Why is math so frequently accelerated?

[Sarah0000]

It just seems that way from reading this board. I've noticed it in my own child. I don't think he's particularly great at math (relative to other areas, not age), but with math its so easy to teach. He just seems to be either ready to know it in which case it takes five seconds to teach it, or he's simply not ready but he'll suddenly understand four weeks later. Sometimes I wonder if I'm doing it right because it can't be this easy. But then I think about all the people on this board who also have very young kids working way ahead in math, and have continued to do so over the years.

 

It also makes me wonder if math standards are perhaps not what they should be. I wonder if the average child could do higher math than they are currently expecting, with the right exposure and teaching. We're doing mostly Miquon, but we also occasionally do the Singapore textbook to gauge progress in a more linear, straight forward way. I think both are considered good programs, not fluff.

 

Or maybe its because math is so logical, so easy to see in life, and easier to communicate about and so young children can more easily take off in this subject.

[rebbyribs]

Many children in public school could be doing higher level math. Classroom teachers usually need to keep the class practicing each topic until (almost) every student knows it before moving onto the next thing because most new skills build on previous ones.  

[go_go_gadget]

It also makes me wonder if math standards are perhaps not what they should be. I wonder if the average child could do higher math than they are currently expecting, with the right exposure and teaching. We're doing mostly Miquon, but we also occasionally do the Singapore textbook to gauge progress in a more linear, straight forward way. I think both are considered good programs, not fluff.

 

Given that the students of most other industrialized nations--many of which have informed the curricula so many of us use--it seems clear to me that the average child can achieve on a higher level than is expected in American schools.

[Syllieann]

Most could go faster. I vaguely recall seeing in a Tm to move on when 80% of the class had mastered it...yes, 80%. In an ideal world the eduspeaky differentiation options would address this, but that's just a teeny tiny bone to throw. For the most part, the institutional setting is holding back the overwhelming majority.

[Dmmetler]

It's obvious when it's mastered, and doesn't have as much of an emotional load as other areas. You don't generally have a kid melting down over the injustice to the numbers the way my DD did in history (she ended up being ready for SOTW 4 at exactly the age of the typical 4th grader). You don't worry about explicit scenes the way you do in literature. (Or science. My DD10 is far too informed on all the bad things that can go wrong hormonally during pregnancy due to atrazine-and exactly what this does to male organs not normally seen in public). And math is more independent. You can't really accelerate in history and writing beyond a student's language arts level, and you can't accelerate in science beyond a student's math level, but you can accelerate in math even if science is lagging behind, and you can go pretty far into secondary math without being a strong writer (or, at least, could before common core), and can pick a less "wordy" math text if reading lags behind math a bit.

 

I think that's why often math is accelerated-and, perhaps more important, why parents (and schools) are more comfortable saying definitively that their child is accelerated in math.

[Crimson Wife]

There is a LOT of repetition from year-to-year in the typical American math program. Some kids need it, but many don't. Probably the top 1/3 of students could finish pre-algebra by 6th and then do the kind of integrated secondary math common in most other countries. The topics of algebra 1, geometry, and some of algebra 2 spread out over 7th, 8th, and 9th.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think it's only more noticeable.  What does accelerating reading look like?  KWIM?

 

 

[8filltheheart]

I think it just seems that way b/c when discussing curriculum it is easy to discuss math in terms of a defined book/curriculum.  Most people do use curriculum for teaching math.  When it comes to literature, history, and writing, those tend to not be as easily identifiable.  I have a dd who is "slightly" ahead in math (cal as an 11th grader b/c she really doesn't like math and has no desire to spend time on it), but she read Paradise Lost in 8th grade.  To most people mentioning Paradise Lost doesn't have the same quantifiable meaning as saying my ds was taking AoPS alg 3 at the same age.  

 

My dd could easily be enrolled in 300 level French courses this yr.  She will be ready for 300 level Russian classes next yr.  That just doesn't mean the same thing to most people as the fact that her brother was taking 300 level math and physics courses at those grade levels.

 

Perception.

[Mike in SA]

My theory is different: yes, our schools are too slow, because parents and teachers think it is a good pace, based on adult perceptions.

 

Kids are naturally very logical (ever read "Parts" to your kids?).  Intuition takes longer to develop.  Math is primarily logic for a long time, so lends itself to acceleration at a time when kids are ready for it.  It is more difficult to accelerate after middle school.

 

People think it extreme, but I have not found a 7-8 year old child who could not get basic group theory, nor have I found one that didn't revel in it.  Making  up math is very natural for them.  Drill-oriented rote-memory stuff is not so natural.

[Arcadia]

It is easy to accelerate in a school setting because it is easy to administer an end of course exam to a child and use it as justification for subject acceleration. That was how both my kids get to do subject acceleration for math, science and history when with their public charter.

 

It is harder to skip a few grades for language arts because it is harder to quantify grade levels. Also teachers think that there is some sort of differentiation because kids are assigned books of different reading levels in the same classroom. So a 2nd grader can do a book review of LOTR or Harry Potter without having to skip to 4th grade LA for example. A child who is weak at writing can be given the same assignment as his/her classmate who is a strong writer. Only the output expectations differ.

 

Math teachings in Bay Area is so dependent on the teachers that the child get that it is hard to comment on state math standards.

[regentrude]

The typical math progression in public schools in the US is much slower than the typical math progression in public schools in other countries of the world.

For example, geometry topics like triangle geometry and proofs that in the US are taught in 10th grade are taught in 6th grade in Germany. Linear equations are standard in 7th.

 

So, it's not just gifted kids, but many reasonably smart kids who could progress in math at a much faster pace than the one from standard textbooks and schools.

[Sarah0000]

I thought Singapore is considered a rigorous program. I only have 1a and 1b, and Miquon. The accelerated kids on this board seem to usually do a variety of programs, often including Singapore. So even in other countries that have a faster progression than the US, these kids would still be accelerated in comparison. Or is Singapore, and other common programs, only considered rigorous compared to the US norm but still less rigorous than the norm elsewhere?

[Targhee]

I agree that accelerating, vs public school pace, isn't really that accelerated because American math is pretty sad.  Also, math is objective, ergo easy to quantify whether it is understood.  If you know they got one point, you can move on to the next.  English language, on the other hand, is so much less quantifiable and therefore harder to know just exactly what and how to accelerate.  

 

[eternallytired]

I think it's only more noticeable.  What does accelerating reading look like?  KWIM?

 

This.  Well, mostly this.  In math, there's a pretty clear linear progression.  In reading, you can give an age-graded level.  But at what point is your kid advanced in science or history or language arts in general?  And how much?  In those subjects, there's a far less linear progression, and what every publisher covers at every level varies in its depth.  So I feel comfortable saying that my kids are working ahead in math and can read above their grade level, but I'm not going to claim we're advanced in anything else unless one of my kids shows an intense enthusiasm or unnatural ability to grasp a certain subject.  I just blithely state what we're covering--which usually doesn't have the same effect as, "My X-grader is working on X+2 curricula."

[AimeeM]

Actually, I think math standards have gone the way of the gutter for the opposite reason - I do not think that most academic standard are developmentally appropriate... for most kids. Obviously the exception to this "rule" is the kid who is every exception, and I think that parents with children who are the exception are among some of the more likely to homeschool, so it's going to seem like "most" or "many" on the board are that exception. 

 

 

 

[AimeeM]

The NAEP results show otherwise. Lowered expectations has resulted in lower achievement. A return to placing and grouping by instructional need will allow more children to achieve, instead of holding entire elementary schools to the pace and shallowness needed for special needs.

I absolutely agree, and while I didn't verbalize it well, that's what I meant. The one-size-fits-all "accelerated" pacing, across the subject board, that I'm seeing implemented in an entire class isn't working. 

 

My nephew is ahead of the game in reading. Apparently at his school this year they decided to group by reading ability, on some level, or overall academic assessment (I didn't really understand the grouping when my mom was explaining it). He is not, however, accelerated in math.

 

My mom was thrilled last night, telling me that my nephew had been placed in this accelerated class. 

 

My mother noted that Nephew struggled greatly with his math homework last night. Apparently this class is for children with high eval results, but the placement was finalized by an overall academic assessment... and that a super high reading level would score the eval in such a way that even a child who struggles with math would put them in the accelerated classroom (because, apparently, if you read well, you're obviously accelerated in everything?). 

[Arcadia]

Math is very language heavy in the PS textbooks and workbooks for K-3. It does require someone (teacher, parent, tutor, child) to read.

If there is only one accelerated class in the standard (grade level), then it is not surprising those with strong reading scores on the screening tests are group into that class.

[MarkT]

My personal experience with charter schools around me is that most should be offering Honors (deeper) math versus acceleration. After the students are accelerated they really don't learn the material because their background is deficient for the class to begin with but just keep moving them on. It is sad. I have used after-schooling since 7th grade to fill in the gaps.

 

One of my son's Precalc classmates this year did not know the Pythagorean theorem when the teacher used it in class. The teacher rolled her eyes then proceeded to walk the whole class through it. The capable students were bored to tears.

[DebbS]

It's obvious when it's mastered, and doesn't have as much of an emotional load as other areas. You don't generally have a kid melting down over the injustice to the numbers the way my DD did in history (she ended up being ready for SOTW 4 at exactly the age of the typical 4th grader). You don't worry about explicit scenes the way you do in literature. (Or science. My DD10 is far too informed on all the bad things that can go wrong hormonally during pregnancy due to atrazine-and exactly what this does to male organs not normally seen in public). And math is more independent. You can't really accelerate in history and writing beyond a student's language arts level, and you can't accelerate in science beyond a student's math level, but you can accelerate in math even if science is lagging behind, and you can go pretty far into secondary math without being a strong writer (or, at least, could before common core), and can pick a less "wordy" math text if reading lags behind math a bit.

 

I think that's why often math is accelerated-and, perhaps more important, why parents (and schools) are more comfortable saying definitively that their child is accelerated in math.

 

This.  My son worked only about one level above the norm in math but was very accelerated in language/reading/writing/critical reasoning, etc.... Yet, he still had the maturity level of his age group. Honestly, I was relieved when his social life became more important to him than academics because that reduced the number of challenging, yet age-appropriate resources I had to find for him.

 

He's  in college now and doing very well both academically and socially.  :cheers2:

[IsabelC]

I would hypothesize that, for many kids, math simply doesn't take as long to 'get through' as it does in schools. If that is the case, you have basically three options:

1. Start 'late' and finish 'on time'

2. Start 'on time' and finish 'early'

3. Go off on frequent rabbit trails and enjoy a deeper understanding and/or wider knowledge

(These options are assuming the child/parents want to 'cover' some kind of regular curriculum. Kids who are are radically unschooled and might not cover the same material.)

Option 2 I would guess is more common, since not that many people are comfortable with starting several years later than others, and not that many people love math enough to want to wallow in it.

[Dmmetler]

Or you find out what I did. Going on rabbit trails often ends up meaning that you've inadvertently taught a good chunk of the curriculum to come before you actually get there, and when you do, whoops, it goes really, really, fast!. I think I managed to accidentally pre-teach pretty much all of Singapore 4a-5b, which is what fueled my DD's "I'm DONE with math-I want to do algebra, NOW!!" at age 7.  All I can say is "Thank Heavens for AoPS"-because I suspect that were I to do one of the more popular math curricula in my area, we've probably done the same thing for a big chunk of high school math now. AoPS has slowed her down a lot just because it has so much depth and requires really thinking about problem solving (and having the challenge problems take a week or more to work through a single problem set helps a lot-although that's also why we haven't yet tried the online class.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

Or you have a science crazy kid who self learn all the math he/she needs to do the science. By the time the child hit the textbook, as much as half may be review.

For example DS10 learn about natural log and exponents many years ago because of radioactive decay. He just learn from wolfram alpha.

 

ETA:

I shall blame NOVA for accelerating science which led to accelerating math. Calculus is no stranger already.

[quark]

Yay, multiquote is working again!

 

Or you find out what I did. Going on rabbit trails often ends up meaning that you've inadvertently taught a good chunk of the curriculum to come before you actually get there, and when you do, whoops, it goes really, really, fast!. I think I managed to accidentally pre-teach pretty much all of Singapore 4a-5b, which is what fueled my DD's "I'm DONE with math-I want to do algebra, NOW!!" at age 7.  All I can say is "Thank Heavens for AoPS"-because I suspect that were I to do one of the more popular math curricula in my area, we've probably done the same thing for a big chunk of high school math now. AoPS has slowed her down a lot just because it has so much depth and requires really thinking about problem solving (and having the challenge problems take a week or more to work through a single problem set helps a lot-although that's also why we haven't yet tried the online class.)

 

This for our pure math learner. We have no experience (apart from a few months of trying public school textbooks) with standards-based math and I cannot comment wisely on accelerating math through textbooks or more traditional curriculum. Once the kiddo understood patterns, a lot of his math was learned outside of traditional bookwork and more within a problem solving, I-teach-you-you-teach-me context. It was math via observation and working on selected, challenging problems vs doing tons and tons of questions. The ability to observe patterns makes math intuitive for him because he immediately goes behind the "why"s.

 

Or you have a science crazy kid who self learn all the math he/she needs to do the science. By the time the child hit the textbook, as much as half may be review.
For example DS10 learn about natural log and exponents many years ago because of radioactive decay. He just learn from wolfram alpha.

 

This for the kids I know who want math for active application more than observing just the beauty of math.

 

There will be overlaps of course depending on the child but this is what I see among the math accelerated kids I know in my sizeable local homeschool community.

[Arcadia]

This for the kids I know who want math for active application more than observing just the beauty of math.

DS10 was laughing very hard while reading the book you recommended; Things to make and do in the fourth dimension by Matt Parker. Thanks :)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Things-Make-Fourth-Dimension-Mathematicians/dp/0374275653

 

I borrowed it for me :lol: hubby is so tickled. We ran out of reading materials again :P

[Kerileanne99]

Or you find out what I did. Going on rabbit trails often ends up meaning that you've inadvertently taught a good chunk of the curriculum to come before you actually get there, and when you do, whoops, it goes really, really, fast!. I think I managed to accidentally pre-teach pretty much all of Singapore 4a-5b, which is what fueled my DD's "I'm DONE with math-I want to do algebra, NOW!!" at age 7. All I can say is "Thank Heavens for AoPS"-because I suspect that were I to do one of the more popular math curricula in my area, we've probably done the same thing for a big chunk of high school math now. AoPS has slowed her down a lot just because it has so much depth and requires really thinking about problem solving (and having the challenge problems take a week or more to work through a single problem set helps a lot-although that's also why we haven't yet tried the online class.)

Uh, yes, oops here too:)

I discovered this week, in our official first week of homeschool, that this exact scenario has happened. She has done the Key to series and suddenly everything I had planned to keep her busy is not going to!

Back to the drawing board for math...

[Dmmetler]

Or you have a science crazy kid who self learn all the math he/she needs to do the science. By the time the child hit the textbook, as much as half may be review.

For example DS10 learn about natural log and exponents many years ago because of radioactive decay. He just learn from wolfram alpha.

That's statistics here. I have a feeling that by the time we get to calculus, she may not need a lot of the basics :)