I've been thinking a lot about this article that came out recently:

http://hechingerreport.org/memorizers-are-the-lowest-achievers-and-other-common-core-math-surprises/

Its not so much been the contention that memorizing is less useful than conceptual understanding but the further step argued that

"Some school districts, such as San Francisco Unified, are trying to slow down the math experience, requiring that advanced students go deeper rather than faster. Students still reach calculus but the pathway to calculus consists of deep understanding rather than procedures and memorization. This is an important move. There is no harm in students being introduced to higher-level mathematics earlier, as long as the mathematics is enjoyable and ideas can be explored deeply. Third graders can be fascinated by the notion of infinity, or the fourth dimension, but they do not need a race through procedural presentations of mathematics."

What this means in practice is SFUSD is forcing everyone to delay algebra until 9th grade and detracking at the same time.

I think in general Boaler fails to connect whether students taking Algebra earlier are conceptually weaker than their ninth grade counterparts or prove that advanced students gain anything from lingering in pre-algebra beyond just asserting that it can be "deeper".

Thankfully this is not our district but I worry that the trend will spread.

From the article: "New brain science tells us that no one is born with a math gift or a math brain and that all students can achieve in math with the right teaching and messages. The classrooms that produce high achieving students are those in which students work on deep, rich mathematics through tasks that they can take to any level they want. No one is told what level they can reach and no one is held back by narrow questions that limit students’ mathematical development and creativity."

No one is born with a math "gift?" I would beg to differ...

This is the same woman who doesn't think that kids don't need to memorize their multiplication tables so I can't really take her seriously.

The problem is that some people will take her seriously and think that gifted kids do not need anything 'special'. I googled Jo Boaler and "gifted children" and found this http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2007/10/does-ability-grouping-harm-students.html

She also has a new book out (which was mentioned in the article), a website (Youcubed)and a "how to Learn Math" mooc for students and parent/teachers. Some people are bound to pay attention.

When I look at the test scores for our state mandated end of course test for Algebra 1, the kids who take it in 8th grade (15-20% of kids in my district) or 7th grade (1-2% of kids) significantly outperform those who take it in high school. Clearly they aren't harmed by taking the class earlier. They do well because in general they are better at math than kids who take it later.

The story I heard about SF schools and why they are eliminated math tracking is different. It's that because the district doesn't have the money to test and evaluated all of their students for advanced math placement into the new Common Core standards. It's SF deciding that given their budget they would rather make the smart kids retake classes than have kids who fall through the cracks. (I don't like it or think it's right but from what I heard last fall it's not about math ideology.) But I'm not surprised to hear someone is trying rationalize it a different way. There are a lot of very unhappy parents and teachers out there and private H.S. in the area are very hard to get into this year.

I'm torn. I think what she says may be true for the middle 50% of kids, and any change that helps half of all kids is worth taking seriously. The problem is that it's somewhat untrue for everyone outside the middle, and harmful to the group on this board.

There needs to be a greater acceptance that it is ok for kids to be different. My kids' love for math really shouldn't feel like a threat, any more than your kid's soccer ability is a threat, and it's just as wrong to coach them the same in math as it would be in soccer.

memorising how to do a calculation without understanding is a problem if you do advanced maths (not a given here). Memorising times tables once you get the concept is very useful.

And what that really means is that parents with the means and motivation to do so will have their capable children taught algebra before 9th grade, while the children without such parents are out of luck.

My wife has told me that "everyone is sending their children to Russian School of Math" (a math afterschool in our town). Although not literally true, it is close to true for her social circle.

From the RSM site:
Chinese parents create their own afterschools (there is an active one in our town), and many of them are mathematicians, engineers, and scientists well qualified to teach algebra classes. They will not let the public schools retard the progress of their children.

"New brain science tells us that no one is born with a math gift or a math brain"

I can't even...what is this...I can't even...

"New brain science tells us no one is born with a musical gift"

"New brain science tells us no one is born with an artistic gift"

"New brain science tells us no one is born with an athletic gift"


UH HUH OKAY

Freaking idiots. I'm guessing the author based that statement on this kind of much more reasonable article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/the-myth-of-im-bad-at-math/280914/



Let's go from there to "There is no such thing as a math gift," though, because that's fun!

It's especially dangerous since she has the Stanford name as her employer. I doubt that she understands math talent since someone with math talent would likely earn credentials in mathematics rather than math education. It is even worse if she does have any real understanding of math talent, then this is simply marketing slime.

I think that the root of this problem is inequality in this country. Soccer skills aren't intimidating because everyone knows that very, very few highly gifted athletes will actually head to the Olympics or the major leagues. This means that few will make a living in sports outside of teaching PE.

Alternatively, kids who are cognitively gifted have an apparently endless list of choices: engineering, science, medicine, public health, economics, writing, etc. etc. etc. So every time some grade-skipped giftie notices something that no one else did or develops a math skill well ahead of his classmates, people are reminded that he was born with options they don't have.

Our society tells people that they need a college degree to survive, yet college is too hard for a lot of people and many others would probably prefer to skip the debt and just go to work at a decent job. Yet those jobs are getting scarcer, and there's so much everyone-must-go-to-college pressure telling kids that they need the degree. Under these circumstances, I can see that mentioning giftedness or the frustrations of math class moving too slowly could make people feel like their children's faces were being rubbed in the dirt of failure.

I'm not saying that it's right to have to keep quiet about intelligence. I'm saying that the other stuff is wrong.

It sounds like that 10,000 hour theory to me.

I do agree with this to a point. And I do think we have a problem with how work and employment are set up today, and I am in so many ways a huge liberal who supports raising the min wage, etc.

But I also think anti-intellectualism is playing a role, as is the desire for everyone to be "the same" and the "all children are gifted" mantra. All children are great, but not all children are gifted in math! I wasn't! But I think we're uncomfortable with that, and also, many grownups are uneasy with very smart children. (I know I'm preaching to the choir.)

Do we as Americans really believe that high intelligence is so great? Do we admire people with natural math talent or do we treat them like weirdos and talk about how they have no common sense? There's always so much chatter about "people skills" and "social skills." I mean, not that I don't think those things are important. But this emphasis is why people who consider skipping are treated like child abusers. We don't really want to have these differences, and so we like to talk a lot about all the other things that make us "the same" or the weaknesses bright kids must inevitably have.

(Yes, I'm bitter because I really should have skipped my son and didn't, in large part because the social judgment would have been too much for me. There are other reasons, too, but he has wasted so much time and I see a lot of damage to be undone.)

Yes I agree with this. I really need to stop doing this when talking about older dd. I don't have any problem talking about younger dd's athletic gifts without bringing up weaknesses, and get enthusiastic agreement from other parents who see her in action. (Well other than the no fear and low pain tolerance which do not seem so positive to me as her scaredy-cat mom:))

Raising the minimum wage to $15 (a level that has been advocated) will just accelerate automation of jobs such as taking orders at restaurants and checking out at stores. Before that happens, employers will reduce hours, saving the $15/hour cashiers for times of peak store traffic. So total income earned by cashiers may rise much less than hourly income.

My wife and I are doing what we can to maximize the "human capital" of our children, all of whom are above average in intelligence. It is likely that in their early 20s, with bachelor's degrees, that their labor will be worth more than $15/hour. There are as many people with IQs below 100 as above, and their labor on day one may not be worth $15/hour. Education will not do as much for them as for brighter people, and setting the minimum wage too high may shut them out of the above-ground economy for a lifetime.

To reduce inequality, encourage the people most likely to have intelligent and productive children to have more of them.

Your argument is flawed. Forcing people to subsist on $9 an hour is not ethical. Raise the minimum wage, institute a fair welfare system and everyone will be better off, physically, morally and financially.

Also, you're trying to " maximise the human capital" of your kids, but what if they decide they have a calling to be a social worker? Or a teacher? Or if they have an accident or disease and become less mentally able than they are now? That wouldn't make them deserving of homelessness or starvation, would it? Think about how physically demanding it is to move house, or do heavy cleaning. Are the people doing those jobs full time not earning the right to be warm, safe and fed?