I spoke with our VP yesterday to find out a little more about the MAP test as the interpretation of the scores I had found were not matching hers. The answer is that our district tests higher than a lot of the country so scores, he tested 224, that mean high 6th, average 7th can also mean 5th. She going to get me a copy of their interpretation.

The question I have comes from her last comment. She said the even though he is testing 5th grade for her, 6th/7th for someone else that there should be no curriculum change because it would be developmentally inappropriate for a 2nd grader to be learning exponents. I don't quite understand. How is this developmentally inappropriate? I understand how reading certain books can be developmentally inappropriate even though the child is capable due to the subject matter, but math?

Does math need to be developmentally appropriate and what does that even mean in math? Are there any studies, books, or websites that discuss this issue in regards to gifted children?

Any help or insight you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Yes, but what is appropriate should depend on the child's mental age and current knowledge, not his birthday. Don't rely on the school to make such judgments. Regarding exponents, can your son grasp the idea that 3*3*3*3 = 81 and the idea that 3^4 is shorthand for 3*3*3*3? When you try to teach children something that is beyond their current level, it soon becomes apparent.

Some people believe that in order to understand algebra you need to be at a certain developmental level, one that generally occurs in early adolescence. However, exponents in and of themselves aren't algebra--though it's possible that the person you were speaking with didn't know this (I'm not joking).

What can be inappropriate when kids are skipped several grades are the level of executive skills required, so organization of materials, writing out work completely and properly, dealing with homework, that sort of thing.

Over the years there has been a belief that Algebra requires "abstract thinking", a skill which is typically developed in adolescence. Children do not all develop abstract thinking skills on the same schedule/sequence/timetable.

No. It is not developmentally inappropriate. I live in the tech heavy Nor Cal area and it is not uncommon for kids to be accelerated to algebra level at that age. That being said, I know what she was talking about. Many educators are told that for "most kids", it is very confusing to move from a world of concrete and explicit numbers and computations based on numbers to "abstract computations". They are suddenly told that there is a number called "x" and they need to solve for it and find out what it is and they don't have the "abstract" thinking powers to grasp those concepts at the second grade level. And also that children cannot easily grasp the concept of the equal sign used to balance the RH and LH side of an equation.
Any child in elementary school can be taught how to compute "x+2" and how to solve simple algebraic equations using variables. I am not talking about gifted kids, I am talking about typical kids - give them some "balance math" type of problems to play around with for a couple of weeks and they will get the concept of balancing equations.
To answer your question: no, nothing bad will happen to your child if he is taught algebra now. It may be hard for the teachers and the admins of the school to find the resources and the time to do it , it may be hard on the child because of writing requirements, but, conceptually, if your child has mastered arithmetic, he can handle it. I have seen it being done.
Good luck.

DD and I had what I call the 'magic mirror' math discussion* when she was like seven or eight and she had no problem with it (it's all the lower level stuff like fractions and memorizing multiplication tables that she has issues with). If a child can understand something mathematically then they understand it. It's not like LA where The Scarlet Letter just isn't appropriate no matter how well a child reads.

* Solving for x, the = sign is a magic mirror, moving numbers through the mirror, etc. Really basic intro to variables.

Agree with the others-- this is a matter of an individual who believes that chronological age is synonymous with particular developmental milestones, and that is patently and demonstrably false.

When children are ready for abstract thinking and symbolic representations, they are ready for algebra. Different students are ready at different ages. I venture to say that some of them aren't ready yet when school believe that all children SHOULD be taught those concepts, either.

What's weird is that a lot of people like this believe that there is a tail on THAT end of the distribution, from a developmental standpoint, but at the same time, do not believe that there might be a tail at the other end.

It's because they're not developmentally ready for bell curves.

It is developmentally inappropriate if the child has not done the previous steps. If your child gets multiplication and the link between 4+4+4 and 3x4 they should be fine with 4x4x4 and 4^3.

Thank you everyone!

I did not know that there was such a school of thought surrounding algebra. I do not believe my son would have any problem with the abstract nature or a multi-step problem. However the concept of writing might be a different story. He hates to write. How much writing is involved in algebra? I don't remember any when I took it. I know with the common core everything involves writing know but how significant is it?

I didn't originally mean to get off on a discussion of algebra, though this has proved very enlightening. The example provided regarding exponents was that of our VP but know I understand where she was getting it. Do any you know of any study, report, paper, book, etc that delves into the fact that there may be some children who are able to handle algebra before they hit the appropriate chronological age. Has the G/T community ever explored this?

Ha,ha!! Love this!!

To properly show work, a lot of writing can be required, sometimes many lines per problem. It's not just the amount of writing, but the type of writing as well, in that it can be seen by students as unnecessary because the steps are obvious.

Another issue with starting the Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II sequence early is that geometry is also writing intensive (proofs) and some young students who are ready for algebra may not be ready for geometry.

My son was cognitively ready for algebra when he was 9, but I decided to wait a year because of the writing issue.

Possibly the thread Gifted children could learn math much earlier?

And two points for KathrynH

It's because the child is still stuck in its ethereal body (a constellation of formative forces) and not incarnated into its astral body ( a constellation of soul forces) yet, thus not capable of rational thinking. "Children of this age are mainly ruled by their emotions."

Oops, sorry, wrong thread, what? Isn't it amazing in what many ways educators, even public school teachers as far away as possible from Waldorf education, can be stuck in their misconceptions?

Mandibular development, anyone? Oh, right. That was literacy. I just have this vision of locusts crunching their way through a library, somehow...

Where is math development located in the corporeal body, anyway?

I vote that Kathryn wins the thread, by the way-- that is brilliant.