed down for the smarter kids, yes. And at my daughter's ES school there were over 20 of 97 kids that went on to Algebra 1 years ago. It wasn't that small of a number. There are just many more uneducated children coming into the MCPS system these days and shrinking the percentage of these kids. Not the actual number but percentage. But that is not those kid's fault but yet they have to pay that price.
That's rare.
When my son was at Westland, I was in the office one day and happened to see the clipboard of kids who rode the bus to BCC in Algebra 2 (the kids who would have taken Algebra 1 in 6th). The list was maybe 12 kids, or about 1% of the student body. Now, there might have been more kids who took Algebra 1 in sixth and repeated a class along the way somewhere, but of kids who started on that track, and stayed on that track, there were 12 kids.