Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Math curriculum

I visited a school and they had a math workbook that I thought was MK, though having a hard time finding it. Since DD did CTY, I am familiar with what they had for grade 3 accelerated math and this MK series went into decimals and long division which CTY did not.

Anyone know what I am talking about?

Ren

Doesn't ring any bells, but sounds advanced.

I am not sure to which textbook you are referring. However, decimals and possibly long division are part of the regular third grade curriculum. My oldest ds covered both topics in second grade while in an acceleratd program doing 3rd grade math in public school. My younger DS covered both as a second grader while accerlated to 3rd GT math (compacting 3rd and 4th grade). My DD covered decimals in the fall of 3rd grade GT Math (compacting 3rd/4th grade) and is covering long division in the 4th quarter. I am sure that decimal is a third grade math topic although it actually was introduced as money in second grade math. I think long division is still also a third grade topic but it is possible that it may be consider a fourth grade topic now.

Quantum, do you know which math curriculum was used for your children's accelerated math? My only experience is with CTY, and I have no idea what curriculum that is.

Ren

In our school district both are considered fourth grade. Although, as quantum points out they do do money in 1st grade.

I believe that they have changed the textbook in the intervening years. The textbook they now used is Scott Foresman, which is rather basic the few times that I actually looked at it. However, I think they also have some kind of extension/application workbook/handouts and probably only half of the math curriculum comes from the Scott Foresman books as the District provides the actual materials for most of the classwork and homework.

I found out that it was MCP Mathematics by Pearson. And it is centered around the core curriculum that is being adopted by many states, including ours.

On aside, we just got back from Cancun. There was a girl, 9, in third grade that DD7 befriended. The mother was a 4th grade teacher. She had bought the Kumon grade 3 math state test practice (which all 3rd graders take, and then another state test in grade 4). This girl was trying to do the multiplication and DD apparently was trying to explain multiplication tables to her. I was not there. When I walked up, a conversation started with the mom about math curriculum. My comments that they needed to increase the difficulty, the mom was stating that it was too hard already for most kids. And mentioned DD was an exception. I have to say, that I thought this was shortsighted or are ND kids really that incompetent that they cannot compete with millions of Chinese and Indian kids doing multiplication in grade 2?

I think that we should push the envelope. Maybe I am wrong.

Ren

I think addition and multiplication can be learned together easily- they are pretty similar, if you think about it. This can be done in first and second grade. Subtraction is harder, and division (although you wouldn't think so), is harder too. Maybe third grade, maybe fourth. Lots of repetition helps.
I agree with you! I think the USA in general doesn't do a good job pushing math forward for kids. They water it down and ask little, at least where we are. (And our public school is in the top 5% of California for STAR math testing too!).
I explained to my third grader over several days how to divide 2 digit numbers into 5 digit numbers. It took several tries but he got it! It's a fifth grade math book. He's gifted but honestly, I think you could get other kids to understand that too before fifth grade with a little elbow grease.

There's no reason that the four basic operations cannot be learned by any normal child by the end of second grade. Multiplication is repeated addition, and division can be taught in a number of easy to learn ways, including as repeated subtraction. Singapore Math seems to be at least a year ahead of the scope and sequence of most U.S. curriculums when compared by grade level, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Yep - both are in the syllabus for the first term of the third year in DS's unselective school. Children start school at between 4.5 and 5.5 here, so this is marginally "earlier" than the first term of 2nd grade, I think. Specifically:

Recognise multiplication as repeated addition
Recognise division as repeated subtraction
The relationship between multiplication and division
The x2 multiplication table and facts
Division by 2 as grouping in twos
Recognise division as the reverse of multiplication
Recognise doubling as twice a number, halving as
reverse of doubling
Recognise unit fractions, find 1/2,1/3,1/4 of amounts
Add and subtract multiples of 5 and 10

I agree that the math curriculum could easily be more challenging in U.S. schools (at least from what I have seen), or at least offer more differentiation for kids who are ready for it--a la Khan Academy and 'flipping' classrooms as has been in the news some recently. This is one of DH's big issues too--that the math skills of the undergraduates and graduate students he meets from the U.S. are often significantly behind those of the students he meets from abroad (often from China or Korea). This cannot possibly be good for any country particularly in the long term, although it has been going on for awhile already, at least here in the U.S. On the other hand, maybe the gifted kids who are being homeschooled or accelerated (in the few places where it is offered) will help make up for some of it

Khan Academy is being introduced in our school next fall!

There is so much talk/concern about "21st century skills" but it seems to conflict with that traditional "boo-hoo math is hard" or "math is just for geeks" mentality. It's a very confusing message. I guess the children of the concerned parents will have to be accelerated outside of school, homeschooled, or some other take-the-bull-by-the-horns approach.

Even if you don't "major" in math it's such a good discipline for thinking, organizing thoughts...and it's so concrete, and old, and part of so many structures...a refreshing relief from the "subjective" subjects.

My DD's spring school conferences included the child and they have to prepare by answering scripted questions ahead of time, like what you feel you accomplished so far, what is challenging etc. One of the questions my DD hadn't put an answer down for. It came up in the conference. It was "what do you find challenging about math?"

DD looked at her teacher but didn't say anything. The teacher said, "(DD) told me that there is nothing challenging in math and she needs more challenge." Supported by stern look from teacher right at me (it's my fault apparantly)

So DD was on the hot seat and the teacher insisted she name something challenging. DD said, "okay, okay, the 9x table" I said, "but DD, when you first saw the 9x table you said, 'oh that's easy it's just 10x the number minus the number'" DD said, "oh yeah..." looked at her teacher, then said "but it's challenging"

Teacher moved on to the next topic for the conference
Anyway I'm making a note of everything and we'll have to have a conference about what 4th grade will bring and decide what we're going to do. It's getting too disturbing.

In the meantime this summer we'll do math enrichment. It's hard to do during the school year because of the battling philosophies, it's so confusing for DD.

Hi, bzylzy!
I agree this is disturbing, but in a way it's also hilarious (but still disturbing) that they're making her say something is challenging when it's not, and that she is 'playing along.' On the 'bright side,' at least she understands that she it can be necessary to lie in certain circumstances, which is a very difficult thing to teach our DD.

Also about it 'apparently being your fault' that your DD said something--we get this a lot--people seem to assume that our DD couldn't possibly have come up with a negative opinion about school or a teacher by herself, so it must be coming from us. Not so--we spent most of the year trying to convince DD that the teachers were trying to 'help her' until finally we gave up trying to convince her because it just wasn't plausible. Now we've switched to being honest and trying to teach her how to 'play along,' which if she at least learned that from this year would be *something* she learned at school.

I hope 4th grade goes better for your DD--good luck!

Hi Dbat!

I guess you're right...if that scene was in a sitcom the viewers "in the know" would be roaring. DD has definitely learned to split over to play the game, at this point it does exhaust her (I think from what she's saying lately that's the main source of exhaustion).

We saw this Japanese movie where the racoons transformed into humans for the day to go out into the working world, since the humans had taken over their land. It showed these racoon-humans exhausted on the way home at the end of the day, and for some they were trying so hard to stay in human mode but racoon bits would "pop out" and when they got safely home they could turn back into racoons.

DD was very wide-eyed at this, but said she totally understands it. So I remind her/tease her about it, and call her my brave little racoon.

People who are 'different' have to do this to some extent their entire lives. If you can find a working intellectual niche I suppose it's so much better but there will always be challenges. People who are dual-language or culture learn to weave their way in and out of both or either cultures.

Anyway back to the OP I agree that the math curriculum could certainly be bumped up.

Getting OT here, but what's the title? Sounds great.

More on topic: I am spending a lot of time this year advocating for a faster path through the elementary curriculum as our district moves to Common Core. So far falling on deaf ears.

DeeDee

I found this on our district website this morning. I only pasted what pertained to us I am hoping I can use this for acceleration!

The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel

Teaching Mathematically Gifted Students

The Panel’s review of the literature about what kind of mathematics instruction would be most effective for gifted students focused on the impact of programs involving acceleration, enrichment, and the use of homogeneous grouping. Although many syntheses and summaries of research in these areas have been conducted, our searches yielded surprisingly few studies that met the Panel’s methodologically rigorous criteria for inclusion; thus for this section we relaxed these criteria to fulfill the charge of evaluating the “best available scientific evidence.” The Panel could formulate its recommendations only on the basis of one randomized control trial study and seven quasi-experimental studies. These studies have limitations. For instance, motivation is a confounding variable, just as it is a selection criterion for being considered a candidate for acceleration.

The Panel’s key findings are the following:

The studies reviewed provided some support for the value of differentiating the mathematics curriculum for students with sufficient motivation, especially when acceleration is a component (i.e., pace and level of instruction are adjusted).

A small number of studies indicated that individualized instruction, in which pace of learning is increased and often managed via computer instruction, produces gains in learning.



National Mathematics Advisory Panel FINAL REPORT 53


Gifted students who are accelerated by other means not only gained time and reached educational milestones earlier (e.g., college entrance) but also appear to achieve at levels at least comparable to those of their equally able same-age peers on a variety of indicators even though they were younger when demonstrating their performance on the various achievement benchmarks.

Gifted students appeared to become more strongly engaged in science, technology, engineering, or mathematical areas of study. There is no evidence in the research literature that gaps and holes in knowledge have occurred as a result of student acceleration.

In the case of gifted (or academically advanced) students who are advanced in their skill and concept attainment and can learn new material at a much more rapid rate than their same-age peers, it is the professional judgment of those in gifted education that they need a curriculum that is differentiated (by level, complexity, breadth, and depth), developmentally appropriate, and conducted at a more rapid rate.

Support also was found for supplemental enrichment programs. Of the two programs analyzed, one explicitly utilized acceleration as a program component and the other did not. Self-paced instruction supplemented with enrichment yielded the greater benefits. This supports the widely held view in the field of gifted education that combined acceleration and enrichment should be the intervention of choice.

Recommendation: Mathematically gifted students with sufficient motivation appear to be able to learn mathematics much faster than students proceeding through the

curriculum at a normal pace, with no harm to their learning, and should be allowed to do so.

There is a need for more high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental research to study the effectiveness of interventions designed to meet the learning needs of gifted students. Especially vital are evaluations of academically rigorous enrichment programs.

It is important for school policies to support appropriately challenging work in mathematics for gifted and talented students. Acceleration, combined with enrichment, is a promising practice that is moderately well supported by the research literature, especially when the full range of available literature is considered.

Thanks frannieandejsmom! I'll try to use that to formulate requests for next year.

When I took DD out of K to homeschool, a person I respected told me not to let her get more than two grade levels ahead of the schools if I planned to put her back at some point. She said "go deep" as well as capping that 2-year mark, which I did more formally then. We do it less formally at home now because DD is quite resistant to additional formal work during the school work, during the school year... she's fine in the summer when we "catch up" The informal mostly translates to talking or informally writing things down about the math behind certain life things or concepts if DD initiates (things like architecture, the solar system, time, calendars, or any patterns she recognizes).

DeeDee the movie is call Pom Poko (1994 Isao Takahata), but read alot of reviews first. My DD loves the Japanese kids movies but this was not her favorite, though she loved the transforming part. She loves the ones that feature a smart, strong girl of course.

Thanks for the links, kcab.

I believe the reason they don't move faster in math is because less time is spent on math - than language arts. Plus, most of the lower elementary teachers are language arts people. I have looked seriously of time spent on both and way less time is devoted to math.

I have noticed that this year also Ellipses. In my DD's class the math is the last 35 minutes of the day...after lunch, recess and right before dismissal. There is much talk about it being important and keeping up with Asia, Europe etc. but I don't see the foundation being laid yet.

Thanks for those links kcab. If I had a $ for every time I've heard the term common core standards this year!

The article was interesting and also the comments. I mentioned something about "teaching to the test" (in a joking, what's to become of all of this sort of way) a couple of weeks ago in a circle of people in the neighborhood. A teacher who was present really got serious and she said that people say things about 'teaching to the test' but she said "really, these children are the lucky ones...they are presented with the material that REALLY MATTERS and have the opportunity to REALLY LEARN IT WELL". She was dead serious. I said cheerfully, "oh, well, I never really looked at it that way!" and luckily was distracted out of the circle of people talking.

Ren [/quote]

I agree that the math curriculum could easily be more challenging in U.S. schools (at least from what I have seen), or at least offer more differentiation for kids who are ready for it--a la Khan Academy and 'flipping' classrooms as has been in the news some recently. This is one of DH's big issues too--that the math skills of the undergraduates and graduate students he meets from the U.S. are often significantly behind those of the students he meets from abroad (often from China or Korea). This cannot possibly be good for any country particularly in the long term, although it has been going on for awhile already, at least here in the U.S. On the other hand, maybe the gifted kids who are being homeschooled or accelerated (in the few places where it is offered) will help make up for some of it [/quote]

Math or other curriculum are different among many ISDs even in one state. They have curriculum specialists in each ISD. To me, it's the waste of resources.

DOE (Department of Education)should set two curriculums. One at the current level (many kids are failing even in this current standard) and train them to go to technical schools after High School and another at different level (on par with European and Asian standard) and the graduate can go on to become scientists and innovators. DOE should also sponsor education videos site (edu-tube similar to youtube) and put up all science, Math, language arts taught by top teachers in the country.

Well, I think that is a long shot. Our leaders will say that this kind of plan is discriminating to intellectually challenged people. But if we can't raise our standard on the entire student body, at least raise the portion of it.

My 2nd grader has done all of these things. However, while he easily mastered these concepts, they are not expected to. His grades are B-Beginning, D=Developing and S-Secure, I think most of the grade level expectations for these concepts are B or D. I guess at least they get the exposure?

But I agree, we do seem to have shockingly low standards for math in American elementary schools. I mean, at DS's spring conference the teacher note to all parents suggested we keep working with them on a daily basis in learning how to make change!