Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Age or Ability Specific Forums Middle School Common Core Math

Sounds just like Everyday Mathematics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_Mathematics
If Common Core is really like that (and I haven't seen evidence that it really is, so I reserve judgement), then it will be a fiasco in no time flat.

It sounds like our district is not the only one that is eliminating middle school algebra because the common core classes are supposed to have more breadth. Does anyone in this situation know what their high school math offerings will be? I saw the discussion of high school courses earlier on this thread, but does anyone know what sequence districts plan if algebra is moved to 9th grade?

My daughter is only in 4th, but I don't see how she can get through calculus in high school if they don't get to algebra until ninth grade. She is already working on prealgebra using AOPS. So we will have to work out an alternative plan. I'm concerned about the opportunities for other students, though, who may not have other options from what the school provides.

This is an interesting question because I am still unclear on what Common Core dictates for kids who are able to work ahead, as we are in NC where it was just adopted (officially). We were hoping to be in public school but are still in private school so far. For math, we recently discovered AoPS and DD has liked it so far, and we are very lucky this year in being at a private school where her teachers let her bring in her own math books. But we will have to go to another school next year or the year after because this school ends in 6th grade, and I am really dreading that.

Isn't it bizarre to hear (for example on NPR just a few days ago) how other countries' students are so far ahead of US students in math on the one hand, and on the other hand to see post after post on this website from parents who are trying to help their kids get the appropriate (accelerated) math level in school? What a total waste, and a total disconnect I mean, if we were brainstorming about how to make the US more competitive in math, wouldn't we just 'flip' all the classrooms and let students move ahead at their own rate? How do other countries do it, anyway? Maybe pay the teachers a competitive wage, and treat them with respect?? (Coming from NC, where we are now 47th in teacher pay and the legislature recently decided to revoke teacher tenure and move to I think 2-year contracts. We have friends who are public school teachers, and I really feel badly for them--I can't imagine trying to keep my enthusiasm up in a job where the requirements change every year and every news story is about how teachers just aren't very good and should be measured/scrutinized/evaluated more frequently, and also be found wanting at a predetermined rate.)

Sorry--getting back to your math question, have you seen the essay by Richard Rusczyk (sp?) on the AoPS site about the value of learning more deeply for kids who are ahead in math? It's called the Calculus Trap, here: https://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/Papers/CalculusTrap.pdf

I was trying to help DD move ahead linearly with courses (following her lead!) until recently, when I realized that even if she wanted to, unless we wanted to homeschool she would probably not be able to accelerate even in private school and so probably that would be a waste of time--we should go laterally with the math stuff. Plus now she has gotten into Tae Kwon Do, with a wonderful set of teachers, so I am happy to let that develop!

Best of luck!

I suspect our district won't offer calculus of any sort after this change, but haven't been able to get any information about it yet. Very few of the high school students here seem to take calculus anyway, which concerns me very much.

Multiple people at multiple schools have told me that my daughter won't need accommodations because "common core is harder anyway." They have offered to work with us now that we've left the district, but I just don't know it will really happen, She's in a charter school now and working independently at her own pace, but the downside is that the way they do that is just by letting kids work through worksheets. It's really good for those who are behind and need lots of extra practice, but less helpful for those who are ahead. It gives a lot of practice in procedures but not depth in the theory. That's why we've started AoPS and are hoping the school will let her use it there.

Taekwondo has been great for my daughter as well...

What really gets up my nose about this is the fact that while Hung-Hsi Wu is a competent mathematician, he is *NOT* a cognitive psychologist and frankly appears to have *NO* gifted education credentials. The statements that he has made by emphatically declaring that acceleration is not needed with the Common Core Maths are supremely irresponsible.

The debasing of the the 'gifted' label (and this is something that *all* of us here we have seen) has probably contributed to his 'weltanschauung' as it is very likely that he has had students that may have been the dubious product of 'G&T' programs. When people that are not really gifted but have just been in a class as a 'defense' against accusations of elitism, it is obvious that *those* students will not do well once the pretend G&T veneer or 'pixie dust' wears off. This why the presence of rigour as opposed to the pretense of rigour ought to be axiomatic.

In the other hand, dealing with the truly gifted population, getting kids that already have mastered the material - and in Maths this is very quantifiable - to just repeatedly do what in principle ( and IMO one of the characteristics of giftedness is being able to effortlessly distill the essence or principle quickly) is the more of the same stuff will only ensure that a host of truly gifted children are turned off Maths out of boredom not challenge.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. He's referring to acceleration-itis in American schools, not gifted kids. This problem is widespread and is contributing to U.S. mathematical illiteracy.

Background:

At some point (1980s or 90s?), someone noticed that students who took algebra in 8th grade had higher SAT scores and did better in college than other students. It was decided that acceleration was responsible for this difference (not smarter students).

An acceleration arms race commenced. When I was a kid, 5-10% of an 8th grade class was allowed to take algebra I. These days, geometry is routinely offered in middle schools, and algebra II is now creeping in. This means that pre-algebra is routinely offered in 6th grade. After all, if algebra in 8th grade improves SAT scores, geometry in 8th grade will improve them even more!

Result: many, many students are losing out on 2-3 years of fundamental mathematics education. The loss of 6th grade math is especially bad, because it cements ideas from 4th and 5th grade math. The problem is compounded by teachers who don't understand the subject matter and bad textbooks. And millions of children are lost to mathematics.

One of my kids is experiencing this mess firsthand. He's verbally gifted but not so much mathematically. He's been forced into pre-algebra in 6th grade. There is no other option at his school. The teacher clearly doesn't understand some of the basics. Plus, his book is organized as follows:

Chapter 2. Solve equations and inequalities for x. The Dolciani/Brown algebra books need 3 chapters just to get to solving equations. Inequalities come much later. The next chapter "reviews" decimals. In reality, it reviews a bit and then tosses out complex equation solving with formulas like rate*time= distance (but with decimals in them! ). So we've mixed 5th/6th grade stuff with hardcore algebra.

Chapter 4 is a mélange. Chapter 5 goes back to basic fractions. Which, of course, you have to understand before you can understand the stuff in chapters 2-4. They have a chapter of geometry in there, too. No explanations, no creation of a foundation for algebra, just an out-of-order memorize-and-regurgitate disaster.

And this is a California-approved textbook.

Millions of American students are being cheated out of a decent math education by wrong-headed ideas about acceleration. They're taught by people who don't understand what they're teaching while using textbooks that are best-suited to a fireplace. And we get kids who earn Bs or better in high school calculus and then fail the pre-calc placement exam two months later in college (even at places like UC Berkeley). This situation effectively shuts them out of STEM majors because many can't afford an extra year (or two) taking remedial math classes. Also, many Americans don't understand how mortgages work, how credit card interest accrues, or how statistics can be used to distort the truth. Etc.

THIS mess is what Professor Wu was getting at, NOT gifted students.

It may be what he means but it is not how people will interpret it, and he must know that. I am not in the US but it sounds similar to a hand out on so called "modern learning environment" stating that since all children benefit from a challenging ability there is no need to ability group because the challenging curriculum will challenge them all. Yeah right. (that will only make sense to people who have seen certain ads).

But remember college arms race mania. As soon as truly gifted kids are allowed to accelerate, everyone will have to be allowed to accelerate. It's "elitist" and not "equitable" to let some kids accelerate while not giving others "a chance."

This is precisely the result of letting 5-10% of a class jump ahead to algebra in 8th grade (not a big deal 30+ years ago) mixed with today's everyone must go to college mentality and IVY LEAGUE COLLEGE!!! hysteria.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that this is the situation.

But, how do you know this? An article by Wu was extensively discussed in another thread.
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....mon_Core_Mathematics_bac.html#Post172905
He could have articulated what you said, but it's very clear that he didn't. Numerous people, on this forum and elsewhere, are reporting that gifted programming is being shut down, with Common Core being given as the pretext. The designers of Common Core Math, who are on record with their anti-acceleration message, must have known this would happen. They must have known that they could have chosen to protect an appropriate participation rate in accelerated programming, if only they gave a more nuanced message about what degree of acceleration was needed for what proportion of students, but they chose not to, with the predictable result that many children have had the brakes put on their education.

22B, see my response to Puffin regarding equity and elitism.

The situation is awful. Horrible. Insane. It drives me nuts, and I'm not defending putting the brakes on very smart kids. But I've accepted that the situation isn't going to change immediately, and so I have to teach my kids myself.