3 ms·

I'll be the first to admit that I'm chronically stupid, but can someone help parse the linked SFUSD's decision for me: https://www.sfusdmath.org/richard-carra

I'll be the first to admit that I'm chronically stupid, but can someone help parse the linked SFUSD's decision for me: https://www.sfusdmath.org/richard-carranzas-remarks-to-board.html https://www.sfusdmath.org/richard-carranzas-remarks-to-board... (it's linked in the article as the decision to push math back a year). But I'm having trouble understanding why not exposing students to a subject earlier would be better for their development with that subject. Are they supposed to absorb the knowledge for that between 8th-9th grade somehow without knowing what it is?

nverno 4y ago
They were saying they split the old 1-year course across the two new 8/9th grade courses, but added in a bunch of extra stuff to the each of the replacement courses- useful modern stuff like data analysis and statistical modeling. They were making the point of focusing on deeper understanding through real world applications instead of rote memorization, which sounds good in theory, but takes up the time that was previously spent on the second half their Algebra class. The part that boggles my mind is that these kids wont even see polynomials until high school! I'm pretty sure we were learning that stuff in 5th grade.
- Avicebron 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure I was too...and I did not go to an elite middle/high school by any stretch of the imagination. Also, maybe I was just lucky in my math teachers as a kid, but I can't for the life of me remember rote memorization in math for almost anything outside of maybe being forced to memorize times tables at some point. I honestly thought memorization had been disproven to be effective eons ago.
  - nverno 4y ago
    Memorization was the wrong word - I think they are referring repetitive processes like solving algebra equations over and over again until it's second nature. Probably an essential component of mastering basic math as a useful tool, at least it was for me - but focused on procedure not broader understanding I guess.
- chii 4y ago
  > modern stuff like data analysis and statistical modeling but without teaching the fundamentals like algebra and polynomials, which is foundational to understanding statistics (and how one would use it to model something to perform data analysis)?! It's like trying to teach english by teaching novel writing, but without teaching any grammar.
  - nverno 4y ago
    I think they are searching for a way to engage the uninterested/unmotivated kids that are struggling by using real world stuff as motivation. It seems like a method that could have potential, but also heavily contingent on good teachers. But yea, if I was in charge I'd be pushing those fundamentals in 5/6th grade not high school.
shrimp_emoji 4y ago
It hurts underperformers. https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/50/1/159 https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/50/1/159 >We find no evidence of a positive mean impact of acceleration in any specification and significant negative effects on performance in both Algebra I and the traditional followup course, Geometry. Accelerating algebra to middle school appears benign or beneficial for higherperforming students but unambiguously harmful to the lowest performers. We consider whether the effects reflect the reliance on less-qualified teachers and conclude that this mechanism explains only a small fraction of the result. Anecdata, fwliw: I learned multiplication and division in preschool, and I still loathed math to the point of neglecting it later (maybe because of how hellish math kept on being through 1st and 2nd grade overseas). I didn't even fully understand fractions when I took the SAT. (I'm just lucky my reading/writing were stellar. ;) (So that I could go on to fail both calc 1 and 2 when taking CS in uni. Made it through the second time though, mwahaha!)

nverno 4y ago

They were saying they split the old 1-year course across the two new 8/9th grade courses, but added in a bunch of extra stuff to the each of the replacement courses- useful modern stuff like data analysis and statistical modeling. They were making the point of focusing on deeper understanding through real world applications instead of rote memorization, which sounds good in theory, but takes up the time that was previously spent on the second half their Algebra class. The part that boggles my mind is that these kids wont even see polynomials until high school! I'm pretty sure we were learning that stuff in 5th grade.

Avicebron 4y ago
I'm pretty sure I was too...and I did not go to an elite middle/high school by any stretch of the imagination. Also, maybe I was just lucky in my math teachers as a kid, but I can't for the life of me remember rote memorization in math for almost anything outside of maybe being forced to memorize times tables at some point. I honestly thought memorization had been disproven to be effective eons ago.
- nverno 4y ago
  Memorization was the wrong word - I think they are referring repetitive processes like solving algebra equations over and over again until it's second nature. Probably an essential component of mastering basic math as a useful tool, at least it was for me - but focused on procedure not broader understanding I guess.
chii 4y ago
> modern stuff like data analysis and statistical modeling but without teaching the fundamentals like algebra and polynomials, which is foundational to understanding statistics (and how one would use it to model something to perform data analysis)?! It's like trying to teach english by teaching novel writing, but without teaching any grammar.
- nverno 4y ago
  I think they are searching for a way to engage the uninterested/unmotivated kids that are struggling by using real world stuff as motivation. It seems like a method that could have potential, but also heavily contingent on good teachers. But yea, if I was in charge I'd be pushing those fundamentals in 5/6th grade not high school.

shrimp_emoji 4y ago

It hurts underperformers. https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/50/1/159 https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/50/1/159 >We find no evidence of a positive mean impact of acceleration in any specification and significant negative effects on performance in both Algebra I and the traditional followup course, Geometry. Accelerating algebra to middle school appears benign or beneficial for higherperforming students but unambiguously harmful to the lowest performers. We consider whether the effects reflect the reliance on less-qualified teachers and conclude that this mechanism explains only a small fraction of the result. Anecdata, fwliw: I learned multiplication and division in preschool, and I still loathed math to the point of neglecting it later (maybe because of how hellish math kept on being through 1st and 2nd grade overseas). I didn't even fully understand fractions when I took the SAT. (I'm just lucky my reading/writing were stellar. ;) (So that I could go on to fail both calc 1 and 2 when taking CS in uni. Made it through the second time though, mwahaha!)