16 ms·

>I agree that it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.

>I agree that it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children. But if equity is the goal, we should be mandating that every eighth grader takes Algebra I—and then structure the entire pre-K to seventh grade student experience to ensure this is a legitimate possibility for every child. Since when does equity mean everyone gets nothing? I don't know whether Algebra I is above or below what eighth graders can be expected to do, but raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable of is not the answer either. Everybody knows someone else that is better at math than they are, and someone who is not as good. It is universal common knowledge that the ease with which one takes to math is different for different people. Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?

acchow 4y ago
> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? America keeps conflating equity for equality.
- eej71 4y ago
  The conflation is a very recent intellectual phenomena.
  - cjbgkagh 4y ago
    I think it is part of an intentional replacement, the conflation is only temporary in order to muddy the waters and diminish opposition.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    Why intellectual? It seems more political to me (both in the sense of wanting to change policy and wanting to acquire power)
    - eej71 4y ago
      Certainly true - but the advocacy of the philosophical distinction and its promotion originates from various intellectuals. I wish it would go back to where it came from, but I see that we may be stuck with it for quite a while.
- slowhand09 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - chowells 4y ago
    And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Individuals are irrelevant to the discussion. If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Or is there maybe not the equality of opportunity that they claim?
    - visarga 4y ago
      .. groups might differ in how they set goals and what they consider valuable
    - sandstrom 4y ago
      "Is one group inherently inferior?" It's reasonable to think that there is (A) some correlation between parental income and intelligence. Also, it's reasonable to think there is (B) correlation between parental intelligence and their children's intelligence, which in turn (C) correlate with school performance. Source on B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Sources on A and C: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf So yes, maybe people in the low income group are "inferior" in the sense that they'll have a harder time in school, because they are (on average) less bright. Everyone knows that some kids have an easy time in school because they are quick-witted, and others will have a harder time. That's not saying we shouldn't try to help them, we certainly should! But I think we'll make less progress on that goal if we cannot admit that some kids will have a more difficult time than others.
    - bendbro 4y ago
      > No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Sweeping group level decisions ultimately affect individuals. > If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Why not? Progress isn't exclusive to the left, and people offering progress often destroy rather than improve. Progress doesn't necessarily require sacrificing meritocratic ideals to satisfy some sludge of totally-not-marxist, totally-not-postmodern, totally-not-intersectional, totally-not-critical-theory thought. We can make everyone's life better through other methods. I'm happy to see the zeitgeist finally getting over this fixation that politics is described by "The Good Guys vs the right wing". My idea: Judge people on their individual merits and whatever happens is fair game. Implement a social safety net to prevent people from suffering. Reparate historical violations of the first tenet. Aggressively target monopolies. Increase environmental protections. Increase transparency in business and government. Increase education about our financial system, personal finance, and contemporary topics. These ideas can be easily composed onto the ideas we already have, will result in benefit for everyone, and the political distance between them and the common man is much less than it is between all the woke stuff.
jaywalk 4y ago
So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted" and teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them. So instead of regular and gifted classes, you have regular and "non-gifted" (for lack of a better term) classes. This is why equity is a bullshit goal.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? You just can't do that, no matter how much you want it. Some teachers are better than others, they can't all be elite. The teachers union wouldn't let you sack all the mediocre teachers, and even if you somehow could fire them, where would all the new elite teachers to replace the mediocre ones come from? If you just sacked the bottom 50% of teachers and doubled the class size of the better half, I think classroom conditions would certainly deteriorate.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? Gifted students (at least up to middle school) don't need special teachers (an 8th grade math teacher could teach gifted 6th graders), they just need challenging material and peers to keep them motivated and study with.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      > Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? The well-behaved students. Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns, regardless of their IQ. And if a dim student who scores poorly on IQ tests knows how to sit quietly and behave themself, I think good teachers will help them a lot.
      - jacobolus 4y ago
        > Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distractible as children, who had difficulty with the formal school curriculum, or who were ostracized by their classmates for one reason or another. Every child deserves attention from good teachers. Good teachers with enough resources can provide a significant benefit to these students and integrate them into a smoothly functioning classroom. Assigning troublesome students to weak or unsympathetic teachers is a tremendous “waste” of human talent.
zozbot234 4y ago
> raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable The alternate view is that we should very much do this as a meaningful challenge to K-12 math teachers. People throughout the Western world, at all levels of underlying aptitude (whatever might be meant by that), manage to learn their basic intro to algebra in junior high. It's not rocket surgery, FFS!
bena 4y ago
Algebra I is right around what they should be able to grok. When I went to high school, the expected path from Freshman year (9th grade) to Senior year (12th grade) was Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, MATH ELECTIVE (IIRC, that last could have been Trigonometry). My middle school didn't have 8th grade Algebra I. But another middle school that fed the high school I went to did have it. And from what I remember, it was available to honor students as well as those in gifted programs. So I don't agree that it should be mandated, that seems a step too far, but it's probably a good option to have for those who can handle it. And the number of students who can handle it is probably greater than the number who it is being offered to currently. So I don't agree with removing it entirely either.
tonguez 4y ago
“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.” a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.” no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like everyone who writes this lives in their mom’s basement and has never gone outside and thinks if they just make the boring and tired declaration that non-black/non-brown people are evil/racist, that it absolves them of every other sin they commit, like not caring about homeless people or the fact that everything they own is made by chinese children. in reality it accomplishes nothing except complacency and it helps the people raping the world continue their work of exploiting everyone.
- lupire 4y ago
  What you don't understand is that advanced classes have limited seats available compared to students who want them.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Not really. Any teacher qualified to teach HS math should be able to teach anything up to pre-Calc. If you have more Algebra students ahead of grade level than usual, you shift a teacher away from pre-Algebra and into teaching Algebra I.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    And do they choose who gets into the class by race?
  - rhino369 4y ago
    That's not what the progressive complain about. But if that is true, the obvious solution is to create more spots. If the same people wouldn't complain about disparate failure rates, I'd even support making them open enrollment, but weeding people out based on performance. But we all know, people would just claim the classes are racist.
- 4y ago
SoftTalker 4y ago
Subject categories such as "math" are also very broad. I struggled with math in elementary school, because it was mostly about memorization. 3 + 5 = 8. 6 x 7 = 42. Learning and being able to spit out those facts as quickly and flawlessly as possible was most of what I remember about math as a young kid. I was never good at that. I still am not good at that. I got Cs and sometimes lower grades in math. Somehow, though, I passed a test in 7th grade to qualify to take algebra in 8th grade. Suddenly stuff started making sense, and I could see a point to it. You could actually solve an interesting problem. It wasn't just regurgitation of facts. It became more about thinking and connecting concepts and even being creative. I started getting As in math, and continue to do well in High School with geometry, trig, and calculus, but up until algebra was introduced I would certainly not have demonstrated a gifted ability in "math".
- zozbot234 4y ago
  You struggled with math in elementary school because of deeply flawed teaching. Even at that early age, it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize. Of course, the fact that teaching quality can vary to such an extent is itself noteworthy.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    I don't think I agree. 3 + 5 = 8 isn't something you need to literally memorize, but if you don't memorize such facts of basic arithmetic you're at a disadvantage when it comes to doing homework and tests. It's easier and less error-prone to memorize 8*7 than it is to work it out manually every time you see it until it sticks. For what it's worth, I struggled with math in elementary school and especially high school -- I failed algebra I, then passed it with a D; then I failed algebra II before passing it* with a D. It wasn't until I was forced to take a business calculus class in my 20s that it started clicking, and I assure you the quality of instruction wasn't any better at the college level than it was in high school. (I did eventually graduate with honors with a math degree.)
    - realfun 4y ago
hintymad 4y ago
> but raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable of is not the answer The most advanced students will find one way or another to educate themselves. I think our school systems should focus on the middle: the students who could realize their full potential if they are sufficiently challenged. They are the group that do not always get STEM naturally but can eventually get it if pushed enough with the right material and exercises. Watering down curriculum means the students in the middle would lose the chance to truly grow, or their parents resort to tutoring and we get back to the discussion of how social-economic status matters in education.
- lupire 4y ago
  What if those most advanced students don't have rich connected parents to expose them to educational opportunities? If schooling doesn't matter for the brightest students, why does everyone think Caltech is such a great school?
  - hintymad 4y ago
    Fair question. My assumption is that the US schools offer students enough exposure and resources of advanced topics, to the point that top students will find their way. For instance, libraries, vast resources on the internet, community colleges, programs with local universities, and etc. The assumption can be challenged, of course. Case in point, this problem on Stackexchange was from a high-school homework. I think it's advanced enough for students: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/711174/calculating-the-displacement-of-particle-as-a-function-of-time https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/711174/calculati...
    - Tyr42 4y ago
      Getting out of doing the "boring busywork" is part of the advantage of being in the gifted class too though. Just doing both sets of work isn't a solution.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    It is for grad school. Nobody in academia cares if you went there for undergrad.
tyjen 4y ago
The state I occupy doesn't allow accelerated programs for students to help them advance to a higher level math than originally projected, they only allow it for students to catch up. This is the opposite of what the previous state I lived in which allowed motivated students to advance, but they're also turning gifted programs into lotteries versus achievement. My daughter is in the high school math club, so she frequently talks with math teachers and they reveal what state or county school districts are intending for future high school students. Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1. I understand they're attempting to narrow the achievement bandwidth in public schools on the basis of race, but this appears to be creating societal inefficiencies and decreasing equity overall. Sort of like, how someone could have a PhD in physics and working as a middle school science teacher, they'd effectively be underemployed or underutilized in society due to lack of demand for particle physicists; however, unlike limited particle physicist positions, in the students case, they don't have to be limited or underachieving in classes. Further, the additional problem this push for public school equity is decreasing equity, without imposing the same limitations on private school, homeschool, or charter school students, this mechanism is increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots. Either lens you evaluate this from, either equity or utilitarian perspective, this is a poorly executed plan that isn't going to achieve success in equity; unless, equity strictly means racial categories and doesn't include wealth/income inequality.
- fn-mote 4y ago
  > Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1. I hate to say it, but Algebra 1 by 9th grade is NOT a very high bar. In my area, the majority of students should be studying algebra no later than this. IMO, if most of the students aren't making it this far, something is wrong in the system. Maybe the bottom 20% shouldn't, but talking about algebra 1 in 9th grade like it's a stretch goal is a danger sign to me.
robonerd 4y ago
Algebra I at 8th grade would have placed you a year behind when I was in school. 7th grade was Algrebra 1, Algebra 2 was 8th, Geometry was 9th (first year of highschool). 10th grade had Trig, 11th had pre-Calc, and Calculus was the final year.
- raegis 4y ago
  I took Algebra 1 in 9th grade, and Algebra 2 and Geometry in the 10th grade. The 9th graders in my Algebra 2 class (who took Algebra 1 in 8th grade) had holes in their algebra background because middle school algebra is taught at a lower level than high school algebra. But I wasn't behind, for I took AP Calculus in 11th grade successfully because of a strong foundation from high school level algebra classes. However, I'm struggling with placement choices for own children as we speak.
- icedchai 4y ago
  Same here. This was in the mid 90's though. Not sure what it's like these days...
dpbriggs 4y ago
At the very least it would be useful to offer supplements for the mathematically interested. If it's accredited we'll run into the same conversation but at least students will have access to more interesting material. In my experience tutoring remedial math students just had a hole somewhere or never practiced. Once both of those were addressed (with lots of hard work) they passed just fine.
glerk 4y ago
As someone who didn't grow up in the American school system, I am a bit surprised that Algebra I in the 8th grade is considered "gifted education". If Algebra I is about solving linear equations with unknown variables, I am pretty sure I was taught this much earlier than 8th grade as part of the standard curriculum. But maybe this means something different in the United States.
- usrn 4y ago
  No that's about right. People hate math here largely because it's unbearably repetitive.
- lights0123 4y ago
  Algebra I also generally includes systems of (2 or 3) linear equations, quadratics (different equation forms, factoring, graphing, solving) and basic exponential functions (although usually just recognizing them and filling in Ce^rt).
  - glerk 4y ago
    Ah makes sense then. I remember seeing stuff like 3x+2=11 around the 4th grade, but definitely no quadratics or graphing functions until much later. Maybe the order the information is presented is just different and it doesn’t make sense to compare.
  - anthonypasq 4y ago
    i dont think so, thats all algebra 2
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      That is not my experience. Systems of 2 linear equations ("intersecting lines") and quadratics were definitely part of Algebra I (and maybe even pre-Algebra). I'm 95+% sure that basic exponentiation was also part of Algebra I.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
tqi 4y ago
> It is universal common knowledge that the ease with which one takes to math is different for different people. Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? I disagree with this statement, especially at the level of arithmetic and basic algebra. While math "ability" is likely a bell curve I would wager that it is centered well above Algebra I, and whether a kid at that age is "Good" or "Bad" at math is much more mindset/perception.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Is math ability centered above Algebra I among 13 year olds, though? I would wager Algebra I is well above the center of the curve in that age group.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Math, chess, and music seem to be domains in which child prodigies are not infrequently found.
ehvatum 4y ago
> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? Because this sentiment is exactly opposed to a dominant philosophical framework built upon the axiom that, because all people are exactly identical, any difference in outcome is necessarily the result of hidden power structures. The replacement of “equality” with “equity” is a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with Marxism. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are American principles, but they are fading as equality of outcome is held up as the only acceptable standard. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, an outspoken Soviet dissident, famously wrote: “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” Much greater energy and intelligence is required to advocate for equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes, and much greater worldly experience is required to value equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes. It will always be easy for politicians to set people against each other and dilute the common good by pushing Marxism. It is the path of least effort and greatest personal return for low quality leaders.
kurupt213 4y ago
Algebra 1 is a low bar for 8th grade. There isn’t any reason that shouldn’t be the standard expectation
whatevenisthat 4y ago
> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of meaning and "friendship" with anyone. It's the same crowd of people who just lost their very progressive DA in San Francisco during last night's recall election outcome. They keep doubling down on their policing strategy (see: no policing strategy) and being soft on crime and consequently crime has increased significantly. The same group of people that plugs their ears to reason and reality on why policing is necessary are the same group of people that are always trying to drag everyone down to their same floor level.
- silicon2401 4y ago
  > Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?
  - user_7832 4y ago
    > There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason? If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.
    - silicon2401 4y ago
      My comment applies to everybody from every political party/religion/etc who bases their decisions on dogma rather than reason.
    - tremon 4y ago
lr1970 4y ago
> I don't know whether Algebra I is above or below what eighth graders can be expected to do I went to school in Eastern Europe in the eighties. We had algebra (and separately geometry) since 7-th grade. Also physics, chemistry and biology. And it was an ordinary secondary school. Some kids were struggling, also depends on how good/bad the teacher was. But majority was coping with the load alright.
bsder 4y ago
> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? Because that would be an admission that we can't just pile 30 students in the same class and in doing so would mean that we need more teachers and nobody wants to spend the money to do that.
nine_k 4y ago
The problem is deeper. The traditional grade-based school is not good. It pushes some kids, and stymies other kids. Slicing kids in thin same-age layers is not good, especially for teenagers who cannot form reasonable social structures and end up with gangs and a group of outcasts. A more reasonable school, after the elementary level, should mix and match kids, so that older kids with more advanced skills could help those who hasn't still advanced as much. It should allow to take courses, much like a college does, in whatever order a kid (and their parents) find most beneficial, independent of the age, with the goal to pass a GED test by the end of the school. Even better, it should be possible to pass a basic or an advanced level of a test for a subject, independent of the age. The presence of several parallel tracks for a subject solves the issue with gifted kids and struggling kids alike. I don't think I have all the answers, but the standard school education system was invented in Prussia in the middle of 18th century, and is pretty obviously inadequate for today; ask teachers, students, or parents. Though maybe for some parents it looks adequate because it functions as a storage facility for kids for the day. But kids could spend their time much better than that.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    I wonder if that's an issue in many Montessori schools? What evidence do you have that bullying is a byproduct of mixed age classes?
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      None, because it’s not common. All I know is that research shows that bullying develops and evolves by age. It’s not going to be as prevalent in early age Montessori schools as it is in middle school. Let’s also not ignore that a private Montessori school is also a filter.
seoaeu 4y ago
If you continue reading, the author seems to agree with you… > My greatest concern? The admirable but demonstrably false notion that school systems can fully implement an “all kids are gifted” framework that attempts to address the issue of eliminating the need for specialized gifted programming.
gautamdivgi 4y ago
I did my school in India and algebra is started in 8th grade along with geometry and proofs

acchow 4y ago

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? America keeps conflating equity for equality.

eej71 4y ago
The conflation is a very recent intellectual phenomena.
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  I think it is part of an intentional replacement, the conflation is only temporary in order to muddy the waters and diminish opposition.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Why intellectual? It seems more political to me (both in the sense of wanting to change policy and wanting to acquire power)
  - eej71 4y ago
    Certainly true - but the advocacy of the philosophical distinction and its promotion originates from various intellectuals. I wish it would go back to where it came from, but I see that we may be stuck with it for quite a while.
slowhand09 4y ago
[flagged]
- chowells 4y ago
  And conservatives are flat-out wrong, as usual, because they're arguing against strawmen they've invented. No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Individuals are irrelevant to the discussion. If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Or is there maybe not the equality of opportunity that they claim?
  - visarga 4y ago
    .. groups might differ in how they set goals and what they consider valuable
  - sandstrom 4y ago
    "Is one group inherently inferior?" It's reasonable to think that there is (A) some correlation between parental income and intelligence. Also, it's reasonable to think there is (B) correlation between parental intelligence and their children's intelligence, which in turn (C) correlate with school performance. Source on B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ Sources on A and C: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/ses/2007-strenze.pdf So yes, maybe people in the low income group are "inferior" in the sense that they'll have a harder time in school, because they are (on average) less bright. Everyone knows that some kids have an easy time in school because they are quick-witted, and others will have a harder time. That's not saying we shouldn't try to help them, we certainly should! But I think we'll make less progress on that goal if we cannot admit that some kids will have a more difficult time than others.
  - bendbro 4y ago
    > No one is talking about individuals. The discussion is about group statistics. Sweeping group level decisions ultimately affect individuals. > If there is a statistical difference in outcomes, why? Is one group inherently inferior? Why not? Progress isn't exclusive to the left, and people offering progress often destroy rather than improve. Progress doesn't necessarily require sacrificing meritocratic ideals to satisfy some sludge of totally-not-marxist, totally-not-postmodern, totally-not-intersectional, totally-not-critical-theory thought. We can make everyone's life better through other methods. I'm happy to see the zeitgeist finally getting over this fixation that politics is described by "The Good Guys vs the right wing". My idea: Judge people on their individual merits and whatever happens is fair game. Implement a social safety net to prevent people from suffering. Reparate historical violations of the first tenet. Aggressively target monopolies. Increase environmental protections. Increase transparency in business and government. Increase education about our financial system, personal finance, and contemporary topics. These ideas can be easily composed onto the ideas we already have, will result in benefit for everyone, and the political distance between them and the common man is much less than it is between all the woke stuff.

jaywalk 4y ago

So what happens when we decide "everyone is gifted" and teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? Seems like the obvious outcome would be a lot more students who struggle, necessitating a slower track for them. So instead of regular and gifted classes, you have regular and "non-gifted" (for lack of a better term) classes. This is why equity is a bullshit goal.

robonerd 4y ago
> teach all students at the level that would have been taught only to gifted students before? You just can't do that, no matter how much you want it. Some teachers are better than others, they can't all be elite. The teachers union wouldn't let you sack all the mediocre teachers, and even if you somehow could fire them, where would all the new elite teachers to replace the mediocre ones come from? If you just sacked the bottom 50% of teachers and doubled the class size of the better half, I think classroom conditions would certainly deteriorate.
- lupire 4y ago
  Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? Gifted students (at least up to middle school) don't need special teachers (an 8th grade math teacher could teach gifted 6th graders), they just need challenging material and peers to keep them motivated and study with.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > Who needs a better teacher? The gifted student or the remedial student? The well-behaved students. Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns, regardless of their IQ. And if a dim student who scores poorly on IQ tests knows how to sit quietly and behave themself, I think good teachers will help them a lot.
    - jacobolus 4y ago
      > Good teachers are wasted on troublemakers and class clowns It is entirely natural for children to “clown around” in a boring setting, and their lack of interest / trouble focusing reflects a societal (and school) failure to make school engaging and give them the appropriate challenges and direct feedback to keep their attention. Many of the greatest human breakthroughs were made by people who were squirmy and distractible as children, who had difficulty with the formal school curriculum, or who were ostracized by their classmates for one reason or another. Every child deserves attention from good teachers. Good teachers with enough resources can provide a significant benefit to these students and integrate them into a smoothly functioning classroom. Assigning troublesome students to weak or unsympathetic teachers is a tremendous “waste” of human talent.

zozbot234 4y ago

> raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable The alternate view is that we should very much do this as a meaningful challenge to K-12 math teachers. People throughout the Western world, at all levels of underlying aptitude (whatever might be meant by that), manage to learn their basic intro to algebra in junior high. It's not rocket surgery, FFS!

bena 4y ago

Algebra I is right around what they should be able to grok. When I went to high school, the expected path from Freshman year (9th grade) to Senior year (12th grade) was Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, MATH ELECTIVE (IIRC, that last could have been Trigonometry). My middle school didn't have 8th grade Algebra I. But another middle school that fed the high school I went to did have it. And from what I remember, it was available to honor students as well as those in gifted programs. So I don't agree that it should be mandated, that seems a step too far, but it's probably a good option to have for those who can handle it. And the number of students who can handle it is probably greater than the number who it is being offered to currently. So I don't agree with removing it entirely either.

tonguez 4y ago

“…it is unacceptable to have eighth grade Algebra I classes and gifted education programs that disproportionately exclude Black and brown children.” a definition of exclude is “deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege.” no one is barring access to these classes on the basis race. can you even imagine that? “sorry, you’re not allowed to take this class; you’re black.” it’s like everyone who writes this lives in their mom’s basement and has never gone outside and thinks if they just make the boring and tired declaration that non-black/non-brown people are evil/racist, that it absolves them of every other sin they commit, like not caring about homeless people or the fact that everything they own is made by chinese children. in reality it accomplishes nothing except complacency and it helps the people raping the world continue their work of exploiting everyone.

lupire 4y ago
What you don't understand is that advanced classes have limited seats available compared to students who want them.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Not really. Any teacher qualified to teach HS math should be able to teach anything up to pre-Calc. If you have more Algebra students ahead of grade level than usual, you shift a teacher away from pre-Algebra and into teaching Algebra I.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  And do they choose who gets into the class by race?
- rhino369 4y ago
  That's not what the progressive complain about. But if that is true, the obvious solution is to create more spots. If the same people wouldn't complain about disparate failure rates, I'd even support making them open enrollment, but weeding people out based on performance. But we all know, people would just claim the classes are racist.
4y ago

SoftTalker 4y ago

Subject categories such as "math" are also very broad. I struggled with math in elementary school, because it was mostly about memorization. 3 + 5 = 8. 6 x 7 = 42. Learning and being able to spit out those facts as quickly and flawlessly as possible was most of what I remember about math as a young kid. I was never good at that. I still am not good at that. I got Cs and sometimes lower grades in math. Somehow, though, I passed a test in 7th grade to qualify to take algebra in 8th grade. Suddenly stuff started making sense, and I could see a point to it. You could actually solve an interesting problem. It wasn't just regurgitation of facts. It became more about thinking and connecting concepts and even being creative. I started getting As in math, and continue to do well in High School with geometry, trig, and calculus, but up until algebra was introduced I would certainly not have demonstrated a gifted ability in "math".

zozbot234 4y ago
You struggled with math in elementary school because of deeply flawed teaching. Even at that early age, it's not hard to understand that "3 + 5 = 8" is not something that you'd need to literally memorize. Of course, the fact that teaching quality can vary to such an extent is itself noteworthy.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  I don't think I agree. 3 + 5 = 8 isn't something you need to literally memorize, but if you don't memorize such facts of basic arithmetic you're at a disadvantage when it comes to doing homework and tests. It's easier and less error-prone to memorize 8*7 than it is to work it out manually every time you see it until it sticks. For what it's worth, I struggled with math in elementary school and especially high school -- I failed algebra I, then passed it with a D; then I failed algebra II before passing it* with a D. It wasn't until I was forced to take a business calculus class in my 20s that it started clicking, and I assure you the quality of instruction wasn't any better at the college level than it was in high school. (I did eventually graduate with honors with a math degree.)
  - realfun 4y ago

hintymad 4y ago

> but raising the difficulty of every class to what the most advanced student is capable of is not the answer The most advanced students will find one way or another to educate themselves. I think our school systems should focus on the middle: the students who could realize their full potential if they are sufficiently challenged. They are the group that do not always get STEM naturally but can eventually get it if pushed enough with the right material and exercises. Watering down curriculum means the students in the middle would lose the chance to truly grow, or their parents resort to tutoring and we get back to the discussion of how social-economic status matters in education.

lupire 4y ago
What if those most advanced students don't have rich connected parents to expose them to educational opportunities? If schooling doesn't matter for the brightest students, why does everyone think Caltech is such a great school?
- hintymad 4y ago
  Fair question. My assumption is that the US schools offer students enough exposure and resources of advanced topics, to the point that top students will find their way. For instance, libraries, vast resources on the internet, community colleges, programs with local universities, and etc. The assumption can be challenged, of course. Case in point, this problem on Stackexchange was from a high-school homework. I think it's advanced enough for students: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/711174/calculating-the-displacement-of-particle-as-a-function-of-time https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/711174/calculati...
  - Tyr42 4y ago
    Getting out of doing the "boring busywork" is part of the advantage of being in the gifted class too though. Just doing both sets of work isn't a solution.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  It is for grad school. Nobody in academia cares if you went there for undergrad.

tyjen 4y ago

The state I occupy doesn't allow accelerated programs for students to help them advance to a higher level math than originally projected, they only allow it for students to catch up. This is the opposite of what the previous state I lived in which allowed motivated students to advance, but they're also turning gifted programs into lotteries versus achievement. My daughter is in the high school math club, so she frequently talks with math teachers and they reveal what state or county school districts are intending for future high school students. Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1. I understand they're attempting to narrow the achievement bandwidth in public schools on the basis of race, but this appears to be creating societal inefficiencies and decreasing equity overall. Sort of like, how someone could have a PhD in physics and working as a middle school science teacher, they'd effectively be underemployed or underutilized in society due to lack of demand for particle physicists; however, unlike limited particle physicist positions, in the students case, they don't have to be limited or underachieving in classes. Further, the additional problem this push for public school equity is decreasing equity, without imposing the same limitations on private school, homeschool, or charter school students, this mechanism is increasing the divide between the haves and have-nots. Either lens you evaluate this from, either equity or utilitarian perspective, this is a poorly executed plan that isn't going to achieve success in equity; unless, equity strictly means racial categories and doesn't include wealth/income inequality.

fn-mote 4y ago
> Earlier this week, a teacher was ranting to the club about new guideline goals that either the state/county was pushing, that all (most) incoming 9th graders take Algebra 1. I hate to say it, but Algebra 1 by 9th grade is NOT a very high bar. In my area, the majority of students should be studying algebra no later than this. IMO, if most of the students aren't making it this far, something is wrong in the system. Maybe the bottom 20% shouldn't, but talking about algebra 1 in 9th grade like it's a stretch goal is a danger sign to me.

robonerd 4y ago

Algebra I at 8th grade would have placed you a year behind when I was in school. 7th grade was Algrebra 1, Algebra 2 was 8th, Geometry was 9th (first year of highschool). 10th grade had Trig, 11th had pre-Calc, and Calculus was the final year.

raegis 4y ago
I took Algebra 1 in 9th grade, and Algebra 2 and Geometry in the 10th grade. The 9th graders in my Algebra 2 class (who took Algebra 1 in 8th grade) had holes in their algebra background because middle school algebra is taught at a lower level than high school algebra. But I wasn't behind, for I took AP Calculus in 11th grade successfully because of a strong foundation from high school level algebra classes. However, I'm struggling with placement choices for own children as we speak.
icedchai 4y ago
Same here. This was in the mid 90's though. Not sure what it's like these days...

dpbriggs 4y ago

At the very least it would be useful to offer supplements for the mathematically interested. If it's accredited we'll run into the same conversation but at least students will have access to more interesting material. In my experience tutoring remedial math students just had a hole somewhere or never practiced. Once both of those were addressed (with lots of hard work) they passed just fine.

glerk 4y ago

As someone who didn't grow up in the American school system, I am a bit surprised that Algebra I in the 8th grade is considered "gifted education". If Algebra I is about solving linear equations with unknown variables, I am pretty sure I was taught this much earlier than 8th grade as part of the standard curriculum. But maybe this means something different in the United States.

usrn 4y ago
No that's about right. People hate math here largely because it's unbearably repetitive.
lights0123 4y ago
Algebra I also generally includes systems of (2 or 3) linear equations, quadratics (different equation forms, factoring, graphing, solving) and basic exponential functions (although usually just recognizing them and filling in Ce^rt).
- glerk 4y ago
  Ah makes sense then. I remember seeing stuff like 3x+2=11 around the 4th grade, but definitely no quadratics or graphing functions until much later. Maybe the order the information is presented is just different and it doesn’t make sense to compare.
- anthonypasq 4y ago
  i dont think so, thats all algebra 2
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    That is not my experience. Systems of 2 linear equations ("intersecting lines") and quadratics were definitely part of Algebra I (and maybe even pre-Algebra). I'm 95+% sure that basic exponentiation was also part of Algebra I.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

tqi 4y ago

> It is universal common knowledge that the ease with which one takes to math is different for different people. Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? I disagree with this statement, especially at the level of arithmetic and basic algebra. While math "ability" is likely a bell curve I would wager that it is centered well above Algebra I, and whether a kid at that age is "Good" or "Bad" at math is much more mindset/perception.

sokoloff 4y ago
Is math ability centered above Algebra I among 13 year olds, though? I would wager Algebra I is well above the center of the curve in that age group.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  Math, chess, and music seem to be domains in which child prodigies are not infrequently found.

ehvatum 4y ago

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? Because this sentiment is exactly opposed to a dominant philosophical framework built upon the axiom that, because all people are exactly identical, any difference in outcome is necessarily the result of hidden power structures. The replacement of “equality” with “equity” is a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with Marxism. Equality before the law and equality of opportunity are American principles, but they are fading as equality of outcome is held up as the only acceptable standard. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, an outspoken Soviet dissident, famously wrote: “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” Much greater energy and intelligence is required to advocate for equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes, and much greater worldly experience is required to value equal opportunity as compared to equal outcomes. It will always be easy for politicians to set people against each other and dilute the common good by pushing Marxism. It is the path of least effort and greatest personal return for low quality leaders.

kurupt213 4y ago

Algebra 1 is a low bar for 8th grade. There isn’t any reason that shouldn’t be the standard expectation

whatevenisthat 4y ago

> "Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same?" Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. Some of them have doubled down on woke-speak around "equity" for so long, that they cannot backtrack and accept that merit and performance exist. Doing this would put them at odds with their current in-group and likely their only source of meaning and "friendship" with anyone. It's the same crowd of people who just lost their very progressive DA in San Francisco during last night's recall election outcome. They keep doubling down on their policing strategy (see: no policing strategy) and being soft on crime and consequently crime has increased significantly. The same group of people that plugs their ears to reason and reality on why policing is necessary are the same group of people that are always trying to drag everyone down to their same floor level.

silicon2401 4y ago
> Because we are dealing with a group which is motivated by ideology. It's a religion to them. There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason?
- user_7832 4y ago
  > There really is no simpler way to say it than this, and it raises the question: how do you even make progress with a group who bases decisions on dogma rather than reason? If someone were to not have read the above comments, this argument could be very easily used to support the opposing (political) stance as well. I suppose most humans are just emotion driven - though this need not be a bug.
  - silicon2401 4y ago
    My comment applies to everybody from every political party/religion/etc who bases their decisions on dogma rather than reason.
  - tremon 4y ago

lr1970 4y ago

> I don't know whether Algebra I is above or below what eighth graders can be expected to do I went to school in Eastern Europe in the eighties. We had algebra (and separately geometry) since 7-th grade. Also physics, chemistry and biology. And it was an ordinary secondary school. Some kids were struggling, also depends on how good/bad the teacher was. But majority was coping with the load alright.

bsder 4y ago

> Why can't we just admit it and quit trying to make people who are unique the same? Because that would be an admission that we can't just pile 30 students in the same class and in doing so would mean that we need more teachers and nobody wants to spend the money to do that.

nine_k 4y ago

The problem is deeper. The traditional grade-based school is not good. It pushes some kids, and stymies other kids. Slicing kids in thin same-age layers is not good, especially for teenagers who cannot form reasonable social structures and end up with gangs and a group of outcasts. A more reasonable school, after the elementary level, should mix and match kids, so that older kids with more advanced skills could help those who hasn't still advanced as much. It should allow to take courses, much like a college does, in whatever order a kid (and their parents) find most beneficial, independent of the age, with the goal to pass a GED test by the end of the school. Even better, it should be possible to pass a basic or an advanced level of a test for a subject, independent of the age. The presence of several parallel tracks for a subject solves the issue with gifted kids and struggling kids alike. I don't think I have all the answers, but the standard school education system was invented in Prussia in the middle of 18th century, and is pretty obviously inadequate for today; ask teachers, students, or parents. Though maybe for some parents it looks adequate because it functions as a storage facility for kids for the day. But kids could spend their time much better than that.

chaostheory 4y ago
The reason children are “sliced up” by age is because of their lack of maturity. Consequently, if you mix younger children with older, more physically developed children what will inevitably happen is a lot of bullying.
- r00fus 4y ago
  I wonder if that's an issue in many Montessori schools? What evidence do you have that bullying is a byproduct of mixed age classes?
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    None, because it’s not common. All I know is that research shows that bullying develops and evolves by age. It’s not going to be as prevalent in early age Montessori schools as it is in middle school. Let’s also not ignore that a private Montessori school is also a filter.

seoaeu 4y ago

If you continue reading, the author seems to agree with you… > My greatest concern? The admirable but demonstrably false notion that school systems can fully implement an “all kids are gifted” framework that attempts to address the issue of eliminating the need for specialized gifted programming.

gautamdivgi 4y ago

I did my school in India and algebra is started in 8th grade along with geometry and proofs