Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Common Core Mathematics: background

The ending of the article was really sad and insulting:

"We should not allow a sideshow about acceleration to overshadow our nation's drive to achieve excellence in mathematics education."

Incredibly sad to call the need for acceleration for the brightest children a "sideshow". I guess he made his attitude toward the gifted crystal clear.

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.

of course everyone should learn the basic principles etc thoroughly. But some people need 2 repetitions and some need 200. That is not skimming, that is learning quicker. I would agree that going quickly for the sake of going quickly is wrong but that is more hothousing than slowing a HG+ kid to do their thing.

Do kids who aren't gifted really get accelerated that often?? I would think the majority of accelerated kids would be gifted, so if he's talking about some accelerated minority, he should make that clear, and if he's talking about gifted kids then he's nuts.

I don't have statistics, but this page of the public school system thread has information about gifted programs and non-gifted kids.

Anecdotally, my eldest's school put about a third of his class into geometry in 8th grade. It was definitely a watered-down course. But then, it was following a watered-down but state-approved textbook, so it wasn't necessarily that acceleration was the cause of making it too easy.

At the school my other two attend, finishing algebra in the 8th grade is considered to be the regular track and finishing geometry at the same time is the accelerated track. I know that a fair number of kids (e.g. way more than 2% of the class) take geometry. My own DD's 5th grade class has 7 out of 12 kids in a very accelerated group (they're doing pre-algebra mixed with 5th grade math). I'm not really sure what to think about that. More than half of a class is a lot of kids doing algebra 2 way ahead of schedule.

When I was in school, algebra in 8th grade was considered accelerated, while taking it in 9th grade was above average. Taking it in 10th grade and going through algebra 2 was more "regular."

Actually, I do have some statistics. Entire states have pushed for algebra-for-all in 8th grade (e.g. Minnesota and California, but it's been abandoned here). Here's an piece about this trend. Also, here's a paper about algebra for all in 8th grade in a district in North Carolina. It didn't work out so well there.

So, yes, there are a lot of students being accelerated when they shouldn't be accelerated. It's possible that Wu was referring to this group and wasn't thinking about gifties. In that case, he was right, but he was still wrong to paint everyone with the same brush.

I don't know when non-US students take algebra and geometry. I know that some countries teach them at the same time, but I don't know when.

No. It's not possible that he meant that. What he is saying is quite clear. He is saying that with the new standards, acceleration will not be needed, by anyone, ever, period.

My daughter is in accelerated math where they complete 3 years of math in 2 years. In 5th grade they will be in pre-algebra a 2 year program. 7th grade is algebra and 8th is geometry. There are 72 4th graders and the accelerated class has 7 students.

Good thing my youngest is in 4th grade and only has 5th grade before we homeschool for middle school and we will cross high school bridge when we get there and figure that out.

I agree.


^ 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.

Enh. I just read the blog and can't tell whether he's simply saying that pushing kids through the material without ensuring they truly get it is the issue or whether he is truly saying endless repetition is needed by all. I think he's talking to the former. It really doesn't appear to be aimed at truly gifted kids to me, but then again, I didn't think it said all that much, which seems to be the case with so many Huffpost articles.