Repercussions of Common Core - Pushing Alg I back to 9th grade

[LisaKinVA]

I'm not completely certain how they are going to change courses here.  Next year will be the first "fully implemented" CC year at the DoDEA school.

 

It's already near impossible to do any advanced/accelerated work.  Students have been allowed to skip a grade -- but that's been the major way of dealing with acceleration issues.  I'm not certain this will continue.

 

But, having been a child forced to do what everyone else was doing,even when I was capable of far more, it was awful. Angry teenage years can't begin to describe how I felt.  I wasn't going to do that to my kids.  There are children who may need more time, and there are children who don't. 

 

Schools used to have room to accelerate (I was in mixed classrooms or just self-taught during the school day at the schools I attended that allowed for acceleration).   I don't understand why it has to be either-or.  I also don't get the "do it after school on your own or in the summer time" concept.  That's not helpful, either.  Kids have to sit in seats for too long already, but in order to meet legitimate educational needs, they get to be bored stiff (and tired) and then go home or elsewhere to do more work. Talk about not having time to experience life or be a kid! Downtime is crucial as well -- and sitting through doing mind-numbing exercises is NOT downtime.  

 

I could read before K. When I showed up in 1st grade, I had to take a reading test to place me in an appropriate group.  The teacher ran out of book levels for two of us.  She had to go borrow some during our test.  I am so thankful that the teacher was willing to do this, and that I wasn't forced into a one-size-fits-all reading group.  Most of the other class work we did was boring enough (because I usually was waiting around for everyone else to read what I had finished, so I'd be allowed to move on.

 

I think most people would agree that forcing a child who reads fluently to learn to blend and sound out words is a crazy waste of time -- but I'm surprised that people think that kids who quickly grasp +-x/ should have to sit and repeat everything for years -- because that's the best path for the average students.  I've long thought the "raising the standards" and forcing Algebra 1 before 9th was dumb -- but it's equally dumb to force people to wait for Algebra 1 until 9th.

 

In this day and age, with the advance of technology and other resources, it is so much easier to offer alternative paths -- and yet instead of embracing these opportunities, we're shutting them down.  Ridiculous.

 

And yes, we homeschool (and will continue to homeschool) primarily due to the fact that my children are accelerated.  They aren't all the same, and we have stretched out somethings longer, while other children have compacted more, but whether they slow down or compact more, they still have to understand before really moving on (I'm speaking about advanced math, especially at this point).

 

And no, we don't have CC/DE as a viable option -- but we do have other options at home (thankfully -- and thankful to some posters here who help direct me when I'm at an absolute loss).

[Mabelen]

Yes this. My DS got into every college he applied for, including SDSU which only takes about 15% of applicants. The "slower" track didn't seem to hinder him at all.

mamakelly, I am intrigued! Where did you get the 15% acceptance rate from? Last year the admissions rate was 32%, which was consistent with previous years. I am familiar because my daughter was also accepted last year to the Honors Program. If your numbers are correct, that is a huge change!

One caveat is that, while not disputing at all SDSU's solid academics, one of the big reasons for SDSU's popularity, and hence low admissions rate, is its amazing location. Its freshman profile does not look academically the same as that of equally selective UC campuses. Whether the lower math would have hindered him at those campuses or not I guess would depend on how he compared with his peers relative to what was available to him academically in his area as well as with the other applicants.

[8filltheheart]

Yes this. My DS got into every college he applied for, including SDSU which only takes about 15% of applicants. The "slower" track didn't seem to hinder him at all.

 

While your child's life wasn't impacted, my child's life would have been completely hindered by the slower track.  He took his first alg class at 10.  Compare the scenarios:

 

MUS alg and geo, Foerster's alg 1 and 2, geometry, AoPS counting and probability, AoPS alg 3, AoPS pre-calculus......math covered by 9th grade

 

alg 1....covered by 9th grade

 

I cannot fathom a school system telling us that he was really not ready for alg before 9th grade b/c kids just aren't capable of that level of math before then, so he had to stay at the same pace as all students.  He would have been deprived of learning what he was capable of learning.  I classify that as a hindrance.  

 

It is the ps position that just because it is a fine path for most students means that it should be the path for all students that I find appalling.

[Tsuga]

It is the ps position that just because it is a fine path for most students means that it should be the path for all students that I find appalling.

 

I would be shocked if that were the position. I strongly suspect the position of the district would be much closer to, "We would love to provide individuated instruction to 100% of students. However, we are over-budget even to provide adequate instruction, without special needs instruction, to every child, and next year we will have less. Therefore we regret to inform you that we cannot provide a specialist to draw up a separate curriculum for a single child, as amazing as he is. We don't even have a specialist for the ELL curriculum and we have just heard they are resettling 50 refugee families in our zone next year. And we don't have anyone who speaks that language. We are really sorry but your son is welcome to study on his own. Please consider voting for our next levy. We are trying not to cut music instruction or the teacher's aides who support the special needs students to ensure the classroom remains orderly."

 

I am glad your son got to do algebra by age 10. That's great. I hardly think society doesn't want that for every capable child. Individual services require individuals, and individuals require salaries, and salaries are money.

[3andme]

At least for SFUSD and one of the other districts,  they are moving from differentiated paths to one path. So, it doesn't seem to be driven by budget or teachers but by some other curricular or philosophical agenda.

[Guest]

There isn't a perfect track that fits all kids. My son did great with Alg1 at 8th grade. His classmate was done with calc by 8th grade. Both were where they should have been by ability and interest level.

 

My son's friend has a personal recruiter at 3 Ivies right now. Good for him. But had my son been put down that path, he( and we) would be in the loony bin. There isn't a one-size-fits-all--either on the slow- or the fast-track.

[LisaKinVA]

I would be shocked if that were the position. I strongly suspect the position of the district would be much closer to, "We would love to provide individuated instruction to 100% of students. However, we are over-budget even to provide adequate instruction, without special needs instruction, to every child, and next year we will have less. Therefore we regret to inform you that we cannot provide a specialist to draw up a separate curriculum for a single child, as amazing as he is. We don't even have a specialist for the ELL curriculum and we have just heard they are resettling 50 refugee families in our zone next year. And we don't have anyone who speaks that language. We are really sorry but your son is welcome to study on his own. Please consider voting for our next levy. We are trying not to cut music instruction or the teacher's aides who support the special needs students to ensure the classroom remains orderly."

 

I am glad your son got to do algebra by age 10. That's great. I hardly think society doesn't want that for every capable child. Individual services require individuals, and individuals require salaries, and salaries are money.

 

Well...back in the 70's, they stuck me in a cubicle for math -- which I did on my own, out of a book. There were no extra individuals assigned or available. Oh, and I had to check my own work, too (I had to go sit by the teacher's desk to do it).  That was the only alternative to having me sit with the class back then.  It was the best they could do, but it was SOMETHING.  

 

IMO, this "no time and no budget" is an excuse. Schools probably have more resources available than ever before (with computer labs and other tech available), and where there is a will, there is a way.  There are many options that are flat-out ignored today. It is a pervasive belief against differentiation and acceleration that is held by many educators and administrators (who have zero training or knowledge about GT needs), and then they conveniently blame budgets. I've seen it happen.  The budget/resources get blamed, but when a parent steps up and tries to help figure out a way around the problem, they are shut down completely. This pervasive attitude and philosophy is not new. I experienced the backlash against GT programs in CA in the early 80's at a private school. It was AWFUL.  I've seen that attitude grow over the years -- and I believe what is being described here is more of that same thing.

 

ETA:  One reason for keeping the kids all at the same level, is because of testing.  The tests my kids had to take when enrolled at a VA on-line charter were based upon grade level, not learning level. So, ds #1 and dd #2 were 2 years ahead in math, science, history and English at the time.  While he was learning Y, he was being tested on X. By keeping the kids together all at the same level, they can ensure that the information on the TEST will be repeated ad-nauseum. Actual learning be damned , but the kid will bring up the average test scores!

 

[8filltheheart]

Well...back in the 70's, they stuck me in a cubicle for math -- which I did on my own, out of a book. There were no extra individuals assigned or available. Oh, and I had to check my own work, too (I had to go sit by the teacher's desk to do it). That was the only alternative to having me sit with the class back then. It was the best they could do, but it was SOMETHING.

 

IMO, this "no time and no budget" is an excuse. Schools probably have more resources available than ever before (with computer labs and other tech available), and where there is a will, there is a way.

With all of the online options available, students could access appropriate courses inexpensively. Our schools here are 100% digitized. There are no paper textbooks. Even Kers are issued iPads, older kids laptops. Classrooms are full of video teaching and completing assignments online, including the math classes.

[regentrude]

I am glad your son got to do algebra by age 10. That's great. I hardly think society doesn't want that for every capable child. Individual services require individuals, and individuals require salaries, and salaries are money.

 

I am not so sure the bolded is true. There is definite resentment in society to gifted education because it creates "elites" and elites are bad. Better to have everybody be mediocre and the same, so nobody gets ahead.

 

The "no resources" excuse is an excuse. They could excuse the kid from the low level math lesson that is not a good fit and allow independent study, a free online course, or let parents send in appropriate materials.

 

ETA: Our middle school has 12 classes in each grade and 6 math teachers for each grade. It would not cost a dime more to group the kids by ability and to create different levels of math instruction. They have the rooms, they have the teachers. This may still not help for the single student with extraordinary talent, but it would help a LOT of kids.

[wapiti]

IMO, this "no time and no budget" is an excuse. Schools probably have more resources available than ever before (with computer labs and other tech available), and where there is a will, there is a way.  There are many options that are flat-out ignored today. It is a pervasive belief against differentiation and acceleration that is held by many educators and administrators (who have zero training or knowledge about GT needs), and then they conveniently educators blame budgets.

 

Unfortunately, IME this very true.

 

There are some teachers who are adamantly opposed to students working above grade level for a wide variety of reasons.  Then there are others, who agree with the principle but who don't want to go to the minimal logistical effort to make subject acceleration work.  The administrators I've spoken with recently are more than happy to punt to online courses in theory, as long as they're accredited, of sufficient quality and don't require anything from the school's end.

 

Still, there's an issue of proving a student is ready for the higher-level work, which can get rather sticky depending on the standard being used, and there's a chicken-vs-egg angle whereby a student can't prove the need (or even get noticed) without above-grade-level performance but can't achieve above-grade-level performance without having been taught.

 

With online courses, there also remains the issue of keeping kids accountable to the same or similar extent that they'd be accountable in the regular classroom, an issue which will vary in significance depending on the student and on a teacher's organizational skills and willingness to check in with sufficient frequency.

 

I vaguely recall that there was a widely-touted study a few years ago that concluded against early algebra, but I have significant doubts about the quality of its design and its applicability to other individual students.

 

By the time I got to algebra 1 in 8th grade, I had already mentally checked out.  I was so accustomed to coasting by listening to a small fraction of the instruction and daydreaming the rest of the time, I'm not sure how I made it through the rest of high school math as well as I did.  I'm absolutely sure that at least two of my kids' teachers identify me as a Pushy Parent.  So be it.

[Farrar]

I think there's a legitimate case to be made that pushing all the kids, or all the reasonably bright and capable kids, into algebra I as standard in middle school may not be the best thing for most of them. Instead of just barreling ahead, it might be much better for most of them to stop and deepen their knowledge of math before moving on. If done right, that might be a superior and even more rigorous education path for most kids.

 

But the idea that it's better for all kids seems obviously untrue. Some kids will flounder and be bored no matter how much deeper you go with pre-algebra and elementary math because they've already gone that deep.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm not sure what exactly they do in the schools here.  There were issues of resources because locally they turned most of the schools into k-8s.  They could not afford to hire a teacher for every school to offer algebra in middle school.  I guess the way teacher contracts are they can't be forced to teach at more than one school either.  They said they were going to go back to the middle school model they had before.  This is after only a couple of years with the new configuration. They have yet to officially do so though. 

 

Looking at the materials for the state that they post on-line they indeed seem to not offer a course titled "Algebra" until 9th.  However, if you look at the topics covered in middle school, a lot of it is what is taught in basic algebra.  They just aren't calling it that.

 

 

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I would be shocked if that were the position. I strongly suspect the position of the district would be much closer to, "We would love to provide individuated instruction to 100% of students. However, we are over-budget even to provide adequate instruction, without special needs instruction, to every child, and next year we will have less. Therefore we regret to inform you that we cannot provide a specialist to draw up a separate curriculum for a single child, as amazing as he is. We don't even have a specialist for the ELL curriculum and we have just heard they are resettling 50 refugee families in our zone next year. And we don't have anyone who speaks that language. We are really sorry but your son is welcome to study on his own. Please consider voting for our next levy. We are trying not to cut music instruction or the teacher's aides who support the special needs students to ensure the classroom remains orderly."

 

I am glad your son got to do algebra by age 10. That's great. I hardly think society doesn't want that for every capable child. Individual services require individuals, and individuals require salaries, and salaries are money.

[Farrar]

Hogwash. Independent study has been offered for decades. When I was in high school, I spent 3 years taking math independent study with app. 2 doz other students, all quietly thinking and learning. That cost the district very little in comparison to study hall. In my current district, I.s. is provided for in the contract, but the superintendent banned it as the policy is ncga, as students were using i.s. to take FL4 and 5 or doing the banned ib or honors content. Those students were told to go to DE and attend CC on their own dime instead. If they do so, the district makes a profit, as they keep the per student funding.

 

Also, the BOE is charged with providing an education to each student. Plenty of districts manage to do so. We have one nearby, and people continually suggest that we hire their administrators since ours wont do the job. But, with a BOE controlled by a particular union's agenda, we are shouting in to the wind.

 

Independent study is done more at some schools than others - I'm sure there are many schools where it is not the practice or even unofficially forbidden. It still has to be overseen and run by someone and therefore takes time and time is money.

 

I agree that they can do it and therefore if there's a real need that they should. And, as 8fills pointed out, there's a ton of good online options now, meaning they have even less of an excuse than ever before. On the other hand, in a school where they're stretched to the limit to just cover their regular classes, I get why they don't want to do it.

[MinivanMom]

There is no cost difference in supervising study hall or supervising an independent study section, unless a sped teacher or a para is also needed for the I.s. section.

 

Online is not an option for many rural schools. They do not have the equipment or high speed internet, nor are they willing to pay for the courses.

 

Not all high schools offer study hall. I think it is somewhat regional. I attended 3 different high schools in CA and not one of them offered study hall, so the space and the teacher would not have been available for supervision. Even the libraries were often in use for computer classes or meetings, so I don't think that space would have been available either. At two of the schools we were required to take the PSAT in the cafeteria due to lack of space. At the third school, we were bussed to an off-site location for PSAT testing, because even the cafeteria was used for classes during the day. As far as I know, not one of those schools offered any type of independent study option, and I don't know how they would have managed supervising it logistically.

 

The east coast state I live in now offers a wide variety of independent study options, and independent study is considered a very normal thing to do. Students take independent study for credit recovery and to access courses not offered at their local school (rural students). Study halls are widely available for this purpose. Here it would be very easy to implement independent study for the purpose of acceleration.

[Leav97]

I'm not sure what exactly they do in the schools here.  There were issues of resources because locally they turned most of the schools into k-8s.  They could not afford to hire a teacher for every school to offer algebra in middle school.  I guess the way teacher contracts are they can't be forced to teach at more than one school either.  They said they were going to go back to the middle school model they had before.  This is after only a couple of years with the new configuration. They have yet to officially do so though. 

 

Looking at the materials for the state that they post on-line they indeed seem to not offer a course titled "Algebra" until 9th.  However, if you look at the topics covered in middle school, a lot of it is what is taught in basic algebra.  They just aren't calling it that.

 

 

depends on how they choose to implement it/size of the school/skill of the teachers

 

Our zoned middle schools has ~400 kids/grade.  That's 13-14 math classes per grade.  If 1 or 2 of those classes were Algebra 1 instead of Pre-A, it wouldn't require any additional teachers.  However, it would require a teach capable of teaching A1.

 

If you have a little school, like the one I attended, with 60 kids/grade it is a lot harder to dedicate a teacher for the 5-10 kids ready for the class.

[MinivanMom]

What do nonremedial students without study hall do? Are they being sent home?

Still doesnt cost more to offer an honors section or an accel section than a fully included section. It is less actually because the addl teachers and paras arent needed and more students can be in the class.

 

I don't understand your first question. Why would they be sent anywhere? At our local middle school, there are 7 periods per day: 6 academic and 1 elective. Remedial students (or those with IEP's) are required to take Intervention for their elective. It is a special ed class where they get time for supervised study with special ed teachers. They are essentially forced to give up their elective period for that study time. High school students take 8 classes per year (4x4 block scheduling). Students with IEP's are required to take Intervention as one of their electives each semester. So they get two fewer electives each year compared to non-IEP students.

 

I agree that it does not cost more to offer an honors or accelerated section. Many teachers and administrators are simply opposed to the idea as a matter of principle.

[vonfirmath]

There is no cost difference in supervising study hall or supervising an independent study section, unless a sped teacher or a para is also needed for the I.s. section.

 

Online is not an option for many rural schools. They do not have the equipment or high speed internet, nor are they willing to pay for the courses.

 

I have never attended a school with study hall. That seems to be something in TV shows only.

 

Or, I guess, some areas of the country. I grew up in Houston, TX. High School in College Station. Even the kids who went off to Texas A&M for a class ended up placing it at the end or beginning of the day and it replaced two classes. So they better have enough classes to graduate otherwise.

 

 

I agree that it does not cost more to offer an honors or accelerated section. Many teachers and administrators are simply opposed to the idea as a matter of principle.

 

Debateable. It is possible it costs more to hire a teacher with higher math skills/with special designations for handling gifted children.  Though I know our librarian (as she left) complained she was paid nothing extra to do the 1-hr a week class that GT students get in our school. It was considered part of her "other duties as assigned"

 

[idnib]

We didn't have study hall at my junior high, so I was sent to the library to work on my own stuff. I didn't stir them in any way and they were paid to be there. Not sure that's still in school budgets though.

[MinivanMom]

Debateable. It is possible it costs more to hire a teacher with higher math skills/with special designations for handling gifted children.  Though I know our librarian (as she left) complained she was paid nothing extra to do the 1-hr a week class that GT students get in our school. It was considered part of her "other duties as assigned"

 

I know that the requirements for teacher qualifications vary by state, but I thought all middle and high school math teachers were required to have a degree in math. That is certainly the requirement in our state. Why couldn't a middle school math teacher teach one Algebra section per day in addition to her other regular math sections. Even in states that require gifted certification, you should be able to bypass that requirement by not designating the Algebra section as "gifted" or "honors" (even though it would be if only a small percentage of 8th graders are enrolled in it).

 

I'm just really struggling with the idea that not all middle school math teachers would be qualified to teach Algebra I. Anyone with a math degree ought to be able to teach an Algebra I class.

[Arcadia]

I'm just really struggling with the idea that not all middle school math teachers would be qualified to teach Algebra I. Anyone with a math degree ought to be able to teach an Algebra I class.

"According to the NCES study, which surveyed high school teachers during the 2007-2008 school year, fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects, and a quarter of math teachers don't hold math degrees. "

Link http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications

 

There were local news too that teachers in some California schools had to teach math with no math degree because of the layoffs causing shortage of math teachers. Layoffs are last in first out here so if most of the math/science teachers are not senior teachers, you get a wipe out at layoff time.

[Ali in OR]

I could teach in CA without a math degree. All you had to do was pass the CLEP test which was pretty easy as I recall. As an engineering student, I had had plenty of math (4 quarters of calc, Diff Eq, Lin Alg, logic, 2 stats classes) and I was easily able to teach high school courses, but I was not a math major. And I disagree that you need to be a math major to teach high school math--any engineering student and many science students have had plenty of math and are good at problem-solving. Those inclined to teach will probably do well at it.

[Spy Car]

We are going through the Common Core anti-acceleration process as we speak. My boy, a rising 6th Grader tested into a special school-within-a-school that has as its emphasis an accelerated math track. Now the school district (the LAUSD) is requiring students who have already been tested by the school and accepted into the program, to be re-tested using a new (and unproven) test whose results they have still have not set a standard for passing.

 

It is making everyone a little nutso at the eleventh hour. The usual progression for this program is doing 6/7th Grade Math in 6th, with Algebra in 7th. The program has a great record of success and is designed to meet the needs of math adept students. I share the concerns of teaching for "depth" and not being in "a race" to finish AP Calculus BC just because.

 

On the other hand to have bureaucrats throw monkey-wrenches into the works of proven and successful programs just because the "flavor of the month" of academic theory is in a whipsaw move in the wrong direction...makes me want to...to...too...mix my metaphors :D

 

Tests and more tests. I can't wait till summer.

 

Bill

[regentrude]

"According to the NCES study, which surveyed high school teachers during the 2007-2008 school year, fewer than half of chemistry and physics teachers majored in those subjects, and a quarter of math teachers don't hold math degrees. "

Link http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/08/many-stem-teachers-dont-hold-certifications.

 

To quote from the same article:

 

 

 

Luce says the problem is most prevalent in middle school, where more than two thirds of math teachers aren't qualified to teach the subject, a 2007 report by the National Academies shows. Only 1 in 10 middle school physical science teachers have a degree or certification in the subject, according to the same report.

 

[Mabelen]

My daughter is going to Middle School this fall. Her school has approximately 400 students per grade. They can definitely offer an accelerated track doing 9th grade math in 8th grade and they do. What has changed with CCSS is the threshold to get into that path, which is now higher than before. I am still debating what track would be best for my daughter who fell short one point of that threshold but may still qualify through an additional assessment.

[Mabelen]

We are going through the Common Core anti-acceleration process as we speak. My boy, a rising 6th Grader tested into a special school-within-a-school that has as its emphasis an accelerated math track. Now the school district (the LAUSD) is requiring students who have already been tested by the school and accepted into the program, to be re-tested using a new (and unproven) test whose results they have still have not set a standard for passing.

 

It is making everyone a little nutso at the eleventh hour. The usual progression for this program is doing 6/7th Grade Math in 6th, with Algebra in 7th. The program has a great record of success and is designed to meet the needs of math adept students. I share the concerns of teaching for "depth" and not being in "a race" to finish AP Calculus BC just because.

 

On the other hand to have bureaucrats throw monkey-wrenches into the works of proven and successful programs just because the "flavor of the month" of academic theory is in a whipsaw move in the wrong direction...makes me want to...to...too...mix my metaphors :D

 

Tests and more tests. I can't wait till summer.

 

Bill

I am sorry you guys are being put through this. I wonder if the assessment your district is using will be the same as ours. I have to make some enquiries as I still don't know much about it.

[Spy Car]

I am sorry you guys are being put through this. I wonder if the assessment your district is using will be the same as ours. I have to make some enquiries as I still don't know much about it.

Thanks. I have no idea what this test is, nor will the district say. There is no pre-test, or sample test, or any set of scope, sequence, or topic information that is forthcoming. The district bureaucrat in charge of (denying) math acceleration claims to no know what is on the test, or what "passing" would entail, but is determined to prevent any student who doesn't meet standards they are going to set after the fact, from taking algebra in 7th Grade.

 

Instead of compacting 6th Grade math (which is largely review) and 7th Grade math in 6th Grade, the district prefers to make math adept kids plod through 6th Grade math in 6th, then take 7th Grade math and half-a-year of Algebra 1 in 7th, and the other half of Algebra 1 and all of Geometry in 8th. So instead of "compacting" the easy years, they want to compact the harder classes. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

Bill

[Mabelen]

Thanks. I have no idea what this test is, nor will the district say. There is no pre-test, or sample test, or any set of scope, sequence, or topic information that is forthcoming. The district bureaucrat in charge of (denying) math acceleration claims to no know what is on the test, or what "passing" would entail, but is determined to prevent any student who doesn't meet standards they are going to set after the fact, from taking algebra in 7th Grade.

 

Instead of compacting 6th Grade math (which is largely review) and 7th Grade math in 6th Grade, the district prefers to make math adept kids plod through 6th Grade math in 6th, then take 7th Grade math and half-a-year of Algebra 1 in 7th, and the other half of Algebra 1 and all of Geometry in 8th. So instead of "compacting" the easy years, they want to compact the harder classes. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

Bill

How frustrating! Every district seems to be doing things their own way. Our district is compacting 6th grade math and half of 7th in the first year, then the other half of 7th grade math and all of 8th grade math in 7th grade. 8th grade is a High School math course, not called Algebra because our district has chosen to go with integrated math throughout.

[wapiti]

Instead of compacting 6th Grade math (which is largely review) and 7th Grade math in 6th Grade, the district prefers to make math adept kids plod through 6th Grade math in 6th, then take 7th Grade math and half-a-year of Algebra 1 in 7th, and the other half of Algebra 1 and all of Geometry in 8th. So instead of "compacting" the easy years, they want to compact the harder classes. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

It would be interesting to hear their explanation for this because I keep thinking, they can't be *that* stupid.  Maybe it's the Common Core appendix?  I'll copy some things I wrote in this older thread: 

 

The appendix to the Common Core math standards says the following, on page 81, #2 (emphasis mine):

 

Placing students into tracks too early should be avoided at all costs. It is not recommended to compact the standards before grade seven.

 

Something tells me the authors have no real understanding of the costs.  Yet the following are acceptable options (further down on the same page):

• Creating different compaction ratios, including four years of high school content into three years beginning in 9th grade.

• Creating a hybrid Algebra II-Precalculus course that allows students to go straight to Calculus

 

It seems to me that the Appendix to the CCSS is *exactly* where this is coming from, both what the SF district is doing and Bill's district.

 

(As an aside, looking back at the Appendix, what is the Achieve Pathways Group?)

[Arcadia]

(As an aside, looking back at the Appendix, what is the Achieve Pathways Group?)

http://www.achieve.org/about-us

 

They explain the pathway somewhat in this PDF on page 81

http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSI_Mathematics%20Appendix%20A_101110.pdf

 

ETA:

Back home maths is ramp up at 7th, 9th and 11th grade. Same for science. However we have concurrent science (Physics, Chem, Bio every year from 9th) and integrated maths. 1st-6th was light in school.

[LisaKinVA]

The portions I want to quote from Wapiti above won't quote properly...

 

The appendix to the CCSS has got it all wrong!

 

I have three accelerated kiddos, one would be considered "radically" so.  However, what all three have in common is that they compacted the first 6 years of math into four (K-3).  They began moving at different paces once the math became more difficult.  Why would anyone want to compact those more heady maths?  Is this more proof that these standards have no real basis in child development, or relate to any other math programs internationally (you know, the ones they were supposed to be "benchmarked" to?)

 

[RoundAbout]

After homeschooling K and 1st we moved to a major metro city that had a public school program that was 2 years accelerated across the board. My 2nd grader easily qualified and we decided to give it a try. I was excited he would be doing 4th grade Singapore math since that's about the level we were doing at home. In February we returned to homeschooling.

 

What we learned is that the district had a strict policy of NOT accelerating beyond 2 years no matter how capable the child. In addition they did their best to ration access to 6th grade algebra classes even though theoretically most of the kids should have qualified if the program was truly what it claimed. Students who scored a 100% on an algebra readiness test in 5th grade would be denied access to the most advanced middle school track if their 4th grade achievement tests were not high enough. Students who were sick on test day in 4th grade or experienced a large developmental leap were SOL. They also made it a timed test specifically against the instructions of the test company. Why the game playing and restrictions unless their goal is to exclude access to acceleration?

 

I could have lived with it if the program had any depth but delivering the standard shallow PS curriculum 2 years early is simply not a quality education for an advanced learner. If my son had brought home CWP type problems instead of just pages of basic arithmetic I would have been satisfied if not entirely happy.

 

And yet people are clamoring to get their kids into this program because most of the district schools are actively hostile to any acceleration beyond maybe half a grade level. Sorry, but just not convinced that our local public school wants all kids to reach their potential when they have such an explicit anti-acceleration policy.

[MinivanMom]

Thanks. I have no idea what this test is, nor will the district say. There is no pre-test, or sample test, or any set of scope, sequence, or topic information that is forthcoming. The district bureaucrat in charge of (denying) math acceleration claims to no know what is on the test, or what "passing" would entail, but is determined to prevent any student who doesn't meet standards they are going to set after the fact, from taking algebra in 7th Grade.

 

Instead of compacting 6th Grade math (which is largely review) and 7th Grade math in 6th Grade, the district prefers to make math adept kids plod through 6th Grade math in 6th, then take 7th Grade math and half-a-year of Algebra 1 in 7th, and the other half of Algebra 1 and all of Geometry in 8th. So instead of "compacting" the easy years, they want to compact the harder classes. This makes no sense to me at all.

 

Bill

 

Bill, I'm so sorry you are dealing with this. Our district went through the transition two years ago (2013-2014 school year). In our case the district claimed that the CC math standards were so much more difficult that with CC implementation there would be no more acceleration allowed. Kids who had already taken Alg I were allowed to continue on their sequence, but all kids who had not yet started Alg I would be required to attend regular math class even if they were previously accelerated, meaning all kids would be on the same math sequence going forward. So not only would all kids have to wait until 9th grade to start Alg I, but a 4th grader who had completed 6th grade math (2 yrs accel) would be required to retake 5th grade math in 5th grade, 6th grade math in 6th grade, etc to get back on track with their peers. Our parents successfully fought back and won. I'll share what they did just to give you some ideas of how this could be approached:

 

The elementary parents whose accelerated kids were being told they would have to take grade level math even if it meant repeated an entire year (or years) of math fought it out very publicly. They got the education editor at the paper to run a front page article on the travesty of making gifted kids with perfect math scores repeat whole years of math, they drummed up lots of publicity, and they made lots of noise. The district quickly backed down and said that they would allow already accelerated students to be grandfathered in so that they could continue on their accelerated track. The parents of kids who were already accelerated were happy, but they continued to lobby and got acceleration reinstated for this school year (2014-2015). There are a lot more rules and testing requirements, but the acceleration is there as an option.

 

The middle school parents were not so fortunate. Despite lobbying, that entire 6th grade class (except magnet kids) took CC Math 6 as a group (2013-2014). Parents continued to lobby and push, and the district backpedaled. They made up new testing requirements and this year (2014-2015), the 7th graders are split into CC Math 7 and CC Math 7 Plus. The higher option compacts the CC 7 and 8 content, so that they can take Alg in 8th grade. No one in that cohort (except magnet kids) was able to take Algebra in 7th.

 

About the magnet kids: while all the noise was being made over the general math changes in the media and at school board meetings, the parents at the two gifted magnet middle schools quietly lobbied for their kids to be an exception to the new rules. They didn't try to convince anyone that CC wasn't as difficult as everyone thought or try to convince anyone that it was better to compact earlier rather than later. Instead they quietly insisted, outside of the media light, that their children were an exception. The district hemmed a little, but then said that if the students proved themselves on a new test then they could stay accelerated and on track to take Alg I in 7th. The district arranged for a new test to be given on a Saturday. Parents brought their children in for several hours of additional testing, not knowing what would be on the test or what the district would decide was a passing score. This was all kept so quiet that some parents didn't bring their kids for the testing, because they did not know about it. The end result was that a small group of kids was approved for acceleration and are currently taking Alg I in 7th grade. They are the only group of kids currently in 7th grade that didn't have their math sequence messed up by the transition year.

 

I know it's frustrating to be dealing with this, but I would take it as a good sign that they are allowing the kids in your son's program to test. Your best bet is probably to lobby strongly behind the scenes for the kids in this program to be an exception to the new rules. If LAUSD is like so many other districts, then the crazy will blow over in a year or two. You just want to make sure your son's sequence doesn't get messed up in the meantime. Good luck.

[MinivanMom]

 

It would be interesting to hear their explanation for this because I keep thinking, they can't be *that* stupid.  Maybe it's the Common Core appendix?  I'll copy some things I wrote in this older thread: 

 

The appendix to the Common Core math standards says the following, on page 81, #2 (emphasis mine):

 

 

Something tells me the authors have no real understanding of the costs.  Yet the following are acceptable options (further down on the same page):

 

It seems to me that the Appendix to the CCSS is *exactly* where this is coming from, both what the SF district is doing and Bill's district.

 

(As an aside, looking back at the Appendix, what is the Achieve Pathways Group?)

 

 

This was the justification our district used for trying to eliminate acceleration here. The Common Core appendix clearly states that acceleration should be avoided prior to 7th. There you go.

 

They wanted to move toward doing all compacting at the high school level. Our high schools are on 4x4 block scheduling, so it is actually possible to compact math in high school here. Parents fought back, though, so we got to keep our math acceleration and our math tracking. There are more hoops to jump through, but math acceleration is still available.

[VANURSEPRAC]

Once upon a time there was a naive mom who thought math teachers were for the most part knowledgeable and competent and that the curriculum used was at least adequate and effective. My oldest had a mix of good, so so, and excellent teachers. She also had one down right incompetent. She was academically gifted although math was not her strongest area and I was hands off for the most part with her except that I required summer math review even if the school didn't. Now I am resolved to afterschool my younger daughter long term because I cannot simply leave her math education to chance. She is receptive although not often enthusiastic but we keep going.

 

 

You just wrote my story!!!!!

[Spy Car]

Bill, I'm so sorry you are dealing with this. Our district went through the transition two years ago (2013-2014 school year). In our case the district claimed that the CC math standards were so much more difficult that with CC implementation there would be no more acceleration allowed. Kids who had already taken Alg I were allowed to continue on their sequence, but all kids who had not yet started Alg I would be required to attend regular math class even if they were previously accelerated, meaning all kids would be on the same math sequence going forward. So not only would all kids have to wait until 9th grade to start Alg I, but a 4th grader who had completed 6th grade math (2 yrs accel) would be required to retake 5th grade math in 5th grade, 6th grade math in 6th grade, etc to get back on track with their peers. Our parents successfully fought back and won. I'll share what they did just to give you some ideas of how this could be approached:

 

The elementary parents whose accelerated kids were being told they would have to take grade level math even if it meant repeated an entire year (or years) of math fought it out very publicly. They got the education editor at the paper to run a front page article on the travesty of making gifted kids with perfect math scores repeat whole years of math, they drummed up lots of publicity, and they made lots of noise. The district quickly backed down and said that they would allow already accelerated students to be grandfathered in so that they could continue on their accelerated track. The parents of kids who were already accelerated were happy, but they continued to lobby and got acceleration reinstated for this school year (2014-2015). There are a lot more rules and testing requirements, but the acceleration is there as an option.

 

The middle school parents were not so fortunate. Despite lobbying, that entire 6th grade class (except magnet kids) took CC Math 6 as a group (2013-2014). Parents continued to lobby and push, and the district backpedaled. They made up new testing requirements and this year (2014-2015), the 7th graders are split into CC Math 7 and CC Math 7 Plus. The higher option compacts the CC 7 and 8 content, so that they can take Alg in 8th grade. No one in that cohort (except magnet kids) was able to take Algebra in 7th.

 

About the magnet kids: while all the noise was being made over the general math changes in the media and at school board meetings, the parents at the two gifted magnet middle schools quietly lobbied for their kids to be an exception to the new rules. They didn't try to convince anyone that CC wasn't as difficult as everyone thought or try to convince anyone that it was better to compact earlier rather than later. Instead they quietly insisted, outside of the media light, that their children were an exception. The district hemmed a little, but then said that if the students proved themselves on a new test then they could stay accelerated and on track to take Alg I in 7th. The district arranged for a new test to be given on a Saturday. Parents brought their children in for several hours of additional testing, not knowing what would be on the test or what the district would decide was a passing score. This was all kept so quiet that some parents didn't bring their kids for the testing, because they did not know about it. The end result was that a small group of kids was approved for acceleration and are currently taking Alg I in 7th grade. They are the only group of kids currently in 7th grade that didn't have their math sequence messed up by the transition year.

 

I know it's frustrating to be dealing with this, but I would take it as a good sign that they are allowing the kids in your son's program to test. Your best bet is probably to lobby strongly behind the scenes for the kids in this program to be an exception to the new rules. If LAUSD is like so many other districts, then the crazy will blow over in a year or two. You just want to make sure your son's sequence doesn't get messed up in the meantime. Good luck.

 

 

Thanks for the good advice and support. Parents (myself included) have been pretty vocal. The district official giving a "mandatory for parents to attend" math (de)acceleration presentation the other night was hating me my the time the night was over. I've just been literally looking at Middle Schools for 6 years trying to find the best fit for my kid. He get into the program he (an we) felt was the best fit, and now—after we think everything is settled—we deal with ideologically driven impediments.

 

Tonight we visit the school, and will hear more from them. The great news so far is the Principal and the Program Director are 100% committed to carrying on no matter what the district says. I'm actually surprised (and a little in awe) of the resilience and willingness to buck the system that I've seen thus far. Courageous moves so far.

 

Bill 

[wapiti]

The great news so far is the Principal and the Program Director are 100% committed to carrying on no matter what the district says.

 

That's fantastic.

 

It's probably still unclear within this period of change, but next I'd start wondering about high school placement determinations and high school offerings.  In other words, should you be concerned that those may change by the time your ds's grade level gets there.

[Spy Car]

That's fantastic.

 

It's probably still unclear within this period of change, but next I'd start wondering about high school placement determinations and high school offerings.  In other words, should you be concerned that those may change by the time your ds's grade level gets there.

 

I am already somewhat concerned because on the usual track for the program my son is entering he would need to take Calculus BC (or similar) as a senior in High School. That is no problem with the schools were are looking at *now*, but if they slow acceleration to a trickle it could be an issue 5 years from now. So a potential future headache.

 

Life would have been so much easier if we just hadn't started playing with those d*amn Cuisenaire Rods way back when :D

 

Bill

[amsunshine]

Life would have been so much easier if we just hadn't started playing with those d*amn Cuisenaire Rods way back when :D

 

Ha!  But not nearly as much fun, right?   :001_cool:

[wapiti]

I am already somewhat concerned because on the usual track for the program my son is entering he would need to take Calculus BC (or similar) as a senior in High School. That is no problem with the schools were are looking at *now*, but if they slow acceleration to a trickle it could be an issue 5 years from now. So a potential future headache.

 

FWIW, I have learned more about how a particular high school math path works as a practical matter from students/parents than from official written policies.  (For example, the course catalog at dd's school used to state that the year-long AB was a prerequisite for the year-long BC, though as of recently, that was removed and the catalog is now intentionally vague.  The change reflects what a math team member had told me about what strong students were actually doing.)

[Spy Car]

FWIW, I have learned more about how a particular high school math path works as a practical matter from students/parents than from official written policies.  (For example, the course catalog at dd's school used to state that the year-long AB was a prerequisite for the year-long BC, though as of recently, that was removed and the catalog is now intentionally vague.  The change reflects what a math team member had told me about what strong students were actually doing.)

 

The irony, in some sense, is I don't really care. I want my child to be happy. To enjoy learning. To be in a school with nice kids, and caring teachers. To be challenged, but not stressed. And we found a nice fit.

 

Right now they have about 70 students per grade level (two classes worth). They mix them up, but they all the "math" kids take their general ed. classes together. Nice in an otherwise big public school. They have their own little "academy." If they need to start denying students who are already admitted to the program "acceleration" based on not passing a new math test, then it could disrupt the whole continuity of the program. This is making be nuts. I'll know more after tonight.

 

As to "intelligence gathering" I always ask students for "the real story" about classes and teachers. You are spot-on about that!

 

Bill

[Nart]

The irony, in some sense, is I don't really care. I want my child to be happy. To enjoy learning. To be in a school with nice kids, and caring teachers. To be challenged, but not stressed. And we found a nice fit.

 

Right now they have about 70 students per grade level (two classes worth). They mix them up, but they all the "math" kids take their general ed. classes together. Nice in an otherwise big public school. They have their own little "academy." If they need to start denying students who are already admitted to the program "acceleration" based on not passing a new math test, then it could disrupt the whole continuity of the program. This is making be nuts. I'll know more after tonight.

 

As to "intelligence gathering" I always ask students for "the real story" about classes and teachers. You are spot-on about that!

 

Bill

 

LAUSD is big on memos and bulletins. If you are looking for district policy it is helpful to google the subject, LAUSD, and bulletin or memo. Some of their bulletins are not available to the public only to people who work in the district. My husband works as a middle school English teacher for LAUSD  I will ask him tonight what is up with math acceleration at his school that has a SAS program where 7th graders take Alg. 1.  In the meantime here is a link to the most current secondary school math courses and pathways.

 

http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/244/Accelerated%20Math%20Pathway%20-%20Complete%20Series.pdf

 

It says 6th graders should all be enrolled in CC Math 6 and acceleration should not take place until 7th grade but does make this exception on page 5 for one half of one percent of students so 99.5% of students are SOL if they want to be challenged in 6th grade.  So there is a way to accelerate 6th graders, it just looks like the school has to be really proactive about it, which means even less than 0.5% of students in LAUSD will be accelerated in 6th grade. From the memo:

 

 

Alternative Accelerated Pathway Courses 

 

The Alternate Accelerated Pathway option outlined in this memo compacts five years of CA CCSSM into three years for the highest achieving students, estimated to be less than one-half of one percent of all fifth grade students in the District. Two years of math are compressed into Alternative Accelerated Common Core Math 6/7. Similarly, two years of math are compressed into Alternative Accelerated Common Core Math 8/ Algebra 1. Common Core Geometry may then be taken in grade 8. 

ï‚· 6th grade: Alternative Accelerated CC Math 6/7 (310113/14) (compacts 6th and 7th grade CA CCSSM) 

ï‚· 7th grade: Alternative Accelerated CC Math 8/Algebra 1 (310119/20) (compacts 8th grade and Algebra 1 CA CCSSM) 

ï‚· 8th grade: CC Geometry (Geometry CA CCSSM) (310423/24) 

 

 

Placement Guidelines: Incoming 6th graders 

 

Grade 5 students transitioning to grade 6 and meeting specific requirements for acceleration should refer to Attachment C. The District recognizes that there may be a few students who are highly gifted or capable of performing at extremely high levels in mathematics, and a special program should be designed for these 

students at the schools that choose to offer such a program. Both the school and the students should meet all the requirements in Attachment C. To ensure that a proper and adequate program is designed for these students, it is important to base the decision on a wide range of data including: school, parent, and student components. The school must apply for a waiver and for consideration to offer such a program. Before the waiver application is submitted for approval, the school must meet all criteria listed for both school site and parent components. Below are the steps that each middle or span school, parent, and student must take in order to ensure success in offering this Alternative Accelerated Pathway: 

Step 1: Middle and span school representatives must attend an informational meeting at the ESC to gain understanding of the expectations of all pathways offered to students. 

Step 2: Schools will provide a parent education meeting to share pathway components. 

Step 3: Parents sign Alternative Accelerated Agreement (Attachment B2). 

Step 4: Students must have a score of 4 in mathematics on all report cards for grades 4 and 5. 

Step 5: Once all of the above criteria are met, a student will be eligible to take the 6th grade placement examination. Students must earn a score of proficient to enter the Alternative Accelerated Pathway. If a student has not met the above criteria, parents can elect to have student take the 6th grade placement examination. Students must receive a score of proficient to be enrolled in the Alternative Accelerated Pathway. 

Each ESC planning to provide this service should work with their schools to schedule the assessment dates and locations 

d. Continued Enrollment in the Alternative Accelerated Pathway 

 

 

[3andme]

I find it interesting that the school districts in CA (LAUSD and SFUSD) are suggesting that the CC standards can't be compacted before 8th grade because they are more rigorous and challenging. However, previous to Common Core, California along with Massachusetts were known for having more rigorous math standards than most states. When I looked at a comparison from the Sacramento School District, it really appears that CC is actually behind on a number of concept standards. With some of the standards previously listed for 4th and 5th grade not being covered until much later in CC.  I'm not sure that's such a bad thing as maybe there were too many concepts to to be covered well before; however, I don't see how it supports the PR messaging about CC being so rigorous it can't be compacted.

 

I didn't have the patience to go through all the grade levels but it looks like 6th-8th is the area where there is the biggest mismatch between the two programs with many of the concepts being moved around within those grades. 

 

Another thing I was wondering is why don't we see the same issues with English/Language Arts. It seems like there must be some students who should be accelerated in that area as well. 

[Spy Car]

i gotta go. Good posts. Thanks!

 

Bill

[Caroline]

i gotta go. Good posts. Thanks!

 

Bill

Good luck! Fight the good fight! Do not go gentle into that good night.

[Spy Car]

I don't want to go too deep on a public forum, but tonight's meeting with the teachers, program directors, and incoming students and parents could not have been better. 

 

The students have great advocates at this school. And were feeling really good tonight.

 

Thanks for the support!

 

Bill

[Mabelen]

I don't want to go too deep on a public forum, but tonight's meeting with the teachers, program directors, and incoming students and parents could not have been better.

 

The students have great advocates at this school. And were feeling really good tonight.

 

Thanks for the support!

 

Bill

I am happy it went well tonight. Please keep us posted.

[MinivanMom]

I don't want to go too deep on a public forum, but tonight's meeting with the teachers, program directors, and incoming students and parents could not have been better. 

 

The students have great advocates at this school. And were feeling really good tonight.

 

Thanks for the support!

 

Bill

 

I'm so glad it went well. Keep fighting!

[Spy Car]

It seems our Middle School will be one of extremely few in California that will have a what's being called an "Alternative Accelerated Pathway" as a track (meaning CC Algebra in 7th and CC Geometry in 8th).

 

This is not allowed in most districts in CA, including San Francisco. It is *highly* discouraged in Los Angeles. The Principal and Program Director are walking though mine-fields to get this done. One doesn't always have the opportunity to be awestruck at the courage of school officials standing up to the pressure of school districts, but boy am I impressed! 

 

I guess we will be the "guinea pigs." If "acceleration" goes wrong, this program will be the poster-child for failure, I'm sure. But I'm pretty darn sure it will go well. And my appreciation for the commitment and integrity of the Teachers, Program Director, and Principal have risen to a whole new level. They really have, in the most diplomatic ways possible, put themselves on the line to protect what they see as the best interests of their students. I'm really feeling grateful.

 

Bill (who will bring you news from the front lines of the Math War as they happen :D) 

 

 

[Arcadia]

It seems our Middle School will be one of extremely few in California that will have a what's being called an "Alternative Accelerated Pathway" as a tract (meaning CC Algebra in 7th and CC Geometry in 8th).

 

This is not allowed in most districts in CA, including San Francisco. It is *highly* discouraged in Los Angeles.

 

Is LAUSD basic aid?  My district is basic aid and hates changes so we haven't seen any change so far.  They just purchase the common core edition of algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2 and then continue business as usual :lol:   44% of prop tax goes to K-12, 7% of prop tax to community colleges.