6 ms·

In the Name of Equity, California Will Discourage Students Gifted at Math

61 points by mhb 6y ago

jostmey 6y ago
The article doesn't make it clear if (1) this is just a lone admin submitting a bad proposal that is ultimately dead on arrival or (2) this framework is seriously being consideration as policy. I won't hide my feelings that this is a bad idea--prodigies exist.
- smsm42 6y ago
  Given the general trends, it's not just the lone admin - Virginia is wrecking their gifted programs as we speak, for the same reasons. https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses-equity https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses... And that's not just a proposal from some rando, it's a DoE policy. It seems to be an ideological trends of destroying advanced education so that "equity" ideologies can feel good about it.
- malcolmgreaves 6y ago
  Prodigies absolutely exist. But this proposal is also so woefully uninformed as it rejects a basic fact: some folk are more intelligent than others. We don't know why -- it's both nature and nurture -- but we know it exists because humanity has observed it since forever. Equity in education isn't to see a kid that's doing well and think, "well fuck that kid, we'll just make him bored out of his mind and ultimately become disinterested as we force them to sit through another year of class on a subject they already mastered." Rather, it's simply to redirect resources (read: money to hire more teachers so there's a smaller student to teacher ratio) to the schools whose students are achieving the least. And teachers are the ones that get to make that determination.
  - sprynr 6y ago
    California has really been pushing the idea that all their students are equal, while quietly opening more charter and magnet schools to support the students that are "more equal than others", it's just plain inefficient to split the levels of student achievement into completely separate campuses instead of just different classes.
  - jostmey 6y ago
    Providing resources to students who need it is definitely important, and it is equally important not to stand in the way of the next Newton, Euler, or Einstein
    - commandlinefan 6y ago
      > the next Newton, Euler, or Einstein Of course I disagree with the proposal in the post, but I wonder... how much real encouragement did Newton, Euler and Einstein get (or need) when they were young? Could anybody have stood in their way? Ramanujan got as little encouragement as one could imagine but still ended up as one of the greatest mathematicians of his time - but on the other hand, maybe he would have been even greater if he had had more opportunities.
      - gfody 6y ago
        Ramanujan was motivated by his deeply held spiritual beliefs and then later adopted and mentored by G.H.Hardy. Perhaps you mean before all that? I imagine there are 100 Ramanujans we've never heard of.
      - throwawayay02 6y ago
        Gauss earned his PhD at 20, Euler at 19, Erdős at 21, Tao at 21. Now imagine instead being forced to waste away until you're 17-18 to go to college.
      - pksebben 6y ago
        the post isn't honest. read the actual proposal. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
- sprynr 6y ago
  Looks like the "State Board of Education appointed 20 members to the Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (Mathematics CFCC) to assist in the development of the Mathematics Framework." Looks like this is more than just a rouge admin, unfortunately.
ku-man 6y ago
Haha, loved this part: "...young people who aren't particularly adept at any academic discipline might pick up art, music, computers..."
sashavegas 6y ago
It is nice. Next step to remove The Fields Medal and Clay Research Award. Those gentlemens (Fourier, Hamilton, Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton) crying in their grave.
throwawaysea 6y ago
Not just California and not just under the banner of "equity" either. The push for equity (meaning equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunity) comes under many different brands - social justice, critical race theory (CRT), diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI), cultural competence, cultural responsiveness, and so on. Activists across the country have been pushing these agendas for years, building up to this point where any difference in performance or talent or potential is erased. Apart from California: Seattle is trying to get rid of its gifted education programs (https://reason.com/2020/03/26/seattles-school-system-has-begun-dismantling-its-gifted-programs/ https://reason.com/2020/03/26/seattles-school-system-has-beg...), Virginia is trying to eliminate accelerated math courses (https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses-equity https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses...), San Francisco ended merit-based admissions at its highest performing school (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board...), and more. Let's also not forget the corruption of school curricula to teach students activism and progressive politics, such as with Seattle's Ethnic Studies math program (https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultural-woke/ https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultur...). It's not just schools either. The adoption of DEI policies has been widespread, ranging from government agencies to private companies to nonprofits. For example, the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teacher's union and largest union in the US, holds explicit left-biased activist stances and officially advocates for social justice agendas (https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/racial-social-justice https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/racial-social-just...). Tech companies like Microsoft have set explicit race-based hiring goals that are illegal (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/10/06/microsoft-diversity-african-americans-black-department-of-labor-trump-george-floyd/5902478002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/10/06/microsoft-div...). And Biden recently issued an executive order to implement equity programs across his administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...).
- pksebben 6y ago
  you realize that all your references are to second-order sources, right? fox news, usa today, and reason.com are all going to filter their information with opinion. some primary sources (like the actual proposal being discussed here [0] ) might help to make a stronger case. [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
dcastonguay 6y ago
This proposal seems to me like it's centered around a false dichotomy: - Acknowledge the presence of natural talent, put naturally talented kids into advanced levels of math, and create inequity. - Denounce the belief in natural talent, keep all kids at one level of learning, and help resolve inequity issues. It doesn't seem to leave any space for kids who are just more interested in math or more dedicated to their pursuit of mastering it, as well as kids who have little to no interest in math and are not as dedicated to their pursuit of mastering it. I can't see the potential gains of this proposal outweighing the results of stifling the ability of many kids to explore the areas of academia that they're interested in. Isn't that one of the most beneficial aspects of the learning experience?
- lupire 6y ago
  Even worse is that nowhere in the doc is suggestion that low performing students might do better if they were given more schooling! Instead it proposes teaching English and social studies during math lessons (but not vice. versa)
mariodiana 6y ago
Having been historically marginalized in gym class, I ask why stop at math?
- NullPrefix 6y ago
  Because asians are good at math.
- mbg721 6y ago
  Isn't gym class already at the end-point of removing rigor? It's generally not separated into tracks by ability, it's widely regarded as easy filler, and anybody with any serious interest in athletics does their real training outside of class. It's less "Why stop at math?" than "Please stop at gym!"
  - mariodiana 6y ago
    You're no doubt correct. But gym class for me was something like 35 years ago.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Gym class, sure, but why is the football team allowed to let some students play more and run farther?
    - mbg721 6y ago
      The same reason the math club can still do pentagon-inscribed-in-an-ellipse problems. (But I'm not actually convinced that the math equivalent of after-school weightlifting would be the actual result, rather than just the families that can afford it fleeing to private schools.)
sgslo 6y ago
Rather than running with a click-baity title, I'd encourage readers to look at the proposal, particularly the introduction: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ Don't walk away from this thread assuming the authors are trying to dumb down math education without reason. Instead, I'd encourage you to think about a few questions: - Does raising the average math competency of all students outweigh the possible benefits of catering to a select few? - Is it the school's (and thus, the government's) obligation to develop a hypothetical gifted student? - If you're a student not enrolled in an advanced course (when one exists) do you assume that you're "not a math person"?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- MikeUt 6y ago
  > Does raising the average math competency of all students outweigh the possible benefits of catering to a select few? This assumes that advanced courses harm students not enrolled in them. I don't see why that should be the case, and would like to see some evidence for this dichotomy you presented. If you have 3 teachers, and they A) each teach classes that are composed of 20 regular and 10 gifted students, or B) 2 of them teach classes of 30 regular students, and one teaches 30 gifted students, is B) "catering to a select few"? If so, which select few? Both regular and gifted students receive education adjusted to their abilities, so are they not both being catered to?
  - sgslo 6y ago
    One of several examples mentioned in the proposal: > Burris, Heubert & Levin (2006) followed students through middle schools in the district of New York. In the first three years, the students were in regular or advanced classes, in the following three years all students took the same mathematics classes comprised of advanced content. In their longitudinal study the researchers found that when all students learned together the students achieved more, took more advanced courses in high school, and passed state exams a year earlier, with achievement advantages across the achievement range, including the highest achievers (Burris, Heubert & Levin, 2006).
mycentstoo 6y ago
If this passes and the characterization of this bill is true, I think we should expect to see a further divide between private and public schooling outcomes.
dragonwriter 6y ago
The actual framework is here[0], the discussion of detracking in the context of advanced students starts on page 15 of the introduction. The Reason article is huperventilating culture-war flamebait. While equity is a concern raised innregard to detracking and elsewhere in the framework its not the centerpiece of the rationale for detracking; there is a wide variety of evidence cited for tracking being associated with undeisrable results across the spectrum of ability-as-tracked. Nor is the approach recommended by the framework in place of classical tracking “everyone regardless of ability is stuck with the same material”, it calls for variation within the same framework for students with differing ability. (My biggest concern with this as a general approach—though its also an approach already in use lots of places and one which played a positive factor in out school selection for our son—is that it seems to be a much harder approach calling for more teacher skill to implement in practice.) [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
- otoburb 6y ago
  >>My biggest concern with this as a general approach—though its also an approach already in use lots of places and one which played a positive factor in out school selection for our son—is that it seems to be a much harder approach calling for more teacher skill to implement in practice. Not only calling for more teacher skill, but also potentially requiring for more teachers (or assistants) in the classroom to implement this approach effectively, with no corresponding increase in education budgets beyond ad-hoc/one-time stimulus budget injections.
- fatnoah 6y ago
  I agree that that Reason article is very flamebait. I also agree that math should be made accessible to all students and that we shouldn't effectively be determining kids' future in math when they're in sixth grade. Everyone should be able to find the "joy" of math. Where I disagree is in the proposed methods, though I don't know what the "right" answer would be. The idea of a completely homogenous experience for all middle schoolers is what I experienced in going to a smaller middle school. There was only one track, and as one of those "good at math" kids, it was A+ all day with essentially no effort. As a result, I built exactly zero study skills and most classes were me getting my work done quickly and then twiddling my thumbs waiting for others in the class to catch up. I didn't actually didn't find any joy in math until taking Calculus in high school. That was the first time I felt truly challenged, and the lack of study skills made it an initially painful experience. Finding success in discovering the concepts and eventually mastering them was exciting. Even though it's been 30 years, I still remember the exact moment that Calculus "clicked" for me. Everyone deserves that experience. The right solution should be one where all students get that, but I don't think the proposed framework provides that.
ahepp 6y ago
The proposed action here is to not separate "gifted" kids until grade 9. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't think this is about true prodigies (don't they usually get picked up by universities?). If you can separate students into winners and losers before grade 9, I think that's a strong indication that more resources need to be spent on the losers, not that we should be teaching the winners calculus before they reach HS (which I suspect is often more about the college admissions arms race than any love of learning or desire for knowledge)
- bodhiandphysics 6y ago
  The issue isn’t prodigies! The issue is that students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school. And that’s a big problem since it slows down students abilities to take advanced math in college, at a time where the amount of math needed by technical professions is only growing!
  - bodhiandphysics 6y ago
    Perhaps 1% of graduating seniors are ready to skip calculus upon entering college. But that’s an important 1%! It includes all professional mathematicians, statisticians, data scientists, and most high level engineers!
  - ahepp 6y ago
    >students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school What leads you to this conclusion? You can still take calculus without being designated a gifted student before you enter HS. In fact, isn't 12th grade calculus the standard without any acceleration? It sounds like the report questions the rationale for targeting calculus, which seems like a healthy debate to me. Maybe some students would be better served by something else. However, I don't see anything to suggest that calculus is going anywhere.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The issue is that students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school. False. The Framework has a common 9/10 base designed to meet the legal two-year mandate and then a wider variety of advanced options than are currently typically offered for 11/12 which include Calculus+Trig, Data Science, and others. The framework challenges the existing “every is trying to get to Calculus, the only difference is how quickly they skim everything else to get there” approach, not challenging the option for students to take Calculus in High School. (See Chapter 8 of the framework.)

61 points by mhb 6y ago

The article doesn't make it clear if (1) this is just a lone admin submitting a bad proposal that is ultimately dead on arrival or (2) this framework is seriously being consideration as policy. I won't hide my feelings that this is a bad idea--prodigies exist.

smsm42 6y ago
Given the general trends, it's not just the lone admin - Virginia is wrecking their gifted programs as we speak, for the same reasons. https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses-equity https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses... And that's not just a proposal from some rando, it's a DoE policy. It seems to be an ideological trends of destroying advanced education so that "equity" ideologies can feel good about it.
malcolmgreaves 6y ago
Prodigies absolutely exist. But this proposal is also so woefully uninformed as it rejects a basic fact: some folk are more intelligent than others. We don't know why -- it's both nature and nurture -- but we know it exists because humanity has observed it since forever. Equity in education isn't to see a kid that's doing well and think, "well fuck that kid, we'll just make him bored out of his mind and ultimately become disinterested as we force them to sit through another year of class on a subject they already mastered." Rather, it's simply to redirect resources (read: money to hire more teachers so there's a smaller student to teacher ratio) to the schools whose students are achieving the least. And teachers are the ones that get to make that determination.
- sprynr 6y ago
  California has really been pushing the idea that all their students are equal, while quietly opening more charter and magnet schools to support the students that are "more equal than others", it's just plain inefficient to split the levels of student achievement into completely separate campuses instead of just different classes.
- jostmey 6y ago
  Providing resources to students who need it is definitely important, and it is equally important not to stand in the way of the next Newton, Euler, or Einstein
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    > the next Newton, Euler, or Einstein Of course I disagree with the proposal in the post, but I wonder... how much real encouragement did Newton, Euler and Einstein get (or need) when they were young? Could anybody have stood in their way? Ramanujan got as little encouragement as one could imagine but still ended up as one of the greatest mathematicians of his time - but on the other hand, maybe he would have been even greater if he had had more opportunities.
    - gfody 6y ago
      Ramanujan was motivated by his deeply held spiritual beliefs and then later adopted and mentored by G.H.Hardy. Perhaps you mean before all that? I imagine there are 100 Ramanujans we've never heard of.
    - throwawayay02 6y ago
      Gauss earned his PhD at 20, Euler at 19, Erdős at 21, Tao at 21. Now imagine instead being forced to waste away until you're 17-18 to go to college.
    - pksebben 6y ago
      the post isn't honest. read the actual proposal. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/
sprynr 6y ago
Looks like the "State Board of Education appointed 20 members to the Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (Mathematics CFCC) to assist in the development of the Mathematics Framework." Looks like this is more than just a rouge admin, unfortunately.

ku-man 6y ago

Haha, loved this part: "...young people who aren't particularly adept at any academic discipline might pick up art, music, computers..."

sashavegas 6y ago

It is nice. Next step to remove The Fields Medal and Clay Research Award. Those gentlemens (Fourier, Hamilton, Leibniz and Sir Isaac Newton) crying in their grave.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Not just California and not just under the banner of "equity" either. The push for equity (meaning equality of outcomes as opposed to equality of opportunity) comes under many different brands - social justice, critical race theory (CRT), diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI), cultural competence, cultural responsiveness, and so on. Activists across the country have been pushing these agendas for years, building up to this point where any difference in performance or talent or potential is erased. Apart from California: Seattle is trying to get rid of its gifted education programs (https://reason.com/2020/03/26/seattles-school-system-has-begun-dismantling-its-gifted-programs/ https://reason.com/2020/03/26/seattles-school-system-has-beg...), Virginia is trying to eliminate accelerated math courses (https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses-equity https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-accelerated-math-courses...), San Francisco ended merit-based admissions at its highest performing school (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board-strips-Lowell-High-of-its-15938565.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-school-board...), and more. Let's also not forget the corruption of school curricula to teach students activism and progressive politics, such as with Seattle's Ethnic Studies math program (https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultural-woke/ https://reason.com/2019/10/22/seattle-math-oppressive-cultur...). It's not just schools either. The adoption of DEI policies has been widespread, ranging from government agencies to private companies to nonprofits. For example, the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teacher's union and largest union in the US, holds explicit left-biased activist stances and officially advocates for social justice agendas (https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/racial-social-justice https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/racial-social-just...). Tech companies like Microsoft have set explicit race-based hiring goals that are illegal (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/10/06/microsoft-diversity-african-americans-black-department-of-labor-trump-george-floyd/5902478002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/10/06/microsoft-div...). And Biden recently issued an executive order to implement equity programs across his administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...).

pksebben 6y ago
you realize that all your references are to second-order sources, right? fox news, usa today, and reason.com are all going to filter their information with opinion. some primary sources (like the actual proposal being discussed here [0] ) might help to make a stronger case. [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/

dcastonguay 6y ago

This proposal seems to me like it's centered around a false dichotomy: - Acknowledge the presence of natural talent, put naturally talented kids into advanced levels of math, and create inequity. - Denounce the belief in natural talent, keep all kids at one level of learning, and help resolve inequity issues. It doesn't seem to leave any space for kids who are just more interested in math or more dedicated to their pursuit of mastering it, as well as kids who have little to no interest in math and are not as dedicated to their pursuit of mastering it. I can't see the potential gains of this proposal outweighing the results of stifling the ability of many kids to explore the areas of academia that they're interested in. Isn't that one of the most beneficial aspects of the learning experience?

lupire 6y ago
Even worse is that nowhere in the doc is suggestion that low performing students might do better if they were given more schooling! Instead it proposes teaching English and social studies during math lessons (but not vice. versa)

mariodiana 6y ago

Having been historically marginalized in gym class, I ask why stop at math?

NullPrefix 6y ago
Because asians are good at math.
mbg721 6y ago
Isn't gym class already at the end-point of removing rigor? It's generally not separated into tracks by ability, it's widely regarded as easy filler, and anybody with any serious interest in athletics does their real training outside of class. It's less "Why stop at math?" than "Please stop at gym!"
- mariodiana 6y ago
  You're no doubt correct. But gym class for me was something like 35 years ago.
- lupire 6y ago
  Gym class, sure, but why is the football team allowed to let some students play more and run farther?
  - mbg721 6y ago
    The same reason the math club can still do pentagon-inscribed-in-an-ellipse problems. (But I'm not actually convinced that the math equivalent of after-school weightlifting would be the actual result, rather than just the families that can afford it fleeing to private schools.)

sgslo 6y ago

Rather than running with a click-baity title, I'd encourage readers to look at the proposal, particularly the introduction: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ Don't walk away from this thread assuming the authors are trying to dumb down math education without reason. Instead, I'd encourage you to think about a few questions: - Does raising the average math competency of all students outweigh the possible benefits of catering to a select few? - Is it the school's (and thus, the government's) obligation to develop a hypothetical gifted student? - If you're a student not enrolled in an advanced course (when one exists) do you assume that you're "not a math person"?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MikeUt 6y ago
> Does raising the average math competency of all students outweigh the possible benefits of catering to a select few? This assumes that advanced courses harm students not enrolled in them. I don't see why that should be the case, and would like to see some evidence for this dichotomy you presented. If you have 3 teachers, and they A) each teach classes that are composed of 20 regular and 10 gifted students, or B) 2 of them teach classes of 30 regular students, and one teaches 30 gifted students, is B) "catering to a select few"? If so, which select few? Both regular and gifted students receive education adjusted to their abilities, so are they not both being catered to?
- sgslo 6y ago
  One of several examples mentioned in the proposal: > Burris, Heubert & Levin (2006) followed students through middle schools in the district of New York. In the first three years, the students were in regular or advanced classes, in the following three years all students took the same mathematics classes comprised of advanced content. In their longitudinal study the researchers found that when all students learned together the students achieved more, took more advanced courses in high school, and passed state exams a year earlier, with achievement advantages across the achievement range, including the highest achievers (Burris, Heubert & Levin, 2006).

mycentstoo 6y ago

If this passes and the characterization of this bill is true, I think we should expect to see a further divide between private and public schooling outcomes.

dragonwriter 6y ago

The actual framework is here[0], the discussion of detracking in the context of advanced students starts on page 15 of the introduction. The Reason article is huperventilating culture-war flamebait. While equity is a concern raised innregard to detracking and elsewhere in the framework its not the centerpiece of the rationale for detracking; there is a wide variety of evidence cited for tracking being associated with undeisrable results across the spectrum of ability-as-tracked. Nor is the approach recommended by the framework in place of classical tracking “everyone regardless of ability is stuck with the same material”, it calls for variation within the same framework for students with differing ability. (My biggest concern with this as a general approach—though its also an approach already in use lots of places and one which played a positive factor in out school selection for our son—is that it seems to be a much harder approach calling for more teacher skill to implement in practice.) [0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/ https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/

otoburb 6y ago
>>My biggest concern with this as a general approach—though its also an approach already in use lots of places and one which played a positive factor in out school selection for our son—is that it seems to be a much harder approach calling for more teacher skill to implement in practice. Not only calling for more teacher skill, but also potentially requiring for more teachers (or assistants) in the classroom to implement this approach effectively, with no corresponding increase in education budgets beyond ad-hoc/one-time stimulus budget injections.
fatnoah 6y ago
I agree that that Reason article is very flamebait. I also agree that math should be made accessible to all students and that we shouldn't effectively be determining kids' future in math when they're in sixth grade. Everyone should be able to find the "joy" of math. Where I disagree is in the proposed methods, though I don't know what the "right" answer would be. The idea of a completely homogenous experience for all middle schoolers is what I experienced in going to a smaller middle school. There was only one track, and as one of those "good at math" kids, it was A+ all day with essentially no effort. As a result, I built exactly zero study skills and most classes were me getting my work done quickly and then twiddling my thumbs waiting for others in the class to catch up. I didn't actually didn't find any joy in math until taking Calculus in high school. That was the first time I felt truly challenged, and the lack of study skills made it an initially painful experience. Finding success in discovering the concepts and eventually mastering them was exciting. Even though it's been 30 years, I still remember the exact moment that Calculus "clicked" for me. Everyone deserves that experience. The right solution should be one where all students get that, but I don't think the proposed framework provides that.

ahepp 6y ago

The proposed action here is to not separate "gifted" kids until grade 9. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't think this is about true prodigies (don't they usually get picked up by universities?). If you can separate students into winners and losers before grade 9, I think that's a strong indication that more resources need to be spent on the losers, not that we should be teaching the winners calculus before they reach HS (which I suspect is often more about the college admissions arms race than any love of learning or desire for knowledge)

bodhiandphysics 6y ago
The issue isn’t prodigies! The issue is that students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school. And that’s a big problem since it slows down students abilities to take advanced math in college, at a time where the amount of math needed by technical professions is only growing!
- bodhiandphysics 6y ago
  Perhaps 1% of graduating seniors are ready to skip calculus upon entering college. But that’s an important 1%! It includes all professional mathematicians, statisticians, data scientists, and most high level engineers!
- ahepp 6y ago
  >students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school What leads you to this conclusion? You can still take calculus without being designated a gifted student before you enter HS. In fact, isn't 12th grade calculus the standard without any acceleration? It sounds like the report questions the rationale for targeting calculus, which seems like a healthy debate to me. Maybe some students would be better served by something else. However, I don't see anything to suggest that calculus is going anywhere.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The issue is that students will no longer be able to take calculus in high school. False. The Framework has a common 9/10 base designed to meet the legal two-year mandate and then a wider variety of advanced options than are currently typically offered for 11/12 which include Calculus+Trig, Data Science, and others. The framework challenges the existing “every is trying to get to Calculus, the only difference is how quickly they skim everything else to get there” approach, not challenging the option for students to take Calculus in High School. (See Chapter 8 of the framework.)