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

[TSwizzle]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

And the framework is filled with this kind of gibberish;

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

No wonder those that can afford private schooling and math tutors do so. Thank goodness my kids are out of high school.

 

[Politesse]

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

Uh, we have one of the most successful and productive educational systems in the world. Indian students compete with each other to win spots at our universities, not the other way around. What are you smoking?

It's definitely true that China and India produce more and better engineers/programmers than we do, but that isn't the result of "Gifted and Talented" programs, whose track record is actually pretty spotty, so citing those countries with their very different educational systems is strange. Are you ready to embrace the socialist political ideas and unquestioned embrace of the sciences that lead to generally higher math attainment in other nations?

 

[Elixir]

Are you ready to embrace the socialist political ideas and unquestioned embrace of the sciences that lead to generally higher math attainment in other nations?

Are you out of your gourd? When black and brown people develop capabilities greater than their own, conservotards just want to complain about it, not actually do the work to bring themselves up to speed.

 

[TSwizzle]

Uh, we have one of the most successful and productive educational systems in the world. Indian students compete with each other to win spots at our universities, not the other way around. What are you smoking?

You think so ? the US education system is a multi billion dollar industry. These are not students, they are customers.

 

[Trausti]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

And the framework is filled with this kind of gibberish;

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

No wonder those that can afford private schooling and math tutors do so. Thank goodness my kids are out of high school.

 

[Politesse]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

And the framework is filled with this kind of gibberish;

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

No wonder those that can afford private schooling and math tutors do so. Thank goodness my kids are out of high school.

I'm not seeing an answer to my question here. Is the argument that the US should be imitating the Chinese education system, which produces such superior STEM students comparative to our own?

 

[Trausti]

I'm not seeing an answer to my question here. Is the argument that the US should be imitating the Chinese education system, which produces such superior STEM students comparative to our own?

Or that keeping high achieving students behind so that there is "equity" is just stupid.

 

[Politesse]

I'm not seeing an answer to my question here. Is the argument that the US should be imitating the Chinese education system, which produces such superior STEM students comparative to our own?

Or that keeping high achieving students behind so that there is "equity" is just stupid.

So why do you keep bringing up "other countries"? Which other countries, and if you admire their system, why aren't you advocating for the US to emulate their policies?

 

[untermensche]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

And the framework is filled with this kind of gibberish;

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

No wonder those that can afford private schooling and math tutors do so. Thank goodness my kids are out of high school.

A truly gifted child can teach themselves calculus with internet access.

They need more exposure to history, morality and ethics.

 

[Trausti]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

And the framework is filled with this kind of gibberish;

"The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6–12," reads a January 2021 draft of the framework. "In summary, middle-school students are best served in heterogeneous classes."

This will give the big tech companies a valid excuse for the shortage of engineers and programmers in the USA and recruit from countries that nurture and produce talented people. Meanwhile the California school system will churn out more social justice warriors that will have no jobs.

No wonder those that can afford private schooling and math tutors do so. Thank goodness my kids are out of high school.

A truly gifted child can teach themselves calculus with internet access.

They need more exposure to history, morality and ethics.

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

 

[untermensche]

A truly gifted child can teach themselves calculus with internet access.

They need more exposure to history, morality and ethics.

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

In a capitalist society it is to justify inequality and to get most to follow arbitrary orders without question.

 

[TSwizzle]

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

You racist, you. You know damn well the blacks can’t work the interweb thingy.

 

[Trausti]

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

You racist, you. You know damn well the blacks can’t work the interweb thingy.

Heh. It does seem a lot of lefty / progressive policies are premised on blacks being helpless children without agency.

 

[barbos]

I had spent last year in advanced math-physics class, actually school. It was the best year of my entire 10 years of school by a light year.
I wish I had went there earlier, (one could do 1 or 2 last years of school there).
School had separate curriculum, most of the usual subjects were missing there - russian language, history, biology, geography, economy, and general propaganda, all were missing.
Basically - math, physics, german language and literature for some reason. Interestingly, chemistry was missing, but if you think about it you would understand why.

 

[bigfield]

California's Department of Education is working on a new framework for K-12 mathematics that discourages gifted students from enrolling in accelerated classes that study advanced concepts like calculus. The draft of the framework is hundreds of pages long and covers a wide range of topics. But its overriding concern is inequity. The department is worried that too many students are sorted into different math tracks based on their natural abilities, which leads some to take calculus by their senior year of high school while others don't make it past basic algebra. The department's solution is to prohibit any sorting until high school, keeping gifted kids in the same classrooms as their less mathematically inclined peers until at least grade nine.

"All students deserve powerful mathematics; we reject ideas of natural gifts and talents," reads a bulletpoint in chapter one of the framework. "The belief that 'I treat everyone the same' is insufficient: Active efforts in mathematics teaching are required in order to counter the cultural forces that have led to and continue to perpetuate current inequities."

Reason

Here's what the draft actually says about accelerating algebra to get students to calculus in senior year:

Many students, parents, and teachers encourage acceleration in grade eight (or sooner in some cases) because of an incorrect conclusion that Calculus is an important high-school goal. This approach relies of the false belief that Algebra I must be taken in grade eight in order for the student to reach a calculus class in grade twelve. This framework clarifies these misunderstandings in three ways:

• First, because of the rigorous nature of the CA CCSSM grade-eight standards, a three-year high-school pathway can be sufficient preparation for a calculus class in grade twelve, as outlined in the pathway graphic on page x (to be decided by formatting)
• Second, the push to calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided. In Mathematical Association of America (MAA) and NCTM clarify that “...the ultimate goal of the K–12 mathematics curriculum should not be to get into and through a course of calculus by twelfth grade, but to have established the mathematical foundation that will enable students to pursue whatever course of study interests them when they get to college” (2012). The push to enroll more students in high-school calculus often leads to shortchanging important content that does not lead directly to success in the advanced placement calculus syllabus, which is significantly procedural. “In some sense, the worst preparation a student heading toward a career in science or engineering could receive is one that rushes toward accumulation of problem-solving abilities in calculus while short-changing the broader preparation needed for success beyond calculus” (Bressoud, Mesa, and Rasmussen 2015).
• Finally, the results do not support the push for more and more students to take calculus in high school: About half of the students taking Calculus I in college are repeating their high school course, and many others place into a pre-calculus course when they enter college (Bressoud, Mesa, and Rasmussen 2015).

This makes sense when I relate it to my personal experience in high school and university mathematics. I took the advanced stream in high school, where we were introduced to calculus in Year 12, if I remember correctly. It was, as this paper describes, "significantly procedural": we learned how to do differentiation and integration, but we weren't taught what it meant. When I took mathematics (and programming, and analog electronics) at university, we had to apply calculus to real world engineering problems. The only useful things that I retained from high school was the notation and the handful of rules I'd learned by rote. (Power rule, chain rule, open vs. closed limits, etc.) I had to develop my intuitive understanding of calculus at university.

Without an intuitive understanding of mathematics, it's useless, because you won't recognise calculus solutions to problems out in the real world. Teaching students the procedure of solving calculus problems makes them very good at solving neat, pre-made calculus problems you put in front of them. but it doesn't teach them how to construct the calculus problem in the first place.

As an example of a good introduction to calculus, which doesn't gloss over the "why", I think 3Blue1Brown's Essence of Calculus series does an excellent job of explaining the reasoning behind calculus and gives you and intuitive sense of when you might need this kind of mathematics. The series itself is very short, but the classroom time and study required to actually internalise these ideas would be much longer.

Personally, I took calculus in Year 12 despite the fact that I didn't do any accelerated maths in middle school. The education system here just didn't offer it. I was taught maths in a heterogeneous class up until senior school, at which point students chose one of three different streams: easy maths, hard maths or a double dose of hard maths. So I can say from experience that there is nothing wrong with making middle school maths heterogeneous, since I've lived it and it seemed to work fine. It didn't stop anyone from becoming scientists or engineers.

(Different country, obviously, but Year 12 is still Year 12, and middle school is still middle school.)

 

[TV and credit cards]

A truly gifted child can teach themselves calculus with internet access.

They need more exposure to history, morality and ethics.

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

Sarcasm?

So the student’s held/forming beliefs can be challenged by the instructor/classmates forcing one to think critically.

 

[Jarhyn]

A truly gifted child can teach themselves calculus with internet access.

They need more exposure to history, morality and ethics.

As all of that, too, is available with the internet, what’s the point of school?

Sarcasm?

So the student’s held/forming beliefs can be challenged by the instructor/classmates forcing one to think critically.

I mean, maybe not? Maybe just Selfawarewolf?

 

[Shadowy Man]

This makes sense when I relate it to my personal experience in high school and university mathematics. I took the advanced stream in high school, where we were introduced to calculus in Year 12, if I remember correctly. It was, as this paper describes, "significantly procedural": we learned how to do differentiation and integration, but we weren't taught what it meant. When I took mathematics (and programming, and analog electronics) at university, we had to apply calculus to real world engineering problems. The only useful things that I retained from high school was the notation and the handful of rules I'd learned by rote. (Power rule, chain rule, open vs. closed limits, etc.) I had to develop my intuitive understanding of calculus at university.

Without an intuitive understanding of mathematics, it's useless, because you won't recognise calculus solutions to problems out in the real world. Teaching students the procedure of solving calculus problems makes them very good at solving neat, pre-made calculus problems you put in front of them. but it doesn't teach them how to construct the calculus problem in the first place.

I was on an accelerated math track since middle school and ended up taking AP Calculus in 11th grade. It was my worst grades in my entire educational career. I didn’t understand what we were doing or why. Then in 12th grade I took Physics and all of a sudden I had a context for the calculus.

In college I got my degree in physics and obviously had to take calculus again and did fine with it. I can’t think of any benefit I gained from taking calculus in 11th grade and all it did was hurt my GPA.

Just my anecdotal ‘evidence’.

 

[Jarhyn]

This makes sense when I relate it to my personal experience in high school and university mathematics. I took the advanced stream in high school, where we were introduced to calculus in Year 12, if I remember correctly. It was, as this paper describes, "significantly procedural": we learned how to do differentiation and integration, but we weren't taught what it meant. When I took mathematics (and programming, and analog electronics) at university, we had to apply calculus to real world engineering problems. The only useful things that I retained from high school was the notation and the handful of rules I'd learned by rote. (Power rule, chain rule, open vs. closed limits, etc.) I had to develop my intuitive understanding of calculus at university.

Without an intuitive understanding of mathematics, it's useless, because you won't recognise calculus solutions to problems out in the real world. Teaching students the procedure of solving calculus problems makes them very good at solving neat, pre-made calculus problems you put in front of them. but it doesn't teach them how to construct the calculus problem in the first place.

I was on an accelerated math track since middle school and ended up taking AP Calculus in 11th grade. It was my worst grades in my entire educational career. I didn’t understand what we were doing or why. Then in 12th grade I took Physics and all of a sudden I had a context for the calculus.

In college I got my degree in physics and obviously had to take calculus again and did fine with it. I can’t think of any benefit I gained from taking calculus in 11th grade and all it did was hurt my GPA.

Just my anecdotal ‘evidence’.

To me it comes down to a deficiency in how we teach. Rather than starting to draw connections in the mechanics of numbers, connections which will later become algebraic understandings... We teach memorization and rote. This has always been the case such that those most capable of learning are not presented bread crumbs that will put them meaningfully on the path to the greater enlightenment that is "understanding mathematics".

It's not that I believe students so coddled are incapable of discovery; those who must discover shall! But they shall discover more if they shall find themselves further along the path as their drive to discovery blooms.

Anyway, I think that the current "intuitive" math is definitely better than rote math, but both still must take a seat to process math. Because process math is where proof comes from and proof is where applications become possible.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This makes sense when I relate it to my personal experience in high school and university mathematics. I took the advanced stream in high school, where we were introduced to calculus in Year 12, if I remember correctly. It was, as this paper describes, "significantly procedural": we learned how to do differentiation and integration, but we weren't taught what it meant. When I took mathematics (and programming, and analog electronics) at university, we had to apply calculus to real world engineering problems. The only useful things that I retained from high school was the notation and the handful of rules I'd learned by rote. (Power rule, chain rule, open vs. closed limits, etc.) I had to develop my intuitive understanding of calculus at university.

Without an intuitive understanding of mathematics, it's useless, because you won't recognise calculus solutions to problems out in the real world. Teaching students the procedure of solving calculus problems makes them very good at solving neat, pre-made calculus problems you put in front of them. but it doesn't teach them how to construct the calculus problem in the first place.

I was on an accelerated math track since middle school and ended up taking AP Calculus in 11th grade. It was my worst grades in my entire educational career. I didn’t understand what we were doing or why. Then in 12th grade I took Physics and all of a sudden I had a context for the calculus.

In college I got my degree in physics and obviously had to take calculus again and did fine with it. I can’t think of any benefit I gained from taking calculus in 11th grade and all it did was hurt my GPA.

Just my anecdotal ‘evidence’.

To me it comes down to a deficiency in how we teach. Rather than starting to draw connections in the mechanics of numbers, connections which will later become algebraic understandings... We teach memorization and rote. This has always been the case such that those most capable of learning are not presented bread crumbs that will put them meaningfully on the path to the greater enlightenment that is "understanding mathematics".

It's not that I believe students so coddled are incapable of discovery; those who must discover shall! But they shall discover more if they shall find themselves further along the path as their drive to discovery blooms.

Anyway, I think that the current "intuitive" math is definitely better than rote math, but both still must take a seat to process math. Because process math is where proof comes from and proof is where applications become possible.

Looking back on my high school calculus experience, after successfully obtaining a physics degree and learning calculus just fine, I realized that I was taught it poorly, at least for the way that I learn math. At the time, the teacher had been hailed as one of the better teachers at my school, but after I actually learned calculus, I thought of so many ways it could have been taught to me better. I do think the way it was taught to me was pure math with no context and unless you’re going to go on and be a math major that approach doesn’t seem to me to be a good one.