This policy has nothing to do with the topic of algebra. This is code for advanced math, because algebra is typically considered advanced for < 9th grade children. Since the organizations feel ashamed that they're failing certain demographics as evidenced by being under-represented in the advanced classes, they're just scrapping the advanced classes for everyone. Truly disgraceful
> This policy has nothing to do with the topic of algebra. This is code for advanced math, because algebra is typically considered advanced for < 9th grade children.
I sincerely hope you're not serious about this. I took algebra in 7th grade and I was considered a remedial student with habitually poor grades. If you're telling me I was actually 2 years advanced by present standards, then the situation in California must be deteriorating severely.
For reference, this was in an underfunded rural American public school. I was 12.
I don't know what to tell you. That's the state of the country. But hey, at least they're honest about why they're doing it:
> San Francisco pioneered key aspects of the new approach, opting in 2014 to delay algebra instruction until 9th grade and to push advanced mathematics courses until at least after 10th grade as a means of promoting equity.
The school failed the most vulnerable children by objective measures, so they're just trying to get rid of those measures entirely.
When commenting on the state of the country, I would look towards the states that have historically ranked poorly in education and see why they’re never improving. California is definitely not one of those states & seems to have no issue in keeping a higher than average educated populace.
When I was in 5th grade, I was put into the advanced math class. We graphed equations, learned y=mx+b, slopes, etc. All the basic concepts that are introduced in Algebra 1.
When I was in 7th grade, we were taught "what a negative number is." That entire year was a complete and utter waste. But fortunately, 8th grade offered Algebra where I could get back on track.
This was 30 years ago, in California. Public school math standards are a joke here, and apparently getting even worse.
For another data point, I took it in 7th grade too, that was only--oh god 2003 was nearly 20 years ago. Anyway, it was considered one year early for my public school district in Utah. Me and a few others in my 6th grade class who had good math grades were offered the chance to sign up for it early if we were able to pass a test administered by the junior high. I don't remember what the test had on it, I do remember asking people around me (at least parents and GED-holding brother) "What is algebra anyway?" and not receiving an answer, but somehow I passed. One friend also passed but didn't sign up, instead doing "pre-algebra" like most kids, which made me sad. (I'd guess the test had things like "if x + 3 = 10, multiple choice what is x?" as sort of a sink-or-swim filter, or maybe just some more advanced examples of whatever the 6th grade curriculum entailed.)
Ditto, 7th grade in Colorado. Yeah, they called it advanced, but they called everything advanced. You know the drill: grade school math is always "advanced," grad school math is always "introductory."
I took algebra in 7th grade as well, but it was considered advanced by 2 years. It was normal to take algebra in 9th grade. I went to an okay high school in a medium sized city in Michigan. That was about 20 years ago.
> then the situation in California must be deteriorating severely.
Hmm…
Worlds 5th largest GDP, internationally desirable cities, some of the highest housing prices that’s always being bought over asking price, often in cash - internationally acclaimed state wide university system, one of the cultural & academic centers of the nation…
I know it’s like, my opinion, but I think the situation in California is fine. I’d look towards the states that have ranked last & near last in education for decades without any movement in a better direction before commenting on California.
Even more, for those who do well enough in k-12 in those dead last states… well, they brain drain to greener pastures. Like California.
How many of the employees in these companies that make the GDP so high were born, raised, and educated in California?
You know damned well that it's not many. California is a success because of immigrants from other countries and states. Think about the founders of the current top valuation tech companies in California. How many were raised in California? Zuck? Nope. Maryland. Sergey Brin? Nope, educated in Maryland as well. Larry Page? Nope, raised and educated in Michigan. Steve Jobs was educated in California, 60 years ago, so you've got that. Not relevant to this conversation. What about his successor Tim Cook? Oops, he was raised and educated in Alabama. Reed Hastings? Nope, raised and educated in Boston.
So while the above proves your final point, it basically highlights the fact that California does well for structural and historical reasons, like the fact that many VCs required any company they invested in to relocate to the Valley, and other things like network effects.
Peter Thiel, Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn), Ben Horowitz (a16z), and many more. While you have some point, the Bay Area only raises so many kids while it's economic engine is unprecedented in attracting intelligent folks from around the world.
I attended underfunded rural public schools as well. The funding of a school district will often correlate with student performance, but in most subjects, it's not a causal link.
Kids with families who value education do better. Kids with parents who punish them if they don't do their homework do better.
When you isolate for income, there are large discrepancies in success between various cultural groups. Appalachian whites (my family) don't do well compared to many groups of the same income. The culture doesn't prize education, and even views it as being effeminate or "selling out". But that's only a small piece. A big piece of it is that parents don't give a shit about their kid's success in school, and that is very big in certain cultures.
My wife is the daughter of Filipino immigrants, and from the day my son started 1st grade, if he doesn't get all As, the attitude is that he has failed. At one point, I was going to argue with her, but I looked at my siblings, and my cousins (primarily white trash losers), and then looked at her family's success, and decided that she knew something I didn't.
My son has a TV and an Xbox in his room. The controllers and remotes are all kept locked away in my closet. If he doesn't get straight A's on his report card, all of it stays locked in my closet, even on weekends. We did this in the Fall of 2020 when he got all A's and a B+ in one class. He went all of the spring semester with no access to his TV or video games. He got them back in the summer after getting straight A's on his report card. (He's a 10th grader now). Contrast this with my poor, white working class siblings and how they raise their sons. My sister frequently complains about how bad her son's grades are (he's the same age as my son) and throws her hands in the air as if she's unable to do anything about it. He has multiple game systems in his room, and the last time I visited, when I woke up to take a piss, his light was on and he was playing games at 3 AM. This was a day after she had complained about his low C average. She coddles him, has low expectations for him, and ignores her own obvious parenting failures. She's a great representation for why so many American public schools are filled with thoroughly mediocre students.
If you have kids, get the fucking electronics out of their hands. If they aren't bored and regularly bugging you about being bored, it's probably because they are being entertained by their smartphones or video games, and you are fucking up as a parent.
Look at Nigerian American parents, or Asian American parents. Instead of doing what my redneck sister and many others do, and rationalizing the obvious differences by assuming that "they are too strict and are raising maladjusted nerds", imitate them. They will happily share their parenting strategies with you, and rule number one is that they aren't their kid's friends. They don't give a shit if their kids like them NOW. They care if their kids will like them when they are winning as adults.
Far too many successful people I meet complain about their parents being too hard on them, never stopping to look around at their current success and realizing that their parents made it possible.
You make some interesting points, but children are neither machines nor lab rats. Conditioning can have deep psychological effects; those successful people that complain about their parents might have done some introspection and arrived to a different conclusion from yours. Professional success unfortunately does not equal happiness.
Did you take standard high-school Algebra 1 in 7th grade? Algebraic concepts are often taught as early as 3rd grade, but much of it is considered pre-Algebra.
I didn't take Algebra in highschool, so.. maybe? 5th and 6th grade were called Pre-Algebra. 7th and 8th were Algebra. 9th was Geometry, 10th was Trig, and 11th and 12th were Calc.
How old is a 9th grade student in the US? My cohort started Algebra in year 7 in Australia, which is 12/13 years old. And similar to GP's proposal, we learn age appropriate topics every single year, every single week.
I agree with you WRT age appropriate-ness. Just because something can or has been introduced at a certain age does not mean that is optimal. I recall a study I saw recently that showed delaying introducing one subject - it may have been math - to very young students had negligible impacts on their scores (compared to students who were introduced earlier) a few years later. The students with a delayed introduction caught up so quickly that the delay didn’t matter. I’ll see if I can dig up a link - EDIT, I’m struggling to find it under all of the COVID-related student-delay-catch-up articles.
> The students with a delayed introduction caught up so quickly that the delay didn’t matter
Yes and there are some kids that act up or learn to hate education and the system for being forced into what amounts to remedial classes. Sometimes the brightest children are the most difficult precisely because they're not being challenged.
The ideal would be to have every student learn at their own pace. Some children could comprehend algebra in 8th grade, others may never fully comprehend it.
Obviously that's impossible at scale. So the best we can do is to separate kids based on ability and interest. Some children can grasp more advanced concepts at an earlier age, while others struggle. That's why generally in schools we have standard classes, special education and gifted classes. The best schools separate it even further offering additional lessons or tutoring to children that are especially curious or require more work.
Everyone benefits. This is common sense.
There's no such thing as "appropriate topics" for an age. It's all child specific.
Gifted programs do very little or nothing as far as most studies can tell. Any gains in scores are very small, and they don’t appear to make any meaningful difference in student engagement or motivation.
These programs are relatively expensive, and there’s a strong argument the gifted programs should be overhauled, or that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
> Gifted programs do very little or nothing as far as most studies can tell. Any gains in scores are very small, and they don’t appear to make any meaningful difference in student engagement or motivation.
I really don't need a study telling me my child won't benefit from a gifted program. It's a parent's right to decide for themselves. I personally know many people that have benefitted and it made their childhood bearable.
Gifted programs aren't the same thing as tracking kids into more advanced math classes. A gifted program is where you take some kids aside and teach them some random extra stuff, at the end of the day they're still in the regular classes with the other kids also and don't really have a chance to go any faster.
> Gifted programs aren't the same thing as tracking kids into more advanced math classes
In elementary school gifted programs are often tracking people into advanced math, reading, and other subjects all at once. Plus teaching them extra stuff.
At higher grades, if it exists at all, its often tracking them into a different school that has both more advanced and more diverse classes.
> A gifted program is where you take some kids aside and teach them some random extra stuff, at the end of the day they're still in the regular classes with the other kids also and don't really have a chance to go any faster.
I’ve heard of lots of different gifted programs, and most don't fit that description.
> A gifted program is where you take some kids aside and teach them some random extra stuff, at the end of the day they're still in the regular classes with the other kids also and don't really have a chance to go any faster.
My kid's school did exactly this for "gifted" elementary school kids. What saved him was being in split grade classes in 2nd and 3rd grades where he could move to the older student's side of the room for math and reading instruction. Eventually, he skipped 4th grade altogether and ended up with the peer group he was already spending much of his day with.
In middle school, the gifted kids got to go on one special field trip each year. By HS, there was a gifted program in name only. We paid someone to run the "gifted" program but I have no idea what she actually did. She wasn't even available to assist in college apps and there weren't any special programs that I ever saw. My kid, and his most motivated peers, all ended up at very good universities in spite of the lack of support from the school.
> A gifted program is where you take some kids aside and teach them some random extra stuff, at the end of the day they're still in the regular classes with the other kids also and don't really have a chance to go any faster.
Those are modern cut rate gifted programs.
The 90s had gifted programs where students who tested well got placed into a separate cohort for core classes (English, History, Math) in Middle and High School, or were in a dedicated classroom for elementary school.
I was in a program in the 90s which consisted solely of sending the smarter kids out of the classroom periodically to work on logic puzzles with each other.
The only educational purpose served was getting them out of the classroom so that more attention could be given to the dumber kids.
As someone who went through a gifted program, I seriously question the validity of any such study.
So much more was expected of us, that of course we came out learning more. 8th grade was a 20 page research project. 6th grade math was algebra, in 7th grade we learned logarithms and binary math.
When I went back to mainstream academics in high school, the difference was stark. In one of my city's top schools, students were still reading books out loud during class. Expected reading assignments were around a couple dozen pages a week. Math was all repeating what I had learned in middle school. Essays were a fraction the length and difficulty.
And in high school I knew plenty of smart kids who were bored to tears and misbehaved. Hell I watched one kid in Latin class piece his own nipple. (The teacher did nothing, possibly because said student was also pretty darn good at Latin...)
I wonder how a study is going to account for "smart kids who dropped out of school from sheer boredom".
Another aspect to examine is that behavior problems in gifted programs were, IMHO, much less than in mainstream classrooms. When all the students in the classroom are there to learn, no big surprise, learning gets done. Students turn in HW on time, listen when the teacher talks, and have expectations of not only themselves, but of each other.
Yes, gifted programs need to be accessible across socio-economic levels. The fact that I had to be bused to the rich part of town to go to a gifted program is a great example of classist and racist policies in action.
> while being fairly expensive.
I fail to see how gifted programs cost any more than regular programs. You are literally taking the highest achievers and placing them in a separate classroom for a few core subjects. For middle school and high school, there are no additional teachers, no additional programs in place, it is purely a cohort.
> and they don’t appear to make any meaningful difference in student engagement or motivation.
As someone from a poor working class family, gifted programs gave me the opportunity to rise up out of generations of being poor.
Gifted programs need to be made available to everyone who qualifies.
The fact is, one college graduate can help elevate an entire family. Every student needs to be given the chance to reach their full potential, and for some, that means placing them in an environment which has an expectation of academic excellence and lifelong achievement.
Edit: I just reviewed the study my local school district did to justify shutting down their spectrum program. None of the reasons (!!!) had to do with student outcomes.
Look at the first of the linked studies - it’s quite large (national across the USA and uses both between school and between student analyses), so I’m not sure what would make it completely invalid. As you asked, it does also look at student absence rates and engagement, and saw no significant differences - so “boredom prevention” doesn’t seem to typically be a working feature either.
I would suggest that your experiences may not have been the norm. Anecdotally - I was also in a gifted program, and it was essentially a waste of the school’s money. We had an designated educator for the gifted program, and we mostly did things that were interesting… but didn’t really advance our education a lot. Even when we did cover advanced material, it didn’t really make a difference because we would have learned it in a year or two anyways. That assigned educator would have made a bigger difference helping struggling students rather than us.
It sounds like your program was maybe better targeted than ours, or you were a better fit for the model than me and my cohort. But on average, the data seems to suggest that most students are not significantly changed by gifted programs.
My vague memories of my Australian High school math curriculum (year 7 to 12) was something like this, I went to high school from 1997 to 2002.
Year 7 was geometry focused, Pythagoras theorem a lot of graphing things with protractors compasses etc. Calculating angles from parallel lines stuff like that.
Year 8 was much more algebra centric quadradic formula, simultaneous equations, expansion of brackets.
Year 9 was Trigonometry I remember there was a lot of 3d shapes and volumes. Volume of spheres, cones, pyramids etc.
Year 10 was Conic sections circles Ellipsis Parabolas hyperbola etc a lot of graphing again and more advanced trig.
In Year 11 and 12 I took the most advanced of the math streams I had two math classes. My other courses were Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English So math was a third of my course load, more if you counted physics which was highly math based as well.
Year 11 One class was Calculus focused, limits, fundamental theorem, basic derivatives and simple integration (Simpson's rule and stuff like that). The other class was linear algebra, vecrors, dot and cross products basic matrix manipulation and matrix transformation - reflectons skew etc.
Year 12 We covered parametric calculus, complex numbers more advanced integration and derivatives (Chain rule, substitutions etc). I vaguely remember we covered a bit of hyperbolic functions (cosh, sinh etc). The other course was statistics and probability as well things like sequences and series, stuff like binomial theorem.
I studied Engineering at uni and my first year university math was pretty much a repeat of year 11 and 12 math but a bit more in depth.
It has everything to do with Algebra, because Algebra is only considered advanced because it's not taught until later. Primary school children are perfectly capable of doing algebra as shown by many other countries that teach much more "pure maths" in schools.
Indeed. A disgrace for education but a win for educational communism. It’s a good thing the US can import talent because California’s students are being trained to be cognitively lazy. How will these children fare in a society that is getting more technologically advanced, dynamic and complex by the day without the problem solving tools to handle it? I can’t wait to find out.
> A disgrace for education but a win for educational communism.
I was under the impression that (actual) communist educational systems were geared predominantly toward the most advanced students, rather than the other way around. Cranking out prizewinning physicists, mathematicians, and chess grand-masters at a somewhat greater than expected rate.
Read my comment again. I made no mention of education systems implemented in communist states. I said educational communism, education where everyone is pulled towards the mean no matter their individual effort or talent.
"Educational communism" in that it seeks to eliminate inequality (in education) by reducing everyone to zero, just as communism sought to eliminate inequality (in wealth) by reducing everyone to zero.
Not "educational communism" in the sense of educational systems modeled on those of communist countries.
The analogy is from "if I can't afford a car, then nobody should be allowed to have a car" to "if I can't understand algebra, then nobody should be allowed to learn algebra".
Exactly. I have no idea how people can’t differentiate between educational communism and education systems that were implemented in communist states. Was my wording too confusing?
Spivak's Calculus is intended for use in a two semester course covering differential and integral calculus. It is a challenging but rewarding introduction to calculus; in my opinion, this text is appropriate for math majors while other STEM students might be better off with a textbook that didn't focus quite so much on learning proofs. It was used at MIT for the first year of Calculus, but only by the math majors.
Michael Spivak is an American mathematician born in Queens, New York.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with your main point. I just had first hand experience with Spivak.
Your point reminds me of an experience I had in grad school. A good friend in the program was from (communist) Romania. We were both looking at the weekly math challenge that one of our professors posted in the hallway. It was something like construct with compass and straightedge the eight circles that are tangent to all three given (arbitrary sized and positioned) circles.
I was good at geometry in school, very good, head and shoulders above my fellow students. I really had no idea how to solve the problem and was fumbling around with it when I Romanian friend took a look and knew the correct approach immediately. It involved an isomorphic mapping of the circles into some alternate collection of straight line segments, solving the problem in that space, and then inverting the isomorphism (I think. It was many years ago--before the fall of the Berlin Wall). His high school training in geometry was clearly much deeper than mine was.
