FYI: Collegeboard middle school math program (California comon core ed)

[Roadrunner]

Roadrunner, have you seen this thread from the High School Board?

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

It might answer some of your questions, and give you some whole new ones . . . :p

I did. That's the thread that made me so hopeful and sent me looking at CC middle school materials. I read through grade 6 through 8 math materials (along with CC standards) put together by New York and my hope turned into panic. While concepts are explained well, content is lacking. On a forum where so many are using AOPS, I was surprised that nobody raised their eyebrows over it. To be fair, I haven't read in detail high school level standards (planning on a long night here :) ), but middle school one seems weak.

As Derek pointed out, much will depend on school districts, and there isn't just one path for different students. hopefully our district will opt for a more rigorous path.

[wapiti]

Derek, thanks for so much detail. Now armed with new knowledge, I can at least ask better questions to our district. Have you (or anybody else) by any chance compared AOPS textbooks against those standards? I see you are using AOPS algebra text. I am breathing better. :)

My friend's daughter will be starting local middle school next year, so I will be taking detailed notes. :)

 

FWIW, I'm hoping that not a lot will change where I am - fingers crossed!  My understanding is that even after aligning with CC, our local public middle school still has at least three math tracks (gifted students take alg 1 in 7th, advanced students take alg 1 in 8th, regular students take alg 1 in 9th).  My dd will finish alg 1 this year in 7th at her private middle school though she may be the only one in her class to do so, long story - they teach alg 1 over two years.  We are shooting for a private high school that takes students from all over our metro area, including a large portion from public middle schools. Now that I almost have a handle on the high school's current math tracks and placement tests, I'd like to find out whether they anticipate changes due to CC  :tongue_smilie:. My suspicion is that there won't be changes at this private high school until if and when the college board testing changes substantially but I should at least email a math teacher to ask.

 

If you are hoping to use AoPS, I can't imagine there will be much of a concern, but if you're planning on starting public high school at some point in the middle of the AoPS sequence, I'd want to learn details about their levels and how they determine placement.  I suppose that whatever it is now, it could easily change by the time your kids get there.  The enormous uncertainty is hard to take.

 

My next kids up for middle school, the ones I'm currently afterschooling with AoPS, will stay in their current charter.  The 7th and 8th grades are new and very small, so there is a certain amount of flexibility.  I don't think I'll have CC concerns with them though I should make it a point to ask.

[dereksurfs]

Derek, thanks for so much detail. Now armed with new knowledge, I can at least ask better questions to our district. Have you (or anybody else) by any chance compared AOPS textbooks against those standards? I see you are using AOPS algebra text. I am breathing better. :)

My friend's daughter will be starting local middle school next year, so I will be taking detailed notes. :)

 

No, I haven't done a detailed comparison with AoPS.  But generally speaking from what I've read in the standard AoPS courses will have no problem exceeding it in terms of conceptual instruction and level of rigor.  Scope will vary depending on which AoPS texts are utilized.  

[8filltheheart]

I did. That's the thread that made me so hopeful and sent me looking at CC middle school materials. I read through grade 6 through 8 math materials (along with CC standards) put together by New York and my hope turned into panic. While concepts are explained well, content is lacking. On a forum where so many are using AOPS, I was surprised that nobody raised their eyebrows over it. To be fair, I haven't read in detail high school level standards (planning on a long night here :) ), but middle school one seems weak.

As Derek pointed out, much will depend on school districts, and there isn't just one path for different students. hopefully our district will opt for a more rigorous path.

I wonder how many people in that discussion have even looked at the CC standards. In know that I haven't. I can only speculate that those of us who have been through high school with some kids already just aren't overly concerned one way or the other and haven't put much energy into researching it. I know that the idea that somehow the vast majority of ps kids are going to be surpassing Foerster's quality of depth in the middle grades and surpass it as a traditional high school alg credit makes me laugh. Not unless they fire all the teachers in the US and replace them with better educated teachers and somehow improve Americans attitude toward the value of even learning alg in the first place. ;)

[Arcadia]

Have you (or anybody else) by any chance compared AOPS textbooks against those standards?

I have not compare AoPS textbooks to common core standards. However I am using the prealgebra, intro to algebra and the intro to geometry book to match up to my older's K12 prealgebra. He will be taking the California's standardized test this coming spring as a 4th grader so it makes no difference to him testing wise when he cover those topics.

I could do a comparison between California's common core standard and the three AoPS textbooks I have but I'll be free to do that only next week.

ETA:

Just to clarify, I mean a scope/sequence comparison.

[Roadrunner]

FWIW, I'm hoping that not a lot will change where I am - fingers crossed!  My understanding is that even after aligning with CC, our local public middle school still has at least three math tracks (gifted students take alg 1 in 7th, advanced students take alg 1 in 8th, regular students take alg 1 in 9th).  My dd will finish alg 1 this year in 7th at her private middle school though she may be the only one in her class to do so, long story - they teach alg 1 over two years.  We are shooting for a private high school that takes students from all over our metro area, including a large portion from public middle schools. Now that I almost have a handle on the high school's current math tracks and placement tests, I'd like to find out whether they anticipate changes due to CC  :tongue_smilie:. My suspicion is that there won't be changes at this private high school until if and when the college board testing changes substantially but I should at least email a math teacher to ask.

 

If you are hoping to use AoPS, I can't imagine there will be much of a concern, but if you're planning on starting public high school at some point in the middle of the AoPS sequence, I'd want to learn details about their levels and how they determine placement.  I suppose that whatever it is now, it could easily change by the time your kids get there.  The enormous uncertainty is hard to take.

 

My next kids up for middle school, the ones I'm currently afterschooling with AoPS, will stay in their current charter.  The 7th and 8th grades are new and very small, so there is a certain amount of flexibility.  I don't think I'll have CC concerns with them though I should make it a point to ask.

 

Prior to CC, local middle school placed GATE kids into preA in 6th, algebra in 7th, and geometry in 8th. Now my friend (her daughter will be in 6th next year) is being told all kids take Math 6. No differentiation. We don't know if that will change in 7th and 8th. Hopefully there will be different tracks in upper grades.

I had a plan. :) I was going to cover AOPS preA, Algebra and geometry in grades 5 through 8 and then put my kid in high school. They are messing with my plan! :)

 

I wonder how many people in that discussion have even looked at the CC standards. In know that I haven't. I can only speculate that those of us who have been through high school with some kids already just aren't overly concerned one way or the other and haven't put much energy into researching it. I know that the idea that somehow the vast majority of ps kids are going to be surpassing Foerster's quality of depth in the middle grades and surpass it as a traditional high school alg credit makes me laugh. Not unless they fire all the teachers in the US and replace them with better educated teachers and somehow improve Americans attitude toward the value of even learning alg in the first place. ;)

I wish experienced moms who have worked through higher math (and have soooo much time on hand) would take a look at those standards more closely. It's hard to have an educated opinion with SM 4B as the highest math completed so far. :)

[Roadrunner]

I have not compare AoPS textbooks to common core standards. However I am using the prealgebra, intro to algebra and the intro to geometry book to match up to my older's K12 prealgebra. He will be taking the California's standardized test this coming spring as a 4th grader so it makes no difference to him testing wise when he cover those topics.

I could do a comparison between California's common core standard and the three AoPS textbooks I have but I'll be free to do that only next week. (We are in the same state right?)

Oh yes, we are in CA!!! Thanks for taking time to do this!

[8filltheheart]

Prior to CC, local middle school placed GATE kids into preA in 6th, algebra in 7th, and geometry in 8th. Now my friend (her daughter will be in 6th next year) is being told all kids take Math 6. No differentiation. We don't know if that will change in 7th and 8th. Hopefully there will be different tracks in upper grades.

I had a plan. :) I was going to cover AOPS preA, Algebra and geometry in grades 5 through 8 and then put my kid in high school. They are messing with my plan! :)

I wish experienced moms who have worked through higher math (and have soooo much time on hand) would take a look at those standards more closely. It's hard to have an educated opinion with SM 4B as the highest math completed so far. :)

Did you see this thread? http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/498781-has-anyone-seen-the-free-complete-math-curriculum-from-engage-ny-common-core/?langid=1&langid=2

 

I skimmed through it whenever it was posted and I wasn't impressed. Nothing earth shattering.

 

fwiw, the MiF Course 1 ( which is 6th grade) that I ordered this yr is CC and the TM has all the application problems broken down into student abilities....I don't recall the terminology but essentially it is avg, some middle category, and advanced. So most students aren't even expected to be able to complete all the problems. It is a fallacy to think that somehow just switching to different textbooks is going to somehow have all students functioning at an advanced level. I really think in terms of CC the conversation is much ado about nothing. Students and abilities aren't just going to miraculously change. American math standards needed to improve, but if you are already using quality math curriculum, you already have good standards. ;). If you use some of the homeschool market programs, your children might have problems. (I think a parent comparing grade 7 from one of those to the linked grade 7 might have a hard time reconciling the 2)

 

Where I would be concerned if I wasn't going to be homeschooling is how individual districts are going to implement it and whether or not the issues of non-acceleration that are rumbling around are real or are they just rumblings.

 

Eta--- an interesting read about the major issues occurring in math and examples of what should taught-The Mathematics Pre-Service Teachers Need to Know

ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/FIE-book.pdf

 

And that CC is even being compared to AoPS is such a stretch that I can't fathom how that is even in the realm of realistic. AoPS couldn't even get funding from the dept of ed bc they said:

"While challenging and improving the mathematical problem-

solving skills of high-performing students are surely every-day

objectives of those who teach such students, it is not a problem,

relatively speaking, of major import in American education."

AoPS is simply not a realistic goal for a majority. It just isn't. It is meant for top students for a reason.

[snowbeltmom]

I wonder how many people in that discussion have even looked at the CC standards. In know that I haven't. I can only speculate that those of us who have been through high school with some kids already just aren't overly concerned one way or the other and haven't put much energy into researching it. I know that the idea that somehow the vast majority of ps kids are going to be surpassing Foerster's quality of depth in the middle grades and surpass it as a traditional high school alg credit makes me laugh. Not unless they fire all the teachers in the US and replace them with better educated teachers and somehow improve Americans attitude toward the value of even learning alg in the first place. ;)

 

This! 

 

I have no idea whether the math curricula I am using with my kids meets the CC standards and have no interest in spending the time to find out because I wouldn't change what I am doing at home anyway.

 

 

[wapiti]

I had a plan. :) I was going to cover AOPS preA, Algebra and geometry in grades 5 through 8 and then put my kid in high school. They are messing with my plan! :)

 

I have a similar plan and I've been thinking the same thing :).  I still don't see that CC points schools toward integrated programs (that was hinted at in the other thread?) though I just glanced at the high school standards. It would seem to be easier to jump into the appropriate level of the standard sequence than into programs that may be integrated differently.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[dereksurfs]

I have a similar plan and I've been thinking the same thing :).  I still don't see that CC points schools toward integrated programs (that was hinted at in the other thread?) though I just glanced at the high school standards. It would seem to be easier to jump into the appropriate level of the standard sequence than into programs that may be integrated differently.

 

Currently, the high school we are considering uses normal texts: Jurgensen for Geometry, Brown Dolciani for honors alg 2/trig, Demana for precalc, and Finney for calc (both ab and bc, over two years), though I expect far less reaction to CC with it being a private school, unless standardized tests raise an issue at some point.  Maybe that's what you could do as your kids get closer to middle school (it might change) - try to find out what your high school is using (email a math teacher if necessary) and how placement is determined.  Also consider what acceleration is available at the other middle schools that feed into your high school.  Some of this might be available on websites if you search creatively.

 

I'd like to see the standards in outline form with keywords rather than full sentences - I plan to spend some time with them eventually.  At a glance, the 8th grade standards aren't much more than Dolciani's Prealgebra, An Accelerated Course or Prentice Hall's Pre-algebra, with the addition and subtraction of a few topics.

 

One of the key points Jann in TX brought out on the High School forum is that Exponents and Roots will now be a stronger part of Math 8:

 

"CCSS.Math.Content.8.EE.A.1 Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 3² Ã— 3^–5 = 3^–3 = 1/3³ = 1/27.

 

Very few traditional US Algebra 1 texts teach negative exponents--and typically as an introductory level to be expanded in Algebra 2.. but  now the students will need to have mastered this concept in Math 8 before moving into Math 1 (9th grade and traditionally Algebra 1)."  -- http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

I know TabletClass and AoPS Pre-Algebra cover negative exponents at least in part.  But I'm not sure about Dolciani.  

[8filltheheart]

 

Very few traditional US Algebra 1 texts teach negative exponents--and typically as an introductory level to be expanded in Algebra 2.. but  now the students will need to have mastered this concept in Math 8 before moving into Math 1 (9th grade and traditionally Algebra 1)."  -- http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

I'm not sure how valid a pt that is.   I posted on the other thread that Foerster teaches negative exponents.   I just pulled out our MUS alg book and it even covers negative exponents.   If it is in MUS, I can't imagine it is missing in the majority of textbooks since I see MUS's algebra on a pre-alg level.

[dereksurfs]

I'm not sure how valid a pt that is.   I posted on the other thread that Foerster teaches negative exponents.   I just pulled out our MUS alg book and it even covers negative exponents.   If it is in MUS, I can't imagine it is missing in the majority of textbooks since I see MUS's algebra on a pre-alg level.

 

What she appears to be driving at is that students will have to have this mastered before moving into Algebra 1.  So it will be expected knowledge at that point.  I have an old copy of MUS Pre-A at home which I can check later.  But I doubt its in there though you've confirmed its in Algebra 1.  I also think *level of coverage* is another aspect she brings out. Some publishers may quickly gloss over the topic while others go more in depth in terms of overall utilization.  I'm pretty sure AoPS is fine in this area.  Though I haven't looked at the other favorites yet: Dolciani, Foerster, Jacobs, Lials, et al.

[regentrude]

Yes, I'll continue to look with interest at the College Board's SpringBoard curriculum.  And, no I have very little experience with the company which in this case I'm glad about since it allows me to evaluate their curriculum independent of their other endeavors, test, etc...  Maybe when our kids are older and we go through more of the problems which you've encountered I'll have more of a general dislike for the company.  Who knows?  But for now I'm just going to focus on preparing them for college using the best curriculum I can find to achieve those goals.  This may involve their prep books, curriculum or whatever else proves beneficial.

 

The main business of the College Board is the design and administration of tests that presumably are a measure for college success. In reality, high scores on these tests have very little to do with college success, nor are high scores in, say, the math sections of these exams a good measure for actual math mastery.

Seeing that this is the main stream of revenue of the CB, I would expect any curriculum they roll out to be closely aligned with the tests they administer, not a good preparation for college.

 

I am especially concerned about the CB's influence since they are stealthily attempting to influence what colleges are supposed to teach, which is a disastrous overreach. Colleges should decide what they teach, and the CB should listen to the colleges' input of what constitutes a good preparation, not vice versa. It's the tail wagging with the dog.

 

Because of the CB's conflict of interest, I expect any CB curriculum to be particularly good at teaching to the test, because that is the way for them to get people to adopt their curriculum.

[8filltheheart]

The main business of the College Board is the design and administration of tests that presumably are a measure for college success. In reality, high scores on these tests have very little to do with college success, nor are high scores in, say, the math sections of these exams a good measure for actual math mastery.

Seeing that this is the main stream of revenue of the CB, I would expect any curriculum they roll out to be closely aligned with the tests they administer, not a good preparation for college.

 

I am especially concerned about the CB's influence since they are stealthily attempting to influence what colleges are supposed to teach, which is a disastrous overreach. Colleges should decide what they teach, and the CB should listen to the colleges' input of what constitutes a good preparation, not vice versa. It's the tail wagging with the dog.

 

Because of the CB's conflict of interest, I expect any CB curriculum to be particularly good at teaching to the test, because that is the way for them to get people to adopt their curriculum.

Have to quote this bc liking it once just isn't enough. :)

[8filltheheart]

What she appears to be driving at is that students will have to have this mastered before moving into Algebra 1. So it will be expected knowledge at that point. I have an old copy of MUS Pre-A at home which I can check later. But I doubt its in there though you've confirmed its in Algebra 1. I also think *level of coverage* is another aspect she brings out. Some publishers may quickly gloss over the topic while others go more in depth in terms of overall utilization. I'm pretty sure AoPS is fine in this area. Though I haven't looked at the other favorites yet: Dolciani, Foerster, Jacobs, Lials, et al.

I just don't see the big deal. It isn't as if negative exponents are that difficult of a concept.

[wapiti]

One of the key points Jann in TX brought out on the High School forum is that Exponents and Roots will now be a stronger part of Math 8:

 

"CCSS.Math.Content.8.EE.A.1 Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 3² Ã— 3^–5 = 3^–3 = 1/3³ = 1/27.

 

Very few traditional US Algebra 1 texts teach negative exponents--and typically as an introductory level to be expanded in Algebra 2.. but  now the students will need to have mastered this concept in Math 8 before moving into Math 1 (9th grade and traditionally Algebra 1)."  -- http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/

 

I know TabletClass and AoPS Pre-Algebra cover negative exponents at least in part.  But I'm not sure about Dolciani.  

 

Dolciani's prealgebra teaches negative exponents in section 2-8.  The copy of PH prealgebra that i have also teaches negative exponents.  I realize it's not universal, but even Lial's Prealgebra teaches negative exponents.

 

At any rate, that typically requires just one lesson.  Indeed, one wonders how scientific notation can be properly taught, conceptually, without reference to negative exponents.  (Don't most programs include something on scientific notation?  not that that means anything...)

 

eta, note that the negative exponents are in the example but not referenced in the sentence describing the standard.  The way the standards are written leaves room for interpretation.

[Arcadia]

One of the key points Jann in TX brought out on the High School forum is that Exponents and Roots will now be a stronger part of Math 8:

 

"CCSS.Math.Content.8.EE.A.1 Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 3² × 3^–5 = 3^–3 = 1/3³ = 1/27.

 

K12 prealgebra which is used by the virtual academies cover that in their hardcover textbook; just a fyi.

[dereksurfs]

The main business of the College Board is the design and administration of tests that presumably are a measure for college success. In reality, high scores on these tests have very little to do with college success, nor are high scores in, say, the math sections of these exams a good measure for actual math mastery.

Seeing that this is the main stream of revenue of the CB, I would expect any curriculum they roll out to be closely aligned with the tests they administer, not a good preparation for college.

 

I am especially concerned about the CB's influence since they are stealthily attempting to influence what colleges are supposed to teach, which is a disastrous overreach. Colleges should decide what they teach, and the CB should listen to the colleges' input of what constitutes a good preparation, not vice versa. It's the tail wagging with the dog.

 

Because of the CB's conflict of interest, I expect any CB curriculum to be particularly good at teaching to the test, because that is the way for them to get people to adopt their curriculum.

 

Yes, I can see these being valid criticisms of the company as a whole even prior to reviewing their new materials.  All I am saying is I'd like to see a review of it in comparison to other curricula.  Maybe its just a rehash of their other existing materials with the same agenda (e.g. take over the education world).  Or maybe the curriculum actually has good content and methods employed.  That still remains to be seen.  Sometimes an effort of this magnitude is designed by another internal or external group which could result in a pretty good product... or not.  Still, I think it somewhat premature to call it DOA before any thorough reviews takes place.

 

As an aside I don't think I've ever seen a publisher so despised on TWTMF.  I don't work for them BTW.  I'm just interested in their new product.   :w00t:

[wapiti]

Derek, i think the more problematic topic that is pushed into the standards for 8th is solving systems of equations algebraically.  I can't get the quote right now, stuck on the kindle, but that is in addition to solving by graphing.

[Roadrunner]

I have a similar plan and I've been thinking the same thing :). I still don't see that CC points schools toward integrated programs (that was hinted at in the other thread?) though I just glanced at the high school standards. It would seem to be easier to jump into the appropriate level of the standard sequence than into programs that may be integrated differently.

 

Currently, the high school we are considering uses normal texts: Jurgensen for Geometry, Brown Dolciani for honors alg 2/trig, Demana for precalc, and Finney for calc (both ab and bc, over two years), though I expect far less reaction to CC with it being a private school, unless standardized tests raise an issue at some point. Maybe that's what you could do as your kids get closer to middle school (it might change) - try to find out what your high school is using (email a math teacher if necessary) and how placement is determined. Also consider what acceleration is available at the other middle schools that feed into your high school. Some of this might be available on websites if you search creatively.

 

I'd like to see the standards in outline form with keywords rather than full sentences - I plan to spend some time with them eventually. At a glance, the 8th grade standards aren't much more than Dolciani's Prealgebra, An Accelerated Course or Prentice Hall's Pre-algebra, with the addition and subtraction of a few topics.

Our district is integrating for sure. This year high school freshmen were studying without textbooks (I know a kid in our school) and he is complaining that his teacher is having hard time with new workbooks + script she was handed. I hope they sort this out, but for us returning kids back to ps is going to be harder.

It also remains to be seen how they handle differentiation.

[dereksurfs]

Derek, i think the more problematic topic that is pushed into the standards for 8th is solving systems of equations algebraically.  I can't get the quote right now, stuck on the kindle, but that is in addition to solving by graphing.

 

Generally from what I've seen and read there is more of an emphasis on earlier algebraic reasoning development.  They are at least attempting to correct some of the problems acknowledged with the way Math has been traditionally taught in the US.  While this isn't a problem for some kids, especially here, it could be for others coming from differing math backgrounds.

[8filltheheart]

Generally from what I've seen and read there is more of an emphasis on earlier algebraic reasoning development.  They are at least attempting to correct some of the problems acknowledged with the way Math has been traditionally taught in the US.  While this isn't a problem for some kids, especially here, it could be for others coming from differing math backgrounds.

 

Did you see what mjbucks just posted on the high school thread?   Her post is more in line with what I have heard discussed locally in regards to a lack of ability to accelerate and a focus on the lower levels of high school achievement.   http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/?p=5392329  

 

I'm going to quote it here in case many of the readers feel intimidated by this thread and the high school forum b/c her post demonstrates that the standards are just another ps shift in focus.

 

From what it sounds like to me, although the common core may be more rigorous compared to what is taught in some schools currently, it is still far below the standards many people on this board have for their children.  Professor Jason   Zimba, who was the lead writer of the mathematics portion of common core, stated: “If you want to take calculus your freshman year in college, you will need to take more mathematics than is in the Common Core.† Here is the link to the paper: http://www.uaedrefor...totskyFinal.pdf

 

In this video by Marc Tucker at the National Center on Education and the Economy, Tucker reports:

“Mastery of Algebra II is widely thought to be a prerequisite for success in college and careers. Our research shows that that is not so… Based on our data, one cannot make the case that high school graduates must be proficient in Algebra II to be ready for college and careers. The high school mathematics curriculum is now centered on the teaching of a sequence of courses leading to calculus that includes Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and Calculus. However, fewer than five percent of American workers and an even smaller percentage of community college students will ever need to master the courses in this sequence in their college or in the workplace… they should not be required courses in our high schools. To require these courses in high school is to deny to many students the opportunity to graduate high school because they have not mastered a sequence of mathematics courses they will never need. In the face of these findings, the policy of requiring a passing score on an Algebra II exam for high school graduation simply cannot be justified.† Here is a link to the video: http://www.ncee.org/...and-work-ready/  Later in the video he talks about how Common Core embraces these ideas.

 

Having really strong math kids, I find that quote disturbing, not encouraging.

[dereksurfs]

Did you see what mjbucks just posted on the high school thread?   Her post is more in line with what I have heard discussed locally in regards to a lack of ability to accelerate and a focus on the lower levels of high school achievement.   http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/499209-musings-about-the-common-core-and-high-school-math-longish/?p=5392329  

 

I'm going to quote it here in case many of the readers feel intimidated by this thread and the high school forum b/c her post demonstrates that the standards are just another ps shift in focus.

 

Having really strong math kids, I find that quote disturbing, not encouraging.

 

Yes, I read that post.  I answered a similar question in post #45 here in relation to multiple Pathways in Mathematics which can be taken based on the Common Core State Standards.  The Standard clearly acknowledges that some students will be more accelerated and therefore ready for Calculus in High School as well as more advanced topics earlier on.  So a lot of the concern, local talk, etc... about this really has more to do with how the local district decides to implement the CC standard.  Any guesses if some will do a better job at this than others?  Then when implementation becomes a mess because educators don't read or understand the standard a cookie cutter approach will be looked for.  In those cases, yes, the schools may revert to a one size fits all cattle march.   Unless educator retraining occurs I'm not sure how it is going to play out logistically.

[regentrude]

Having really strong math kids, I find that quote disturbing, not encouraging.

 

Not only that, but I do not think the writer actually knows which disciplines DO require math beyond alg1+geometry.

I posted before about the conversation with our HVAC installer who told me that he needs trigonometry.

 

(Not to mention that algebra 2 is needed for understanding mortgages and compound interest. Maybe much of the financial crisis could have been averted if  demonstration of this knowledge were required before somebody can take out a loan.)

[8filltheheart]

Not only that, but I do not think the writer actually knows which disciplines DO require math beyond alg1+geometry.

I posted before about the conversation with our HVAC installer who told me that he needs trigonometry.

 

(Not to mention that algebra 2 is needed for understanding mortgages and compound interest. Maybe much of the financial crisis could have been averted if  demonstration of this knowledge were required before somebody can take out a loan.)

 

I have really ignored the whole thing for the most part b/c I just don't give a hoot.   But, the more I have paid attention the past couple of days, the less I see worth embracing (or even thinking about :001_rolleyes:) and the more I realize that our approach is far superior to any ps methodology.

[8filltheheart]

Yes, I read that post.  I answered a similar question in post #45 here in relation to multiple Pathways in Mathematics which can be taken based on the Common Core State Standards.  The Standard clearly acknowledges that some students will be more accelerated and therefore ready for Calculus in High School as well as more advanced topics earlier on.  So a lot of the concern, local talk, etc... about this really has more to do with how the local district decides to implement the CC standard.  Any guesses if some will do a better job at this than others?  Then when implementation becomes a mess because educators don't read or understand the standard a cookie cutter approach will be looked for.  In those cases, yes, the schools may revert to a one size fits all cattle march.   Unless educator retraining occurs I'm not sure how it is going to play out logistically.

 

I just finished listening to his talk.   He is definitely advocating that the vast majority of students not take alg 2 up which is probably why a lot of school systems seem to be taking the non-accelerated approach b/c even with no acceleration, students can achieve beyond alg 2.

[wapiti]

.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Wow. Now that the CB has come up with its own curricula for math and English, I guess we should be able to figure out what will be tested on the "new and improved" SAT. :glare:

Having taught SAT prep for years, I wouldn't trust CB to write waffle iron instructions. I'm also NOT looking forward to taking a brand new test in two years and revamping my whole approach. Maybe there's still time to become a shepherd.

[8filltheheart]

Of everything I have read, this article is the most disturbing. I believe this is what Regentrude was alluding to about the CC impacting what s taught in higher ed. Ultimately, it sounds like CC standards are going to lower math standards in this country, not increase them. Below are the key pts made in the linked article:
http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/ZimbaMilgramStotskyFinal.pdf
 

3 However, the details in the March draft did not go beyond a relatively weak algebra II course, with both logarithms and the standard algebraic analysis of conic sections missing.14
Since the calculus stubs were not in the final version, and a small number of the advanced (+) standards in trigonometry remain as the only indication of anything between an algebra II course and a calculus course, Common Core’s standards clearly cannot help to prepare students for STEM areas.15 ...... This situation requires something other (and much more) than the weak Common Core’s standards to correct.
......
Although the IHEs clearly have a role in designing the assessments, the two consortia in
charge of the tests—Partnership for Assessment of Readiness in College and Career (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)—cannot address the mathematics requirements of selective public or private colleges or universities because, as we have already noted, major topics in trigonometry and precalculus are not in Common Core’s standards and the tests cannot address topics that are not in the standards. Nevertheless, the language in the RttT agreement indicates that states must place new students admitted by their major public colleges and universities into credit-bearing mathematics (and English) courses if these students have passed a Common Core-based “college readiness†test.
One might criticize the generality of the statement above by pointing out that these students don’t have to be admitted or that colleges can admit students who haven’t passed such a test. However, in many states including California the top 30 percent of students graduating from high school are guaranteed admission to an IHE or IHE system. Moreover, only the chief administrative officer of an IHE has to sign on to this policy, not the relevant faculty. For the most part, this faculty knows nothing about the changes that Common Core will bring.
We find these requirements for Common Core states astounding because they apply to all public institutions of higher education, not just to those for which Common Core’s mathematics standards were intended, according to the lead mathematics standards writer, Jason Zimba. And even if these requirements are intended only for non-selective postsecondary institutions, they are problematic because non-selective schools have often had to place newly admitted students into intermediate algebra (a course lower than “college algebraâ€) that was remedial at these institutions. To make matters worse, the first for-credit courses at non-selective institutions
are often regarded as remedial at other colleges and universities, yet “articulation agreements†between two- and four-year public colleges seem to require that transfer credit be given. All
that the PARCC and SBAC tests can verify is whether freshmen have to start with intermediate algebra if they do not pass, or could start with “pre-calculus trigonometry†or “pre-calculus algebra,†as the first two for-credit courses at a community college are usually described.
VIII. Educational Significance of Common Core’s College Readiness Standards in Mathematics
Two major academic consequences loom in these federal conditions for a RttT award. First, they will likely lower the level of introductory mathematics courses at selective public colleges and universities. How so? Students who are otherwise eligible for a selective institution (i.e., there
is no other placement requirement) and are admitted subject to fulfilling the missing admission requirements would, under this agreement, be able to take a credit-bearing mathematics course
if they had passed the PARCC or SBAC Algebra II test. Because such students would probably fail a regular precalculus course (never mind a calculus course), public colleges and universities would likely feel compelled to provide lower-level (but credit-bearing) introductory mathematics courses for them in order to avoid too high a failure rate.
Second, the federal conditions for a RttT award in effect give a state board and a state department of elementary and secondary education control of the content of entry courses in all Common Core state colleges and universities.

 

For those that are interested, here is Zimba's (Jason Zimba was a lead author of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics) rebuttal to the above.  http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-core-watch/2013/critics-math-doesnt-add-up.html

 

Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky want the term “college ready†to mean something beyond Algebra II. They want to call students college ready only if they go beyond Algebra II to take trigonometry, precalculus, or calculus. At the risk of giving more oxygen to what strikes me as being fundamentally a dispute about language, what Milgram, Wurman, and Stotsky think of as “college ready†is what I might call “STEM ready.†I think it makes sense to most people that college readiness and STEM readiness are two different things. The mathematical demands that students face in college will vary dramatically depending on whether they are pursuing a STEM major or not.

 

Students in high school should take as many rigorous mathematics courses as they can. Students who intend to pursue STEM majors in college should know what is required. All of that was true before the Common Core, and it remains true today.

 

The Common Core has every promise of increasing the number of students in our country who actually attain advanced levels of performance. Nothing is being “dumbed down†here. Just because the Common Core State Standards end with Algebra II doesn’t mean the high school curriculum is supposed to end there. California had calculus standards before adopting the Common Core, and the state still has them now, as it should. The difference in California today is that better standards can help more of California’s students gain the strong foundations they need to succeed in calculus.

 

States still can and still should provide a pathway to calculus for all students who are prepared to succeed on that pathway—not only because it is at the heart of many STEM fields but also because calculus is one of the greatest intellectual developments in human history.

 

But the real problem, not only in California but everywhere, is that so many students who take calculus today aren’t ready for it. The most common score on the AP Calculus exam is 1 out of 5. This striking level of failure is just one of the reasons we need the stronger foundation of the Common Core State Standards to propel students into advanced mathematics.

 

FWIW, I am clueless as to the elementary/middle school/alg-alg 2 content details (and could seriously careless) but the bar of alg 2 as college ready is his position.   He simply addresses it by stating a distinction between college ready and what he "might call 'STEM ready.'"  He says most people see them as 2 different things.   I am one of those who doesn't.   All of my kids take math beyond alg 2, even the ones that are not STEM oriented.   I personally don't see the alg 2 bar as improving math education in this country.

[FairProspects]

Although both of these threads are for the most part way above me, I am concerned. I have a STEM student that is 3rd/4th grade. All this transitional and testing mess is definitely going to impact us. We haven't decided yet whether or not to homeschool high school since we have a strong STEM magnet nearby, but I feel like I have to pay attention to CCS because of what it could do to that school and his math sequence in general.

[dereksurfs]

Although both of these threads are for the most part way above me, I am concerned. I have a STEM student that is 3rd/4th grade. All this transitional and testing mess is definitely going to impact us. We haven't decided yet whether or not to homeschool high school since we have a strong STEM magnet nearby, but I feel like I have to pay attention to CCS because of what it could do to that school and his math sequence in general.

 

I encourage you not to worry but to keep an your eyes on things.  You have a long way to go until HS and much can change between now and them.  If your local STEM school is good there is also a good chance they will make sound choices when it comes to implementing the CCS.  But you'll have plenty of chances to talk with parents, students and teachers before then to see how things are going.  I think its harder for parents who are planning to PS this year because of the uncertainty of what might be changing and how it may effect their children.

[snowbeltmom]

After reading these two threads, I was curious what changes, if any, my high school is making.  According to the school's website, the high school math program was changed this year for incoming freshman to be in compliance with CC.  The school has now integrated its math program and begins with "Topics I" then "Topics 2" followed by "Topics 3".  The course descriptions on the website state that 9th graders are not permitted to begin the sequence with "Topic 2" 

 

Up until this year, the strong math students took pre-algebra in 6th, followed by Algebra I in 7th.  That program was eliminated this year.  While the middle school is still offering an honors option for language arts, there is now only one option for math:  Common Core Math 6.

 

In addition to the changes in the math, the current AP Physics B class is being replaced next year with AP Physics I only. AP Physics II, which will cover electricity and magnetism currently covered in AP Physics B, will not be offered.  This school, like the vast majority of others in my state, does not offer the Physics C courses. 

 

It seems to me that these changes are making the education worse, not better for STEM students.

[8filltheheart]

After reading these two threads, I was curious what changes, if any, my high school is making. According to the school's website, the high school math program was changed this year for incoming freshman to be in compliance with CC. The school has now integrated its math program and begins with "Topics I" then "Topics 2" followed by "Topics 3". The course descriptions on the website state that 9th graders are not permitted to begin the sequence with "Topic 2"

 

Up until this year, the strong math students took pre-algebra in 6th, followed by Algebra I in 7th. That program was eliminated this year. While the middle school is still offering an honors option for language arts, there is now only one option for math: Common Core Math 6.

 

In addition to the changes in the math, the current AP Physics B class is being replaced next year with AP Physics I only. AP Physics II, which will cover electricity and magnetism currently covered in AP Physics B, will not be offered. This school, like the vast majority of others in my state, does not offer the Physics C courses.

 

It seems to me that these changes are making the education worse, not better for STEM students.

This is a response that seems inappropriate to "like." :(

[wapiti]

After reading these two threads, I was curious what changes, if any, my high school is making.  According to the school's website, the high school math program was changed this year for incoming freshman to be in compliance with CC.  The school has now integrated its math program and begins with "Topics I" then "Topics 2" followed by "Topics 3".  The course descriptions on the website state that 9th graders are not permitted to begin the sequence with "Topic 2" 

 

Up until this year, the strong math students took pre-algebra in 6th, followed by Algebra I in 7th.  That program was eliminated this year.  While the middle school is still offering an honors option for language arts, there is now only one option for math:  Common Core Math 6.

 

In addition to the changes in the math, the current AP Physics B class is being replaced next year with AP Physics I only. AP Physics II, which will cover electricity and magnetism currently covered in AP Physics B, will not be offered.  This school, like the vast majority of others in my state, does not offer the Physics C courses. 

 

It seems to me that these changes are making the education worse, not better for STEM students.

 

That is just horrible.  It sounds like your local high school has eliminated any acceleration at all, if 9th graders must start with Topic 1.  How on earth is anyone to do calc senior year?  Drag out middle school math forever for the best math students and then have them cram 5 years into 4 in high school via a summer class?

 

According to the appendix that Derek linked somewhere (thanks, I was reading it last night), there are two recommended paths, traditional or integrated.  So, I really don't understand using CC as an excuse to change from traditional to integrated, especially if that limits acceleration; not that it needs to - why can't the middle school simply offer "Topic 1" to 8th graders the same way it would have offered "algebra 1"?  Sometime I wonder where these administrators' brains are.  Sorry for being blunt but...

 

As it is, in that appendix, the recommendation is to offer no acceleration whatsoever prior to 7th grade with no algebra prior to 8th - not that that's terribly different from how things play out in many elementary schools, but seeing it in black and white, as a recommended rule, is sort of jarring for me.  Talk about one-size-fits-all for K-6.  I wonder if any gifted-ed advocates are aware of this.

 

(On another note, I was happy to find on our prospective high school's facebook page a link about a letter from a large number of Catholic educators to the US Catholic bishops recommending repudiation of CC, though math wasn't really discussed much in the letter.  It's disturbing that apparently, a number of Catholic schools - possibly of the parish variety - agreed to follow CC, for reasons that aren't clear.)

[8filltheheart]

As it is, in that appendix, the recommendation is to offer no acceleration whatsoever prior to 7th grade with no algebra prior to 8th - not that that's terribly different from how things play out in many elementary schools, but seeing it in black and white, as a recommended rule, is sort of jarring for me. Talk about one-size-fits-all for K-6. I wonder if any gifted-ed advocates are aware of this.

 

)

I wonder if will lead to even more parents of gifted students homeschooling. I absolutely cannot fathom how incredibly bored my ds and dd would have been if they had not been allowed to progress in math at an earlier age. By 8th grade, ds was beyond all the CC standards.

 

(Eta: being that bored could lead to hating a subject. That would be a huge loss for STEM bc the very students that have the greatest gifts could end up being turned off.)

[dereksurfs]

After reading these two threads, I was curious what changes, if any, my high school is making.  According to the school's website, the high school math program was changed this year for incoming freshman to be in compliance with CC.  The school has now integrated its math program and begins with "Topics I" then "Topics 2" followed by "Topics 3".  The course descriptions on the website state that 9th graders are not permitted to begin the sequence with "Topic 2" 

 

Up until this year, the strong math students took pre-algebra in 6th, followed by Algebra I in 7th.  That program was eliminated this year.  While the middle school is still offering an honors option for language arts, there is now only one option for math:  Common Core Math 6.

 

In addition to the changes in the math, the current AP Physics B class is being replaced next year with AP Physics I only. AP Physics II, which will cover electricity and magnetism currently covered in AP Physics B, will not be offered.  This school, like the vast majority of others in my state, does not offer the Physics C courses. 

 

It seems to me that these changes are making the education worse, not better for STEM students.

 

This is absolutely where the problems will come from, not from the Standard itself, but from the poor understanding and implementation of it at the local level.  If given any chance to make stupid decisions unfortunately some schools will go down that path instead of doing what's best for their children.  They are misinterpreting the Standard and using it as an *excuse* to promote their poor policy decisions.  Administrators are making their lives easier while saving money at the expense of their students. We've seen these types of games played before unfortunately all too often where the children get last priority over pet agendas, someone's career goals, etc...  It is in fact why most of us homeschool to begin with.

 

Not only does the Standard not disallow schools to continue more advanced courses, it makes provisions for it in giving states latitude in designing their own programs:

 

Quote

The standards themselves do not dictate curriculum, pedagogy, or delivery of content. In particular, states may handle the transition to high school in different ways. For example, many students in the U.S. today take Algebra I in the 8th grade, and in some states this is a requirement. The K-7 standards contain the prerequisites to prepare students for Algebra I by 8th grade, and the standards are designed to permit states to continue existing policies concerning Algebra I in 8th grade.  

 

-- http://www.corestand...ses-transitions

 

As I've said before it will be up to the districts and schools whether they succeed or fail in delivering solid Math educations. In this case unfortunately it sounds like a failure unless enough parents stand up to such poor policy decisions and petition their local school board.  A good lawyer could easily make a case using the standard to support multiple tracks which is completely in line with its language and intent.

[8filltheheart]

This is absolutely where the problems will come from, not from the Standard itself, but from the poor understanding and implementation of it at the local level. If given any chance to make stupid decisions unfortunately some schools will go down that path instead of doing what's best for their children. They are misinterpreting the Standard and using it as an *excuse* to promote their poor policy decisions. Administrators are making their lives easier while saving money at the expense of their students. We've seen these types of games played before unfortunately all too often where the children get last priority over pet agendas, someone's career goals, etc... It is in fact why most of us homeschool to begin with.

Not only does the Standard not disallow schools to continue more advanced courses, it makes provisions for it in giving states latitude in designing their own programs:

Quote

-- http://www.corestand...ses-transitions

As I've said before it will be up to the districts and schools whether they succeed or fail in delivering solid Math educations. In this case unfortunately it sounds like a failure unless enough parents stand up to such poor choices and petition their local school board.

But what about students who need more before 7th/8th grade?

[dereksurfs]

But what about students who need more before 7th/8th grade?

 

The same principles apply.  Nowhere in the standard does it say children cannot advance beyond their peers.  In fact it is encouraged with multiple pathways.  What does that look like in in K-6th?  Like many families here who PS they also 'Afterschool.'  In addition I would make the case locally to advance my students based on their demonstrated abilities.  Its not too uncommon for a PS to allow a student to move up to the next grade in math if they are clearly ahead of their peers.   What if the school won't accommodate this a 'once size fits all' approach regardless of a child's ability?  Petition the board, continue afterschooling and/or find another school willing to work with advanced students.  One of the arguments schools typically present is that they simply do not have the resources to accommodate advanced learners.  If that be the case consider independent study, something I was placed in in middle school, since our school didn't offer advanced math courses. Lastly, if all else fails pull them as many of us have for similar reasons.

[8filltheheart]

The same principles apply.  Nowhere in the standard does it say children cannot advance beyond their peers.  In fact it is encouraged with multiple pathways.  What does that look like in in K-6th?  Like many families here who PS they also 'Afterschool.'  In addition I would make the case locally to advance my students based on their demonstrated abilities. What if the school won't accommodate this a 'once size fits all' approach regardless of a child's ability?  Petition the board, continue afterschooling and/or find another school willing to work with advanced students.  Lastly, if all else fails pull them as many of us have for similar reasons.

 

Based on your and Wapiti's posts, it does appear that students are not supposed to be accelerated in elementary school.   It seems like a continued Race to Nowhere for gifted students.

 

 

As it is, in that appendix, the recommendation is to offer no acceleration whatsoever prior to 7th grade with no algebra prior to 8th -

Quote

The standards themselves do not dictate curriculum, pedagogy, or delivery of content. In particular, states may handle the transition to high school in different ways. For example, many students in the U.S. today take Algebra I in the 8th grade, and in some states this is a requirement. The K-7 standards contain the prerequisites to prepare students for Algebra I by 8th grade, and the standards are designed to permit states to continue existing policies concerning Algebra I in 8th grade. 

 

The standards permit alg 1 in 8th.   it really sounds like they don't "permit" it prior to 8th.  

[dereksurfs]

Based on your and Wapiti's posts, it does appear that students are not supposed to be accelerated in elementary school.   It seems like a continued Race to Nowhere for gifted students.

 

Quote

 

The standards permit alg 1 in 8th.   it really sounds like they don't "permit" it prior to 8th.  

 

Appendix A of the standard is written toward the High School student primarily.  It does not allow or disallow anything with regards to elementary school.  As with most PS's today these decisions are left up to the local schools themselves to determine if a child may advance to the next level up in their math studies. There's certainly not an edict in the standard saying 'a child shalt not advance beyond their peers' at any level. As long as they demonstrate mastery of the content at grade level why not allow them to advance?  The standard certainly doesn't say they can't. 

 

ETA:  Unfortunately the standard is *not* silent with regards to elementary acceleration as I had originally thought.  I stand corrected.  See Wapiti's find below.

[wapiti]

The appendix 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.

 

That's a very strong statement.  Many districts will be all too happy to follow that.  "See what the national experts say?  Acceleration in elementary math is bad!  We must follow CC under our state rules and we will follow the CC recommendation to prohibit acceleration!"

[dereksurfs]

The appendix says the following, on page 81, #2 (emphasis mine):

 

 

That's a very strong statement.  Many districts will be all too happy to follow that.  "See what the national experts say?  Acceleration in elementary math is bad!  We must follow CC under our state rules and we will follow the CC recommendation to prohibit acceleration!"

 

This is a good find, Wapiti.  I was hoping others would be reading the standard as well.  I did not see that statement.  If that is the case then moving up 'two grades' (e.g. Pre-Algebra in 6th) may prove more difficult for elementary students.  I stand corrected with regards to elementary acceleration.  And I disagree with the standard there.  Let's hope some schools will still accommodate advancement.  Otherwise afterschooling may be the only option for advance learners beyond one year.

[snowbeltmom]

That is just horrible.  It sounds like your local high school has eliminated any acceleration at all, if 9th graders must start with Topic 1.  How on earth is anyone to do calc senior year?  Drag out middle school math forever for the best math students and then have them cram 5 years into 4 in high school via a summer class?

 

 

 

The high school is on a block schedule.  Prior to this school year, if a student wanted to accelerate in math once he entered high school, he could take two math classes per year, say Alg. I first semester and geometry second semester.  Now Topic I and Topic II are full year classes each worth 1.5 credits.  It will now not be possible for any student to accelerate in the math sequence until junior year, and that will depend on how the scheduling works out.  In the past, many students have had to choose between AP Chemistry and AP Physics B because the classes were offered the same block. 

 

The year I asked for the AP score report, only 18 kids out of a class of 250 took calc that year.  There will be even less kids getting to calc now.  I really don't know how these "educators" sleep at night.  I am serious.

 

 

[wapiti]

Acceleration prior to grade 7 should be avoided at all costs, and yet the following are acceptable options (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

 

Excuse me if I'm not comforted by the brain-dead designing national standards.

 

eta, I don't mean to be rude but obviously I'm feeling a little frustrated.  Color me not impressed, I guess might be a nicer way to put it.

[snowbeltmom]

I wonder if will lead to even more parents of gifted students homeschooling. I absolutely cannot fathom how incredibly bored my ds and dd would have been if they had not been allowed to progress in math at an earlier age. By 8th grade, ds was beyond all the CC standards.

 

(Eta: being that bored could lead to hating a subject. That would be a huge loss for STEM bc the very students that have the greatest gifts could end up being turned off.)

 

This situation is why we started homeschooling.  My dd had a perfect score on the non-verbal section of the Cogat and the 99% on the Iowa test in first grade.  The school refused to move her into an appropriate math class, even though the upper grades were housed in the same building as the lower grades).  Heck, they wouldn't even give her any advanced math in the classroom. 

 

I had a conversation with the school principal expressing my dismay at the situation.  I even quoted the information from Cogat that stated that my dd had "advanced mathematical thinking."  The principal jumped on my comment and said, "Exactly.  Advanced Mathematical thinking, and for our school that begins in 6th grade."  I told the principal that by the time my dd got to the "advanced" math in another 5 years, she would have long decided that she hated math because it was boring.  To the principal's credit, she then did tell me that she couldn't disagree with a word I had said, so she wasn't even going to try. 

 

Now, it looks like "advanced" math won't happen until a student's junior year in high school. 

 

[dereksurfs]

This situation is why we started homeschooling.  My dd had a perfect score on the non-verbal section of the Cogat and the 99% on the Iowa test in first grade.  The school refused to move her into an appropriate math class, even though the upper grades were housed in the same building as the lower grades).  Heck, they wouldn't even give her any advanced math in the classroom. 

 

I had a conversation with the school principal expressing my dismay at the situation.  I even quoted the information from Cogat that stated that my dd had "advanced mathematical thinking."  The principal jumped on my comment and said, "Exactly.  Advanced Mathematical thinking, and for our school that begins in 6th grade."  I told the principal that by the time my dd got to the "advanced" math in another 5 years, she would have long decided that she hated math because it was boring.  To the principal's credit, she then did tell me that she couldn't disagree with a word I had said, so she wasn't even going to try. 

 

Now, it looks like "advanced" math won't happen until a student's junior year in high school. 

 

 

Unfortunately these types of stories aren't going to change much it seems.  The idea that a child can't advance until middle school is ridiculous, and yes, a reason why many of us homeschool or afterschool.  Starting in middle school the local school district has the option of providing an advanced track.  Whether they do or will depend on each district.

[snowbeltmom]

The same principles apply.  Nowhere in the standard does it say children cannot advance beyond their peers.  In fact it is encouraged with multiple pathways.  What does that look like in in K-6th?  Like many families here who PS they also 'Afterschool.'  In addition I would make the case locally to advance my students based on their demonstrated abilities.  Its not too uncommon for a PS to allow a student to move up to the next grade in math if they are clearly ahead of their peers.   What if the school won't accommodate this a 'once size fits all' approach regardless of a child's ability?  Petition the board, continue afterschooling and/or find another school willing to work with advanced students.  One of the arguments schools typically present is that they simply do not have the resources to accommodate advanced learners.  If that be the case consider independent study, something I was placed in in middle school, since our school didn't offer advanced math courses. Lastly, if all else fails pull them as many of us have for similar reasons.

 

This simply does not happen in my district. 

[dereksurfs]

This simply does not happen in my district. 

 

I've seen this in the various districts we've lived in in CA.  But that could be changing as well if they decide they don't have to or want to anymore.

[Arcadia]

The standards permit alg 1 in 8th. it really sounds like they don't "permit" it prior to 8th.

 

The California version has algebra 1 in 7th as the first pathway. Geometry in 8th, Algebra 2 in 9th, AP Stats and Calculus anytime in 10th to 12th grade. Just below the "Model Mathematics Courses, by Grade Level" table, it says "Local districts determine which course offerings and sequences best meet the needs of students. The table above provides guidance on possible course-taking sequence in higher mathematics. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of courses or sequence of courses that a student could take."

There is nothing in California's version against acceleration or compaction.  (page 58 of link)

 

 

I've seen this in the various districts we've lived in in CA.  But that could be changing as well if they decide they don't have to or want to anymore.

 

That might push parents to jump ship to the chartered schools like Ocean Grove and CAVA which still allow subject acceleration.