Wu is one of the good guys in the math education war. I do not think he was talking about the gifted kids at all. There has been a general association between acceleration and rigor, which is not necessarily true. Also school math is very algebra and calculus centric. I believe some mathematicians believe that the end goal being finishing calculus in high school is not necessarily all that. There're other subjects such as discrete math are very useful and lend it self to differentiation that are not covered in school math.
Anyway, Wu is talking about accelerating half of the class as we have seen in some school district and differentiating the truly gifted kids.
I agree.
Mathematics is by nature hierarchical. Every step is a preparation for the next one. Learning it properly requires thorough grounding at each step, and skimming over any topics will only weaken one's ability to tackle more complex material down the road. The weakness usually shows up in students' scientific work in college. This is one reason why many of my colleagues bemoan the practice of acceleration in schools.
^ THIS is what he's talking about.
Honestly, part of the culprit is the WAY in which math is taught now (or was, prior to CCSS) really seems to
produce poor understanding of some concepts. Even in the brightest of students, such as those whose parents post here.
I know that
we have certainly had to backtrack and remediate material that our DD seemed to have learned at the time, but apparently learned
incorrectly vis a vis her math curriculum in grades 4-6. It
really showed up in geometry and algebra II, quite frankly.
I also think that he's talking about Tiger cubs. We're such small demographic that I don't think he's referring to kids who are accelerated in order to meet their
individual needs as learners.He's definitely talking about the "you HAVE to finish calculus in high school" track as representing "rigor" and some kind of badge of smartness/worthiness in high school students. That's not at all the same thing as a student who legitimately takes a very rigorous approach to mathematics but simply does it FASTER than most learners can. Those students
are somewhat rare. That's what he's getting at; undermining the prestige of "advanced in mathematics" for its own sake, and a return to rigorous learning-- for ITS own sake.
I still think that most of OUR kids are going to be just fine under CCSS. DD was pretty thrilled to learn some set theory in helping a CC-Course 3 student the other night. The teacher advisor sent them to my DD because
she knows that my DD could learn the material and explain it in just a few minutes, and would ENJOY doing so. So yeah-- HG+ kids
are different, and teachers who know them will still 'get' it.
Unfortunately, as long as advanced learners
do actually exist, there will be parents willing to do whatever it takes to make their own kids
look like that which they are not. If I had a nickel for every casual acquaintance who has said something along the lines of "Oh, yeah-- we COULD HAVE done that with little Timmy/Janey, too... but __________" (meaning a 3y acceleration and advanced coursework and-and-and, presumably). It always has this faint whiff of sour grapes about it, and I just cringe for their kids, who are often already
whipped to perform.
I'd love to tell just one of them once that it's really obvious that this is not true, and that I wonder why they can't just accept the wonderful child(ren) that they HAVE. But anyway. That's what fuels the practices that Wu is decrying. IMO.
