Earlier this year I received an email from a first year math teacher who told me that he was teaching a class for 6th graders that covered three years of mathematics standards (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) in one year! The teacher was stressed out because he didn’t know how to teach three years of math in a single year and was falling behind his colleagues. He saw that there were gaps in students’ understandings and wanted to take the time to address them. He felt like he was doing something wrong, when in reality that was far from the case.
I figured that I must have misread his email. Obviously there was no way he was teaching three years of math in one year. No school district would willingly do this, right? Unfortunately, I had read his email correctly. I had to vent on social media… and what was perhaps even more scary was that it showed me that he was not alone.
I just heard about a school that compacts 6th, 7th, & 8th grade math into one year. This is a travesty to students and their teachers. 1/2
— Robert Kaplinsky (@robertkaplinsky) March 1, 2017
In the conversations that ensued, I heard from people all over the United States who worked in districts where this was happening too. How does something like this happen? How have we lost our way so badly?
In last week’s blog post I shared how ~82.5% of math educators feel that they don’t have enough time to teach one year’s worth of standards in one year. It then seems like a safe assumption to conclude that far fewer educators would feel like there is enough time to teach two years of standards in one year and that virtually no one would feel that there would be enough time to teach three years of standards in one year. The inevitable result of this is that there will be many, many gaps in students’ understandings that will be created during very important foundational years.
I am completely against this acceleration philosophy and perhaps many of you reading this blog post agree with me. So, I want to make a case against acceleration by sharing the evidence I have. Feel free to use this same evidence to push back at those who want to accelerate.
That possibility does exist in Open Middle. As an example, imagine students who could solve 2 3/5 – 6 4/7 but would struggle on a problem like this. This is a hard problem for adults, let alone fifth graders! I can’t imagine many fifth graders breezing through problems like this… and if students can’t solve this, how deeply do they understand the mathematics? Why are we not using more problems like this instead of moving them on to content for the next grade level?
What needs to be acknowledged is that unless a teacher has far more than 200 hours of math with students in a year, compaction is not really happening. There just isn’t enough time to deeply teach two (or three!) years of math in one year, so much content is being skipped by teachers. There aren’t alternatives.
The National Center on Education and the Economy reached a similar conclusion, stating in its key findings, “Don’t rush through middle school mathematics; master Algebra I by sophomore year.” (pg 1)
A couple of things to consider:
- Much of Pre-Calculus courses is redundant because it is a repeat of what students learned in Algebra II. Additionally, AP Calculus AB is a one semester college class that is taught in a full year in high school. So, if you ever wanted a time to compact a course, why can’t it be then? Why can’t the parts of Pre-Calculus that are still needed be merged into the AP Calculus AB course for students who have been successful with mathematics?
- Pre-Calculus has not always existed. A few generations ago, it was common to go from Algebra II to Calculus.
So, my suggestion is to combine Pre-Calculus and AP Calculus AB into a single course. Again, if the choice is between making 6th and 7th graders decide whether they want to be on the path to AP Calculus AB or delaying that decision until 11th grade, I’ll take delaying that decision.
Similarly, you must accept that a consequence of having acceleration is that some students who would have loved math and excelled if it was taught at a reasonable pace will now feel lost, start disliking math, and will no longer continue down a path towards STEM majors. It is inevitable.
What other evidence against acceleration do you have? Please let me know what you think or share links to evidence in the comments.
Our region put together a group of teachers who developed a common-core aligned curriculum that combined geometry, algebra 2, and pre-calculus in 2 years. The idea being that the mathematical development of students in grades 6-9 was the most important years drive this decision. Unfortunately, very few (if any) districts will adopt it for fear of community backlash.
That really is a huge part of the problem: community messaging. For example, in California we spent years telling parents that their kids were not on track to go to college if they did not take Algebra in 8th grade. Now we are telling them to take Algebra in 9th grade. They are right to be confused. Shoot, I’m confused sometimes!
Our MS used to have an option to compress math 6,7,8 in 2 years and then give a full year to algebra in 8th grade. About 25% of students did it. Now they are trying to cancel 8th grade algebra or give an option of a double period math in 8th grade and cover both math 8 and algebra in one year! And to top it off, it’s all presented as what we have to do for “equity”. It’s bad reasoning and a terrible solution. Talk about confusing. It’s driving growth in public school, Russian Math, Kumon, etc.
Although our school system allows students to take credit-bearing courses in middle school, namely algebra I and geometry, the state has decided that students still need 4 years of math in high school. The credits received in middle school will count as elective credits towards the graduation requirements. This new policy is not being clearly stated and publicized for parents. Parents and schools continue to push students into high school math courses in middle school for various reasons; bragging rights on the soccer field or principals being evaluated on the percentage of students taking algebra I by grade 8. As you mentioned in your blog, this leaves students who might not be proficient taking courses before they’re ready, thus starting a dislike of math. The other issue is that you have a student who has taken algebra I and geometry in middle school. What are her next 4 choices when needing 4 more math credits to graduate?
I agree with you. The CC standards for grades 6-8 have the ability to be rigorous for the majority of students. If the content were so easy to master, wouldn’t our PARCC scores be more impressive?
Lots of great points. Maybe it’s because I haven’t experienced it yet, but I don’t think it’s so much of a bragging thing as parents wanting the best for their kids but not having enough comprehensible information to determine what that is.
You end with an interesting question that makes a huge assumption that PARCC (or SBAC or any other test) is actually set up to accurately measure student knowledge. The jury is still out on that one for me.
High stakes testing have lowered student performance and reaised student frustration… all the while state dollars being attached to these performance markers only serve to drive buildings and districts to overtest to an even greater degree… More data points… more predictions… more benchmarks… more PLC being absorbed for data analysis this leaving no time for pedagogical growth and discussions… more supervisory chastisement… less actual teaching time…. ect ad nauseum. Doing tje math… this all adds up to hemoraging our best teachers… destroying a districts tax base… and hamstringing the mediocrity or apathetic which remain behind.
Its a deleterious cycle of positive feedback in tje most negative of ways.
Kansas wrote a write paper on this topic! http://community.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=6038
Thanks for sharing this Sarah. I hope it’s useful for everyone. I look forward to reading it.
I’m going to take the opposite position in this case. Offering acceleration is one of the most effective strategies we have to meet kids where they are. This is not about schools forcing kids to accelerate or reaching AP Calculus in school. instead, acceleration recognizes the reality that by middle school kids arrive at different places in their math trajectory and they learn at fairly different paces.
What happens in the heterogeneous classroom is generally a regression to the mean. Given the constraints of one teacher and a large classroom, by necessity teaching revolves around some median point. Enrichment must take back seat to covering the years curriculum and moreover, only some forms are possible without real teacher focus. Open Middle problems like those here are just one form of puzzle and do not serve as a whole scale substitute for a year’s curriculum.
I’d also argue that the focus on gaps is also misleading. These same complaints are made in large amounts of non-accelerated students all the time. Kids are always in the middle of the journey not the endpoint, and its easy to point out areas for further growth. When large scale studies of outcomes are made comparing acceleration generally positive outcomes are always found. Likewise, quality of instruction is somewhat separate from pacing. You can alter both or one independently. Even if you deepen the instruction, what we’ve seen over the years is student pacing difference don’t narrow.
There is no perfect solution here. Its certainly possible to lose kids along the way when acceleration is offered. But likewise, its also possible to lose kids when we don’t sufficiently challenge them over time. Math classes can be well or not so well taught in either case. What’s partly happening in the country is a retreat of advanced math instruction into extra curricular domains because of arguments like the one in the post. There is a huge rise in math circles, math camps. tutoring centers like Russian Math, Art of Problem solving. This is a need that is strong enough to generate an entire alternative teaching structure. However, all of these organizations can never match the coverage and access that the public school system has and if you’re at all concerned with equity at a national scale this is something that needs to be considered.
Hi Ben. First off, I admire and appreciate you taking the opposite position as it gives me a chance to reflect on and defend my thinking.
Let me respond by beginning with the points I believe that we agree upon:
– I agree that there is definitely no perfect solution.
– I agree with “Its certainly possible to lose kids along the way when acceleration is offered. But likewise, it’s also possible to lose kids when we don’t sufficiently challenge them over time.”
– I agree that “Open Middle problems like those here are just one form of puzzle and do not serve as a whole scale substitute for a year’s curriculum.”
I think we (and all educators) believe that are students who are not being sufficiently challenged. The question then becomes “How do we meet their needs?”
Using a medical metaphor, I believe that there are treatments that can (and should) be done in order from least to most harsh. For example, before we amputate we might prescribe an antibiotic. In this case, I would BEGIN by prescribing that educators reflect on whether their curriculum is providing sufficient rigor. I share Open Middle as one option, not the sole option, because it can quickly articulate an example of rigorous grade level content. I think acceleration is closer to amputation. To me, it should be a last resort. I’m not saying that it should never happen, but I believe it is often the first choice… because it is easier to do than to reflect on the teachers’ role.
Finally, in regards to advanced math, the biggest complaint I hear from university professors is that the students come to them with weak Algebra skills. When they get tested for placement, they test into remedial college Algebra… and these are the kids who were often accelerated into Calculus in high school.
Thanks again for your thoughts and your pushback is always welcome and needed here.
I would encourage districts to look at the longitudinal data of accelerated students. Several large studies show that the majority of students accelerated prior to high school DO NOT stay on the accelerated path in high school and college. They fall off the accelerated path, repeat below-level courses or stop taking math altogether.
I would love to be able to look at those studies! Do you know where they were conducted?
Thanks!
We did extensive research for our white paper. The link is in my other post. Sarah Stevens also attached the link above in her post. Thanks! Liz
Local data point for my district in PA (~12,000 total students K-12).
approximately 25% of 7th graders take Algebra 1
approximately 12% of 12th graders take BC Calculus
That’s not to say that the acceleration was the wrong decision. Some of these students take AB calc in 11th grade and AP Stat or AP Computer Science (or double up in science) in 12th grade. But to the points mentioned above, we often ask ourselves what range of curriculum is the most valuable to fully master: 6 – 8? Or 9 – 12?
K-8 mathematics is the foundation for high school mathematics. (see the short Zimba article, “Lasting Achievement in K-8 mathematics”) https://achievethecore.org/page/251/lasting-achievement-in-grades-k-8-how-learning-lasts-across-grade-levels
Furthermore, the K-8 standards have “shifted down”, meaning that previous HS content in now included in 6-8 standards. i. e. the regular 8th grade CCSS standards are what most of us did in the first semester of “old” HS Algebra. By the very nature of the standards, students at all K-8 grade levels have already been “accelerated”. We need to be cautious about further acceleration that may compromise a solid K-8 foundational skills. I also refer readers to pages 80 and 81 in CCSS Appendix A, which cautions against compressing or compromising the K-8 skills in acceleration paths. It also do not recommends compression/compaction below 7th grade (referring to the initial post to start this conversation).
To the writer above, thank you for looking at your data! Few districts do! My question would be, “what happened to the math path of the other +50% of your accelerated students?”
Thanks! Liz
I also think that equity needs to be discussed here. Minority students are far less likely to be included in accelerated classes. In diverse districts, one needs to just look at the color of the faces to determine if it is a high level class or low level class.
Let’s not “amputate” students of color from STEM careers because of institutional racism or our own implicit biases. If we reduce the number of decisions that have to be made to filter students, all students will have access to high level math.
This is a really important point. There are so many unspoken judgments being made. You might also appreciate this post, Scott: http://robertkaplinsky.com/whats-the-difference-between-honors-and-regular-math-classes/
Ben, I have to agree there is no perfect solution and we need to be careful to make the distinction between gifted and talented students versus pushing whole grade levels through an accelerated course. As my work is primarily with gifted and talented students, I’d encourage everyone to check out the research from https://www.accelerationinstitute.org/. I’d happen to agree that with gifted and talented students, we often lose them if they aren’t correctly identified and challenged along their journey. The position statements from the National Council for the Association of the Gifted would also challenge these statements, “Acceleration benefits many highly capable individuals by better motivating them toward schooling, enhancing their involvement with extracurricular activities, promoting more challenging options in the middle school and high school years, and preparing them to begin contributing to society at an earlier age. While not as widely used as a practice with diverse gifted learners, evidence suggests that it can be a successful strategy with low income, minority, and students with learning problems as well. Therefore, NAGC strongly endorses this practice as one important avenue to address the needs of gifted learners.” One important avenue, but not the only towards meeting the needs of students, but to discount acceleration worries me.
Thanks for adding this Lisa. I understand why you share this and your concern about discounting acceleration.
I think that we have more in common than we disagree about. Specifically, I agree that we need to be careful about “pushing whole grade levels through an accelerated course.” This is so often the case and what I’m majorly concerned about.
I also think that for gifted students, more work can be done to provide deep, grade level content. Too often though it’s not about what is best for meeting students’ needs but rather “what will get this student to take this course by this time?” without considering the unintended consequences of that decision.
Hi Lisa,
As a mum of an identified gifted child, I fully understand the acceleration policies and programs. Through my own experiences, although my child’s grade skipping in the elementary has been successful (at least she is still topping her year level), I think enrichment program is better than acceleration. Enrichment will enable the even gifted students to build a solid math foundation, provide them with more opportunities to apply the math concepts they have learnt, thus will ultimately develop their cognitive skills more.
The reason that acceleration is more used by the schools is that it is the cheapest and easiest option. The schools generally do not have skilled math teachers with passion to extend the students deeper. Whilst enrichment and extension do exist and the schools brag them, they are offered in the form of out of school activities for the students to attend even without any coaching or preparation offered by the school
It is a common problem for the schools. I have moved my child to one of the most expensive schools here, but the practice is the similar. It will be very fortunate and lucky if we have come across a very capable math teacher in our child’s whole school life.
Thank you for addressing this topic! The data absolutely does not support acceleration practices that compromise a strong K-8 foundation.
In Kansas we have been working hard to address this with a task force at http://www.ksde.org.
We have written a white paper and have resources for districts to use. We have presented these materials at NCSM in 2017 and will present again in 2018. The title of the session will be “Re-thinking acceleration practices”.
Copy the community link below and should take you directly to the Acceleration Resources page at http://www.ksde.org.
http://community.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=6038
Thanks! Liz Peyser
http://www.sfusdmath.org/high-school-pathways.html
I would also like to add that San Francisco Unified School District has responded quite boldly to their longitudinal data and the rigors of the K-8 CCSS standards by requiring all students to take Algebra 1 in 9th grade. Acceleration points are in high school. See their pathways in the link above.
Thanks for sharing all this great information! I hope that having it all in one place will make it easier for educators to make this case in their own district.
Just tacking on a resource to this post for anyone interested: here is a SERP Institute report by Phil Daro that recommends acceleration in high school by compressing Algebra 2 and Precalculus, and not accelerating students in middle school. http://serpinstitute.org/assets/daro_serp_ccss_and_acceleration.pdf
Thanks Kate! Seems like a much better option to me. From what I understand, historically there was no PreCalculus and it was a response to students not being ready to go from Algebra 2 to AP Calculus.
I really enjoyed reading the article and all the comments to it and I wanted to share my thoughts on one of the issues that were raised. I don’t have sufficient amount of information at hand due to limited experience in classrooms (I am a college student), but I agree with you that “acceleration” is not a solution to sufficiently challenging students who are bored. I used to observe a regular pre-calc class and an accelerated pre-calc class last semester, and the only difference between the two classes was the pace at which the content was taught. Students in the regular pre-calc class learned exactly the same materials using exactly the same textbook, and did the same assignments and assessments, but they were a few units behind the students in accelerated class. Does this necessarily mean that the accelerated students are more challenged? Does being able to learn and digest information faster make them “smarter”? If the school (or the teacher) wanted to encourage higher mathematical thinking in the accelerated students, shouldn’t there be something more than just cramming a year’s worth of materials in one semester? I understand that they need to move faster to reach higher level math classes, but I also think it’s important to build a strong foundations early on.
A million times yes JeeYeun. You might also enjoy this post: http://robertkaplinsky.com/whats-the-difference-between-honors-and-regular-math-classes/
Mr. Kaplinsky,
I will be presenting the KSDE “Re-thinking Acceleration Practices” presentation and the white paper, referenced above by Sarah and me, at the Northwest Math Conference in Portland on Saturday, October 14 at 12:30.
Cheers,
Liz Peyser
Thanks for letting me know Liz. If you’re able to share a link to your white paper, please do.
I read this a while back with interest from the perspective of a parent with a student in the accelerated math track in MS and HS. Your points are why I didn’t push for that track for my youngest- now in 7th.
As a teacher, I am curious about your thoughts on acceleration at the elementary level. My school is looking at how to serve students who are gifted in a way that doesn’t necessarily translate to completing multiple grade levels in a single year as this has a “trickle up” effect as they head into MS. We also want to ensure students are truly understanding concepts. My thought is to offer deeper dives into the concepts for those students. (I should note here that the model of my school is virtual and there is a great deal of parent involvement in instruction which has certain benefits and disadvantages.)
Much of what I see on this topic relates to the MS or HS level. I would love to find more information on what we can do at the elementary level to help!
Thanks Kelly. I think that the thought experiment might be interesting to do with other parents and educators to answer your questions.
My own personal answer would include copious amounts of Open Middle (openmiddle.com) problems as well as mathematical modeling and problem solving tasks.
My district has an accelerated track in 6th grade that teaches all 6th grade standards and half the 7th grade standards. Those students, depending on a rubric, can continue in the accelerated track in 7 th grade where they would learn the remaining 7th grade standards and all the 8th grade standards. This puts them in algebra in 8th grade.
There are students who score higher on the rubric and take algebra in 7th grade and geometry inn8th grade. They obviously skip over a year and a half of standards.
The sad part about this is that the reasoning we were given as middle school teachers as to why this was happening was twofold – one was that there have been studies that state students do better on SATs if they have algebra 2 before taking it, and two (and in my opinion, horrendous) a high school teacher wanted to teach a class of multi variable calculus.
The parents and students are stressing over getting into that high track, questioning every little detail in grading. The students are under so much pressure. Many of the students retake geometry in high school to pace themselves. It’s really so sad.
This is both extremely disappointing and not surprising at all. It’s not at all about what’s best for kids having deep understandings of mathematics.
As most issues have a variety of roots, reading the comments here makes me think of perhaps the biggest driver in the popularity of acceleration/honors/special schools: parents. I disagree with Ben Leis above that what is happening in the schools is creating a need for extracurricular math studies in the form of prep, math circles or tutoring. It is a want, in my opinion, from parents who increasingly view their children as products of their labor and increase competitiveness among themselves and their children. When these parents see children from say, other cultures where test prep and school on Saturdays are the norm, score high on tests and get into the “best” schools, they quickly begin to want this for their children. And where there’s demand, you can be sure business will meet it with supply.
The reason we have so many accelerated children and so many “gifted and talented” programs is that so many students have been prepped and schooled before they step foot into even pre-k, and by the time they’re through with elementary school, many have shot past the regular curriculum and therefore parents increasingly utter that most condescending, bragging phrase: I’m afraid that he/she won’t be challenged enough. In the past and now, there were always children who were naturally very good at various subjects and for those, for whom it truly and naturally is easy and enjoyable to learn those subjects, acceleration might be appropriate. But that is a much smaller percentage of students than are currently being accelerated. The drop off in math study in high school after being accelerated in middle school I think is because too many children are being propped up by additional learning and prepping outside of school with often little thought as to whether it’s something they truly enjoy or excel at.
Thanks for adding to the conversation Alexandra. While we may not all agree on “why” acceleration happens as its reasons are complex, there seems to be consensus that acceleration also causes some unintended consequences that decision makers may not be considering.
Hopefully some time in the future, people will make decisions that are better for students.
I believe you have made a good case against acceleration for EVERYONE. This seems to be how our school around us operate and, as a result, my daughter is bored. I have given her access to Khan Academy and signed her up for a BYU online class but online classes are still not up to par with live teaching. She loves math and desperately wants to take more advanced classes but the rules at the schools around us that prevent her accelerating appear to be iron clad.
Hi Omar. I can certainly empathize with your frustrations as a parent. No one wants to see their kid become frustrated with math because they’re not being sufficiently stimulated. The honest reality is that acceleration is the wrong solution to the problem. Really, there are so many things for everyone to learn within the grade level they’re in.
If you’re looking for problems that can help your child learn and not feel like busy work, check out openmiddle.com and look at what’s available at her grade level.
My daughter is in 9th grade. For the second year in a row she is taking a math class that she has already completed in summer. She is bored. She is not being permitted to take the class that she should be in (Calculus). The powers that be (school administration) don’t want to deal with allowing her, a mere 9th grader, to take Calculus.
I believe that motivated students should be able take ANY advanced math class they want to take. If they fail, they fail–that is how they learn their limits (in addition to Calculus–yes, admittedly a poor math joke). A big part of growing up is stretching your wings and seeing how far you can go. By preventing the possibility of failure in an advanced math class, we are stunting our children’s growth and telling them that we don’t care about their being bored in math.
I am not sure how Issues #2, #3, & #4 are pertinent to the issue of allowing students, who have the talent and motivation, to accelerate, but I have tried responding to all of the issues you raised:
Issue #1: Students are bored or not sufficiently challenged
Open Middle is an interesting site filled with many challenging problems, but they are mostly just interesting problems not related to the real world. Open Middle it is not an integrated curriculum which teaches students principles and concepts–it is nothing like a math class. If you are studying for one of the many math contests that middle- and high-school students take it might be useful. Otherwise, it is really just a site filled with challenging math problems (often of the sort, “Using the digits 1-9, at most one time each, to fill in the blanks.”) It does not address the needs of children who simply want to take a more advanced math class.
Issue #2: Combine 6th and 7th grade math because they are so similar
There are alternatives to compacting multiple grades into one year that you are not considering. A child could take two math classes, given them than 400 hours per year of math. A child could also take a summer school class that would provide them with about 150 hours of math–enough for a gifted child to complete an entire year of math. There are ways to accelerate without skipping content. I can give you specific examples if you would like.
Issue #3: Middle school math is easier to compact than high school math
I am not sure why this is an issue statement. From my experience, I believe that middle school math and high school math present approximately the same difficulty to compact with the exception that because many high school students are permitted to take college classes, it might be easier to compact high school math than middle school. However, I believe the true issue is not how difficult it is to compact math, but how motivated and desirous the student is to advance in math.
Issue #4: How are we supposed to get students to AP Calculus AB?
I don’t see this being an issue that related to gifted students who want to work through the standardized math curriculum at a more rapid pace. As I said earlier, I believe that you have made a good case that we should not accelerate everyone, however, there are many students for whom it is not only appropriate, but it is harmful to hold back.
Hi Robert,
I am so glad that I found this article today which is much needed for me. I love all the posts here with different views from individual’s experiences and perspective. It is hard for me to choose which post I should reply, but anyhow I have chosen this one.
I have a child who was skipped a grade three moving from grade 2 to grade 4 directly in the elementary school and for her math, she was skipped from grade 2 to 4, then to grade 5, so two grades skipping in two years time. The reason for her grade skipping was based on her IQ test and her school assessment performance. After sleepless nights, I agreed to accelerate due to the fact that I did not want to miss an opportunity to develop her best potential (that was the statement under any gifted and talented program).
Now she is in grade 7 and also in a new secondary school. I held her math back for a year and she is repeating her grade 7 math with her year level peers, for a number of reasons. One of the biggest reason is the school timetable clashes. In an elementary school, all grades have the same timetable for each subject, so a subject acceleration will not have any timetable issue. The issue arose when she was in grade 6 while attending grade 7 class. The grade 7 had different school timetable with grade 6 students. So when she was attending grade 7 math class, she would miss her grade 6 English class. When grade 6 was having math class, she had to sit at the back to catch up with her other subjects by self-learning. That really created a lot of unnecessary stress and chaos.
This year she is feeling really bored with her math class. Whilst school is proposing to skip her math subject again next year, I am really hesitant. Timetable clash is one reason. The other reason is whether acceleration will truly address the issue. I think the root cause is that the school teaching focuses on teaching the minimum standard to cater for everyone’s needs, mainly the bottom students to bring them up to the standard. The school teaching usually doesn’t do deep dive. Based on my observations for my child’s acceleration, indeed acceleration will get her engaged for a while and she will still achieve good results for school assessment. However, I don’t think she has developed solid math foundation like what Robert described. Also by hurrying up, she has missed time to do deep dive. But the issue is that the school learning doesn’t offer deep dive. Whilst school does all sorts of math enrichment like external math competitions, the school doesn’t offer opportunity to prepare them for those competitions.
I agree that the acceleration should only be the last resort, as the acceleration itself still will not provide enrichment, but it is the cheapest option. I think the best option is for the teacher to provide differentiated teaching to cater for everyone’s needs and talents and improve teaching practice. Otherwise, the students are wasting their time in the classroom and learn nothing.
Hi Jane,
Your daughter sounds like my daughter–bored in math. In both 7th and 8th grade I talked with her math teachers about giving her more advanced materials or letting her work ahead and they were against it because then she would not be in sync with the class.
As a side note, we did not push our daughter to accelerate at all. I think that doing well in math was something she really enjoyed and had the ancillary benefit of helping her confidence. She is the one who pushed us to find options for her.
Our school system uses a slightly different course sequence which loosely corresponds to the traditional sequence:
IM1 Algebra
IM2 Geometry
IM3 Algebra 2
Then both go on to:
AP Calculus AB
AP Calculus BC
Our daughter’s journey through the math curriculum has been a bit of a mess:
My daughter was bored in her 7th-grade math class so she took a IM2 summer school class. Since the most advanced math class taught at the middle school was IM1, we asked if she could take IM3 at the local high school while in 8th grade. This was refused because they thought it was too advanced for her, but they allowed her to take IM2. So in 8th grade she took IM1 at the middle school and IM2 at the high school—she was bored again and too shy to accept the IM2 teacher’s repeated invitations (she aced the class) to teach the class for a day (he knew her career goal is to be a math teacher). So, in the summer after 8th grade she took an IM3 class. Because the IM3 class was not from an “approved” summer school, the high school again would not let her take calculus, so in 9th grade she took IM3 again. Fortunately we were able to find a calculus instructor at a nearby community college who was willing to ignore the college’s administration’s admonition that a 9th-grade student is too young to take a community college class. That instructor allowed her to sit in the class and graded her tests—though she did not get credit for the class, she was the highest scoring student. When I inquired whether the high school would allow her to take AP Calculus BC in 10th grade the high school said she would not be able to because although she did well, she was not enrolled in the community college class and did not get an official grade. So, in the summer after 9th grade we enrolled her in the BYU Online AP Calculus AB Part 1 and Part 2 classes. She completed them with A’s and now, finally, in 10th grade she is being permitted to take AP Calculus BC and she is enjoying it.
It has been a long and challenging road to achieve what should be a simple goal—allow our daughter to take a skill-level appropriate math class. We have been fighting administrations (middle school, high school, and college) all along the way.
I encourage you to consider giving very strong weight to your daughter’s desires. If, despite the stress the differing school timetables cause, your daughter still wants to advance, then perhaps that is the right thing to do. If you are concerned about her having only superficial knowledge of certain concepts then consider granting her permission to advance with the condition that she completes certain Khan Academy classes or completes BYU Online classes that cover the areas for which you think she needs a more solid foundation.
Good luck!
Robert, again I love reflecting with others on this challenging topic. During my 22 years as an Arcadia educator, both teacher and instructional coach, the topic of acceleration in our community has been a part of many district and community discussions. I have spent my time going back and forth on what is best for our community of students. One dynamic that I feel has an impact on our acceleration pathways is the very large percentage of our students that take after school math courses and summer math programs all year long. I have come to realize that my own understanding of an education (9-10 months of school and approximately 1 hour a day of math-5 days a week) is not what many of our students/families view as the norm. Due to these factors we are often faced with very difficult conversations between students/families and administration about seat time and learning ALL of the standards taught in a particular grade. I suspect that I will continue to struggle with my role in these conversations and decisions that are made in our district. What drives me is my effort to help our district create instruction at all levels that meets every student at where they are and uses a variety of strategies (like the many you and so many others offer) to challenge and promote a love for connecting mathematics to their own world. In conclusion, I wonder if you have had experience(s) working with a community that has a very high percentage of families that have the means and desire to extend their math education well beyond the normal school hours/days. If so, is there any additional advice you would share (beyond all the awesome points you have already made in your post)? As always, thank you for your leadership, candor and willingness to push.
You make an excellent point, Brad. It’s almost an MP6 issue in that the unit of “math education” is defined as roughly 180 hours a year if you’re just learning it at school, but potentially much more in some communities. Honestly, I have very little experience working in schools where they”have the means and desire to extend their math education well beyond the normal school hours/day.”
The only thing that comes to mind, would be to make assessments that genuinely measured deep levels of understanding including > DOK 1. I’d imagine that if all assessments had just DOK 1 problems on them, it may be very challenging for parents to understand why their student is not ready. Of course, eventually students might practice with higher DOK problems as well, so perhaps they would be ready.
It certainly sounds like a challenging situation!
Robert, thank you for your response. The challenge is real and I have had many nights laying awake wrestling with finding ways to meet all our students where they are and help them grow from there. Our work continues …
I am a gifted coordinator in Ohio. Gifted research overwhelmingly supports acceleration as being one of the most effective options for gifted students. I will admit before I dove into gifted education I was very opposed to acceleration. Even in my first year or two of teaching gifted I did not like that option. After another several years in the field, hours of research, obtaining my gifted intervention specialist license, and becoming a gifted coordinator I have slowly shifted my mindset. I have witnessed the positive effects on students. That being said, what you presented is more than just one acceleration. If school districts are compacting 6th, 7th, and 8th grade standards into one year that would actually be two accelerations (at least in Ohio). Unless there is a very rare case of a child with unbelievable superior cognitive skills as well as mathematical skills this should not happen. Two accelerations in the same subject area should not be something happening on a regular basis. The school districts around my area generally offer 1 acceleration for mathematics in 8th grade. They accelerate from 8th grade math to Algebra I and earn high school credit. This is done in a few ways depending on the district, but generally they “skip” the 8th grade math standards. But, the students who are admitted to the 8th grade algebra I class have to show they can “test out” of the 8th grade math standards. The acceleration at this level has actually helped to keep students engaged and interested in math because they are finally working in their ZPD for mathematics. The one factor to this discussion that may need to be kept in mind is school size. Most of the districts around my area are very small. Thus, they don’t have the staffing to offer advanced or regular courses. All students are in one class no matter ability level at the MS and HS level. An acceleration in this type of environment makes more sense than if a district is able to offer varying ability level courses. Just some of my ramblings…
Hi Lindsay. I’m very curious as to the methods used by researchers in “overwhelmingly supporti[ing] acceleration.” For example, what were they comparing acceleration to? Were they comparing it to a control group or were they comparing it to alternatives for acceleration like rigorous, grade level curriculum. Also, how did they define success? Was it a certain test score or course achievement or was it deep sense making? I believe this information is very important.
In general, I think that we agree that there are extremes to acceleration, but again, I am skeptical as to how someone created a test that can definitively state that a student can skip an entire grade level of math. I just see so many potential gaps forming and impacting them later in life.
There are plenty of research articles that support acceleration. Here is one of the most comprehensive summarizing 642 studies over the past 100 years. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44668238
In short: tree types of acceleration had the greatest positive effect ( the higher the number – the greater the effect)
Within-class grouping: Small-group instruction +0.19
Cross-grade subject grouping: Grouping students of different grade levels to learn a particular subject based on their prior achievement or learning potential + 0.26,
Special grouping for the gifted: acceleration had significant positive impact on students’ academic achievement + 0.37 to + 0.42
Thanks for this. It brings up lots of questions for me. For example, was this just mathematics (because it looks like it was not)? If it was mathematics, how do they have data from more than 60 or 70 years ago because standards were not a commonplace thing, so how would they even measure what was being done? How are they distinguishing between ability grouping and acceleration as those are both very different? How are they determining what was different about instruction for something like an honors or regular class (see more here: https://robertkaplinsky.com/whats-the-difference-between-honors-and-regular-math-classes/)?
In general, I’m super skeptical of these research summaries that take countless other studies and try to compare them when there are so many meaningful nuances that get washed away.
Those are important questions and if after carefully reading this manuscript you still not able to find answers – I would suggest to contact corresponding authors of this paper.
Meta-analysis is not simply a review or comparison, it is “the statistical process of analyzing results from several similar studies”. The best way to prove your case against acceleration is to conduct and publish your own research or meta-analysis paper in peer-reviewed journals. I am looking forward to reading your research work.
We are toying with the following idea…I’m curious what you think:
At the end of 6th grade, give our 6th graders a pre-assessment of 7th grade concepts (focusing on the major clusters in 7th grade). If a student can show mastery of at least ____% (right now, I think we’re looking at at least 70%??), then we move them on to 8th grade math, with a list of what skills they missed on the pre-assessment to work on over the summer.
Same strategy would apply to 7th graders, have them take the 8th grade pre-assessment based on 8th grade major clusters and moving them forward if they show ___% mastery. Some students have actually asked if they can study for the pre-assessment because they are interested in moving up. This is a VERY small handful of students.
We are also looking at using students’ individual Math SBA history over the last 3 years as another criteria to help guide our decision. If a student has earned at least two 4s and one 3, or has earned 4s over all 3 years, AND shows mastery of the majority of next year’s major clusters on the pre-assessment, that student would be eligible to skip that grade.
I’m curious what your thoughts are for this placement process and if what you might think the unintended consequences would be if we do this.
My main question, Carrie, is “why?” What is the rush?
If it’s to also kids to take Calculus in 12th grade, why not let them stay on grade level and merge Pre-Calculus and Calculus together. If it’s to take two years of college math in high school, again, I wonder how that became so important. If it’s because kids are bored, I ask “How many Open Middle problems or real world math modeling problems are being incorporated?”
There is so much that can be done.
As to your specific situation, you would be making big assumptions including:
– The assessment you make truly measures a student’s understanding of a grade level. Personally, I’d imagine that to have to be an enormous assessment with performance tasks and problems at all DOK levels.
– That these are kids who want this for themselves. How many kids are doing this for some reason besides their heart being in it?
– That there wasn’t something they could have been challenged with at grade level.
– That someone is truly going to fill those gaps.
Good luck.
Hi Robert. I came across this article while researching the value of accelerated math classes in middle school. Like the first year teacher that inspired your article, I teach 6th graders 3 years of math in one year. It’s been more challenging lately, hence my research. Recently my school district’s criteria for placement changed. I went from teaching one class of about 24 gifted students to 2 classes of up to 28 students! Although I have no long-term data (my first group is still in high school), I have to say there are benefits to those who are placed correctly. Students who ask deeper questions, are persistent problem-solvers, and who enjoy math challenges are still successful in their high school math classes. They also happen to enjoy open middle problems and their reasoning skills when explaining solutions show their depth of knowledge. However the majority of the students now placed in this accelerated class are struggling to learn at the pace required to complete the curriculum. They are stressed and many do not have a strong conceptual knowledge. I am stressed trying to keep them on track and disheartened to see them struggling to complete their homework. They will continue to struggle in Honors Algebra in 7th grade and beyond. As you said, “Why? What’s the rush?” Both school districts and parents seem to equate acceleration with greater high school math achievement. This may be the case for a few student and they can benefit from accelerated math classes, but most just need enrichment at the current grade level.
Thank you Tejal. I keep coming back to this line from my conclusion… “you must accept that a consequence of having acceleration is that some students who would have loved math and excelled if it was taught at a reasonable pace will now feel lost, start disliking math, and will no longer continue down a path towards STEM majors. It is inevitable.”
Since the 2009-2010 school year, I have taken students right from Algebra II and have taught them AP Calculus AB. My students get pushed pretty hard in Algebra II and I make sure that I get through 5 weeks of Trigonometry at the end of the year to help prepare for AP Calculus.
Overall, my students have done well on the AP Exam.
Every year, we have discussions about acceleration at the middle school level and we just do not see the benefit. As a math department, we are very comfortable with how our math program is set up. I get to teach Geometry, Algebra II and AP Calculus so I control the pacing and know exactly what my students have been doing prior to AP Calculus. That is a benefit to me as their AP Calculus teacher because I know their strengths and weaknesses.
In my experience as an AP Calculus teacher, the students that have had a strong Algebra II background do well in Calculus. Algebra II is the key, not Pre-Calculus. If you make sure your Algebra II class is run well, skip Pre-Calculus and go right to AP Calculus AB. If you do this, you will not need to accelerate students during the middle school years.
I wish more people had this perspective, Chris. I’m not sure why more people can’t see the value in delaying the acceleration decision point as long as possible. Your option seems like it’d leave out far fewer students.
Thanks for your perceptive comments. In my perspective the idea of acceleration is fine for truly gifted students in the top 2% who grasp new concepts on the first or second go-round. But once that is started, chaos can erupt. Parents beg for their children to be included, administrators pander to them and say it’s okay–they’re just a little under the top 98%. Pretty soon the curriculum is watered down and nobody is pleased.
In my own experience, parents can be a real problem in these days of instant communication. They can criticize the way we teach, the pacing, the amount of homework, the type of assessments we give, the timing of assessments. We hear earfuls upon earfuls. It is just plain difficult for those of us with lots of experience who keep up with math pedagogy and have high expectations of ourselves.
So it’s consoling to hear other voices expressing the complexity of acceleration in math. Thanks to all of you!!
I agree that there will occasionally be exceptions, but as a district wide policy, acceleration is not my preferred option.
Substitute out Math for basketball and we would accelerate away. We value sports much more than math so we nurture that skill much more. Each kid is different and treating them the same makes no sense. Teachers in most public schools are hanging on by a thread. They don’t have time to “dig deeper”.
If you accelerate with basketball then you should definitely accelerate with math, precisely because you care about it more (or at least as much). This really isn’t as complicated as people seem to try to make it: teach to the kid’s level of ability to learn. Do the same for all subjects.
When considering the idea of “acceleration”, were the concepts and skills of the “standard” (not accelerated) course progression in one state/district compared to the same in other locations to confirm that the standard courses are comparable? I have noticed that what is considered the standard grade 6 course in one area is not the same as the standard course in another area. Sometimes acceleration is really just aligning the pacing and the content learned with what is learned by students on the same track in other areas.
I’m not sure about this, Tonya. I do know that there are differences amongst states’ standards, but I think that there are schools in each state that advocate for acceleration pathways.
What they should do is accelerate math for grades 1-4. Kids that have parents active in their education have already had their kids master basic math and the pace of math in elementary school is extremely slow. Why wait until 5th grade to start jamming 2 years worth of math into one when the concepts are harder? If a 2nd grader has mastered multi-digit multiplication, fractions, and long division, move them ahead of the rest of the class and teach them more advanced topics,
Again, elementary school is such an extremely slow pace for kids that love math but so much time is wasted at that level.
I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you. Perhaps elementary math looks easy from your perspective, but there are so many important concepts at those grades.
The way to solve this problem is not to push acceleration elsewhere, it’s to get rid of it entirely. And any “2nd grader [who] has mastered multi-digit multiplication, fractions, and long division” will be such a rare exception as to make this a completely separate topic. Clearly that kid would have already been having outside instruction as those topics wouldn’t be taught yet.
My daughter in in 4th grade and I taught her all of these concepts already. She mastered multiplication tables in 2nd grade along with multi-digit multiplication also. In 3rd grade she was doing 6th grade math using the school online program. This year in 4th grade she got 99 percentile on her cogat and Iowa test in math. Everything she has done in school has been review for her since kindergarten.
It would have been so easy for them to accelerate her during these years, But because they delay any accelerated math until 5th, with harder concepts, cramming algebra and geometry in one year is much more difficult than combining multiplication and division in one year.
You do realize the US is far behind many other countries in education, especially math. Just ask people that grew up in developed countries what math they are taking at various grades and compare it to the US.
Or, the kid is an avid reader, got ahold of the full set of Beast Academy books, has read them over and over since age 4 because she’s passionate about math and basically taught herself elementary school material. Is the parent supposed to kick themselves for giving her access to the material? (This kid’s current project as a rising fourth grader is to teach herslef pre-algebra this summer. Of her own accord, she’s set a daily schedule for working on math twice a day. She’ll pop out occasionally from time to time with a question and we have great discussions about what she’s learning.) Does she have holes in her learning? Undoubtedly. I know a few, there may be others. But she’s demonstrating deep understanding on many complex sixth grade tasks. Is she driven by learning new material? OMG yes. That’s the problem with pushing solutions like Open Middle and other performance tasks. In essence, they are focussed on asking the students to perform and demonstrate their understanding of grade level material. I’m not saying that’s unnecessary, it’s important! And heaven knows, if teachers actually provided that opportunity it would certainly be better than nothing (which the vast majority of years is what happens.) But on the other hand, for kids who really have mastered the material and are motivated by learning new material and the deep satisfaction of building new understanding on what they already understand, no amount of a teacher providing rich tasks and nonroutine problems is going to scratch that itch. Because realistically, even teachers who give such tasks treat them as keep-them-busy-and-engaged-work, not as an opportunity to provide deeper learning to the student. No blame on teachers. They don’t have the time to individualize math to that level. The fundamental question that I struggle with is whether kids deserve to be in a situation where they are *taught*. WHere their understanding and knowledge is actively extended by a teacher (or in some cases self-study with advanced materials.) Is this a valid need? Or is it just something parents who are able to provide should provide outside school when the school refuses to do it? FWIW I actively avoided outside acceleration for many years because our district doesn’t allow it and it seemed pointless. I tried to enrich through all sort of games, the nRich wesbite, tasks, analyzing real world situations, looking for enrichment options that went sideways into topics not done in school or dove deep into probablility and number theory. But at some point, my older child eventually begged for acceleration – we just ran out of ways to meet the need in any other way. Now we’re stuck in a situation where he is multiple years beyond grade level math outside of school, but trudging through grade-level math in school. My daughter hasn’t hit the point yet where she feels the need for a teacher. She’s doing a jaw-dropping job teaching herself. But not sure what to do when we hit that point because I really don’t think spending extra curricular time on academic subjects makes sense. But at the same time, the schools aren’t helping at all. Their policies against acceleration are iron-clad because of all the reasons described in this thread. But they also don’t provide enrichment in any coherent way. It depends on the teacher, and from the 11 teachers my kids have had so far, the vast majority don’t have – and haven’t found – any appropriate resources. You can’t implement a no-acceleration policy without a in depth and deep plan in place for kids who need more. And that plan can’t be hand-wavy or dependent on the teacher’s buy-in. Because put simply, if there isn’t a system of some sort in place for the teachers, it isn’t going to happen.
I think part of the misunderstanding about a 6th/7th/8th grade compression course is that you are teaching all those standards. You shouldn’t be. I’ve never heard the phrase “acceleration should be intervention, not opportunity” before reading this thread, but that idea reasonates so much for me. Because you wouldn’t be teaching 6th/7th/8th grade standards. The first round of proficiency on those grade level topics will have already been met. In an intervention context, you’re filling in potential holes, going deeper. Okay – so you might argue – how is that different than just staying within a grade level and going deeper? It’s because topics develop across grade levels. If a kid understands equivalent fractions, is fluent in multiplication, and understands the basic idea that adding up fourths is not really much different than adding up pebbles – you’re just measuring parts rather than wholes, then the transition to mixed numbers and adding fractions with different denominators happens naturally. They can figure it out for themselves. And you end up with a six year old who rapidly explores all the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th grade fraction standards in a matter of weeks/months. Many “Grade-level topcis” are artificially spaced out and spread across years. There’s no iintrinsic meaning behind the timing and spacing chosen by different school systems. Its dependent on the school system and standards chosen. In the most fundamental way, math builds on what you already understand. The CA Math Framework argues that the teacher can support this tiered learning within a grade level classroom, by making the teacher familiar with content 2-3 years ahead (and behind) their grade level. Although an admirable idea in practice, what resources will be provided? And IMO, this argument makes no sense. If the whole idea against compressed classes is that kids can’t really learn the material deeply in that situation, how in the world is a quick 2-3 minute conversation with a teacher during a 50 minute period supposed to extend and enrich a student who is thinking way beyond the grade level topic? The best you can hope for is a resonably engaging keep-them-busy task. Because the teacher doesn’t have time to teach all the above-level topics – they need to spend the time ensuring students are getting grade level understanding.
Thank you Robert for this post. Thank you to all that have offered comments. One thing for sure is that there are rare cases for the need to accelerate math topics and for some school districts there are far too many students being accelerated. I’m not talking about those students in Gifted programs. I agree that enrichment should be our first consideration before going straight to acceleration. NCTM agrees that even when accelerating, we should not skip content (https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Providing-Opportunities-for-Students-with-Exceptional-Promise/); NCSM: Leaders in Math Ed has a position paper on detracking math that might be helpful (https://www.mathedleadership.org/position-papers/); and the NCTM series, Catalyzing Change, provides information on school districts and states that have tried different approaches to detracking (https://www.nctm.org/change/). I haven’t read anyone’s statement that I see as totally right or totally wrong – everyone has a story – but what I do know is that 1) parents do push acceleration even when it is not warranted (the reasons are many I’m sure) and 2) acceleration and tracking HAVE harmed many students (even if it has worked for a few). There is a problem and I’m glad that we are continuing the conversation to improve the situation for so many students that have been harmed by acceleration and tracking policies (i.e., students that were pushed and end up opting out of math as soon as they can; students that were bored and provided acceleration instead of enrichment or were bored and not allowed to accelerate; students that rushed to Calc only to place in remedial math in college, etc.). Of all the remedies I’ve heard, I really like the idea of Alg II to Calc or compacting PreCalc with Calc. Again thank you and I’m still thinking …
Thanks Shelly. Yes, compacting PreCalc with Calculus delays the decision point as long as possible, and should TOTALLY be feasible as must of PreCalc was just a rehash of Algebra II.
Our School District offers compacted 6th grade math (6th, 7th, and 8th grade math in one year) since 2013 with great results. Students take Algebra 1 in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th and Algebra II in 9th grade, plus pre-calc and calc 1. Our school also offers opportunities to continue taking Calc 2 and 3 in the nearby university under PSEO. Many students can earn minor in Math by the time they finish high school. Obviously, it is not for every student and placement tests are used to identify students who have the necessary skills to succeed in more advanced math. Your justification against acceleration makes sense for average or low-achieving students. Schools should not push all students to accelerate, as what seems to be the latest trend driven by equality. Admitting unprepared students to more challenging classes will set those students for failure. On the other hand, depriving hard-working, self-driven students of acceleration options not only does not make sense, it harms those students by limiting their growth.
Thanks for sharing this. I’m curious about how you measure “great results”? Do 100% of the students continue with this acceleration after 6th grade? If not, what happens to those that find out that it was more than they could handle? I wonder about what happens to these students after high school.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted a longitudinal study on about 800,000 U.S. high school students were enrolled in a calculus class in 2015-2016 and tracked what happened to them when they got to college. They found that over 80% of them had to retake Calculus in college, take remedial math, or wound up not taking other math or something like stats.
So, I wonder how we can all look at this objectively. I agree that for some kids, this might work great. But holy cow, it’s hard enough to teach one year of math in one year so teaching three years in one year is certainly going to leave gaps.
I followed a link here and while this post and discussion are very interesting, I strongly disagree with the implication that repeating calculus in college indicates that the HS calculus was a waste, or mistake, or failure. I took BC calculus senior year and an equivalent calculus class my freshman year at MIT. I promise you, if I had not had a foundation from the year of high school calculus I would have drowned in a one semester college equivalent. I’m lucky my parents insisted I take accelerated math in 7th grade – it’s the last thing I would have chosen for myself at the time (I never enjoyed math until geometry)!
By “great results” I mean finishing bachelor in engendering or other STEM areas (including Ivy league schools) while attracting national-level scholarships. Admittance was based on merit, not legacy, and I believe acceleration opportunities in secondary school were big part of it. Again, acceleration is not for everyone and it is important to correctly identify driven, self-motivating students who will thrive when challenged. Identifying those students is the hardest part of acceleration process and when done correctly, number of students who “found out it was more that they could handle” is minimal. Students who struggle have an option to either repeat the same class or move to regular math class.
Can I just add to this? I am fundamentally against pushing students to the next grade level when they are not ready . . . which applies to more than half the students nationwide who are not grade-level proficient. This has to be at least as damaging as accelerating kids.
I get what you’re saying, but this could lead to lots of unintended results. What I imagine that we agree upon is that we need to find better ways to support students so that they’re ready for the math classes they’re in.
I found this article today after reading an op-ed piece in The Hill about college students have weak algebra foundations and then doing some googling. I pulled my daughter from Prince William County in VA to homeschool her last year partially because of the weak math education she was receiving as she wants to be an engineer and I didn’t feel that her school would get her to that goal (as well as writing instruction, but that’s another story!). She’s now taking Beast Academy 5 in 6th grade, which is considered honors 6th grade math and does put her on a path to calculus in 12th, which is the same path both my husband and I took. Interestingly enough I’m now learning that I actually have her on a slower path than what she would have been on had we stayed in public because PWCS has a “promoted” path in which they put 6th graders into advanced 7th grade math, which puts them in Algebra in 7th and Geometry (taken at the HS next door) in 8th. I looked up the criteria for that path and she definitely would have qualified which to my mind is just insane. My kid is smart sure but she’s not *that* smart! How crazy is it that I pulled a “gifted” student from public school and then ended up going at a slower (yet still accelerated) pace in math just to ensure she has a truly solid foundation in Algebra. Also, I’ve talked to a number of parents from our local HS that had kids go to Virginia Tech and seriously struggle or fail out of Calculus despite having aced it in high school.
I might frame one part of what you said differently. It’s not about being “smart” enough to go that fast. In a way, trying to do two years of math in one year is like watching a movie at double the normal speed. Sure, you’re going to have a general idea about what the movie is covering, but it’s not going to be a great experience and you’re not going to process it all.
Being smart or not is somewhat irrelevant when you’re going that fast.
That’s very true, which makes the “promoted” or double-accelerated path even more insane. They’re going to end up harming the very kids they’re trying to help.
As a former high school math teacher …. I’m in full favor of students in elementary school completing their grade-specific courses. If at any point a student is more talented in math and can learn the concepts at a faster pace, have them continue on in the curriculum, progressing at a faster pace. Thus not missing any of the content along the journey. It is important that if they are going to go at a faster pace that they show mastery along the journey before moving on. Not in favor of “skipping” at all.