[williamsl]

I continue to be very concerned that ALL students have a right to learn and mentally sweat in their math classes on a daily basis. We all know that students don’t learn at the same rate. I truly believe we can accelerate the learning of many who traditionally have struggled in math by using the CCSS with fidelity, providing those many representations and strong differentiate core instruction for all. This would fit with the RtI research that shows that if we teach this way we can really help all but a few learn during core instruction and then provide a little bit extra or a little bit different yet for those still needing more experiences to be successful. However, there are also those on the extremely fast learning end who don’t need to see things in many different ways to make the connections and truly understand. They don’t need the repetition and they have a right to go at the pace that is appropriate for them and not be slowed down so that they can teach others.

We have found that about 15% of our students, when provided with really good CCSS instruction don’t need two days on a lesson, they are making connections extremely quickly because this type of instruction is helping them as well. We’re using the CPM Core Connections curriculum and our accelerated group was able to complete all of the grade 7 curriculum and move through a chunk of the grade 8 curriculum in one year. This fall they will continue where they left off and move into the algebra curriculum. Effectively compacting three years into two without skipping anything, just by taking out repetitions that they don’t need that many students do.

Much of the research on heterogeneous groupings and taking away the slow paced classes makes sense. We can’t close achievement gaps by slowing some groups down and doing algebra in two years instead of one. However, in some studies the growth for the gifted students isn’t compared to the growth they make when they have appropriately paced curriculum. Reports say things like the top 10% were excluded because they were in other classes or had already been accelerated. So, the progress for the top students in the study was good, but the study didn’t actually include the top 10% of the students. Other times the gifted are reported as “no worse off” than when they were in undifferentiated classrooms with everyone getting identical instruction, again not compared to when they get what they need and can handle.

For more info please read Karen Roger’s book, “Reforming Gifted Education.” We need to make sure there are many options for all the types of students we have. We may need to work on making sure there are equitable pathways to all populations to all the options, but we shouldn’t be taking all the options away (especially when we are replacing it with undifferentiated one-size fits all teaching). Why would we stop offering IB High Level Math or AP Calc at the high school because we can’t figure out a way to increase the pace at which some students are able to experience curriculum?

[williamsl]

Hi Bill,

We had a very brief conversation at the PAEMST training session in Philadelphia last year concerning acceleration.  One of the pieces that is always in the back of my mind is the research regarding Gifted and Talented education and tracking that shares the importance of multiple pathways vs. a strictly once in always in and once out always out tracked system.

We have had such a system in Manitowoc for a number of years and I would like your opinion about how we are adapting it now with the knowledge of the rigor of the 6-8 CCSSM.

We know that approximately 10% of the students in any particular graduating class want (and enjoy) completing calculus 1 (or even beyond) their senior year in high school.  In order to achieve that level of mathematics we have some students that begin their acceleration in grade 7.  In the past they compacted grade 7 and 8 into one year (because the expectations had so much repetition) and then were mixed into the algebra classes at 8th grade.  With the new standards we are using Appendix A’s 3:2 pathway for these students.

Some students didn’t realize their love and/or interest in mathematics until they reached junior high school and were taught math by the more specialized teachers in a secondary school (rather than the generalists at the elementary level).  Some students didn’t mature enough to put a lot of effort into mathematics until junior high.  For these students we had two different paths for them to catch up to the students who began acceleration in grade 7.  First, they could take algebra and geometry, simultaneously in grade 9.  (Very few chose this, but for the few who did they loved it.)  Second, we have a course for grade 11 that combines the traditional adv. alg/trig/pre-calc into one year.  Then students would go to calc 1 as seniors.

We plan to keep both of these pathways as well.

I saw a quote from Phil Daro saying that he believed that only about 10% of students would be ready for the new algebra standards in grade 8.  That number would fit well with our 3:2 pathway.

I hope I have described things clearly.  What do you think?

Thanks,

Lori

[Author]

Posts