Do kids really need math beyond algebra?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

the 4.5 hours of TV kids watch per day?

Oh please. My kids get up at 6:30 AM, we all get dressed, get breakfast, and get out the door, we pick them up from school between 5:30 and 6:00, get home, eat dinner, get them baths, and get them to bed. If they are lucky they have 15 minutes in the morning to do what they want, and maybe an hour in the evening that is sometmes play (we all went for a family bike ride last night), sometimes TV, sometimes computer.

They may do too much watching on the weekends (although we've got a system set up that has it under control), but it is unlikely they have time for much more schoolwork.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Oh please. .

You are right. Your anecdotal evidence proves that stat wrong.

the way i read that stat your parenting is the exception, not the rule

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Oh please. My kids get up at 6:30 AM, we all get dressed, get breakfast, and get out the door, we pick them up from school between 5:30 and 6:00, get home, eat dinner, get them baths, and get them to bed. If they are lucky they have 15 minutes in the morning to do what they want, and maybe an hour in the evening that is sometmes play (we all went for a family bike ride last night), sometimes TV, sometimes computer.

They may do too much watching on the weekends (although we've got a system set up that has it under control), but it is unlikely they have time for much more schoolwork.

Thank you, saved me most of the fucking trouble.

I'm already dealing with an average of 3 hours of homework+studying per night (with a 6th grader) as it is, not counting the 40-60 minute after school study sessions 3-4 days a week. And while his curriculum is well ahead of the state public schools in most disciplines (about 1-2 years best I can figure), it starts the basics of algebra in the 4th/5th grade already, and pretty much every public school (yes, even in Georgia) seems to be starting for capable students by at least the 7th as I can tell.

Meanwhile, you can lengthen school day, you can move algebra to pre-k, but that isn't going to change the amount of TV the average kid watches. All that is going to change for the overwhelmingly majority of kids is the content of the homework they aren't doing & provide parents with a couple of more hours of government funded daycare.

[lordscarlet]

So we should dumb down the curriculum so that we can aid the parents that are dumming down their kids? (I'm only half reading this thread, so JIMGA may not be on that side of the fence, but reading JIMGA and Greg's posts made me realize that's ultimately what is happening)

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

So we should dumb down the curriculum so that we can aid the parents that are dumming down their kids? (I'm only half reading this thread, so JIMGA may not be on that side of the fence, but reading JIMGA and Greg's posts made me realize that's ultimately what is happening)

The public schools have been dumbing down the kids for a while. I feel very strongly that we can make more effective use of the time the kids are already in school, not that we have to extend the day a single notch.

The "4.5 hours per day kids watch TV" has ZERO to do with the kind of schooling they receive at the school itself and is a stupid stat to pull out here. Sure the parents may be dimwits that do this, but to say we could eat into that time to do more teaching is absurd. We've already lengthened the school year, put mandatory minimum days kids go to school, and test scores still fall and the schools still pass kids that are WAY below grade level, so none of it is helping.

Teach algebra sooner, not tack it on as an extra class hour during the school day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

So we should dumb down the curriculum so that we can aid the parents that are dumming down their kids? (I'm only half reading this thread, so JIMGA may not be on that side of the fence, but reading JIMGA and Greg's posts made me realize that's ultimately what is happening)

First, I gotta ask: did you intentionally spell "dumming" that way?

Otherwise, that's probably overstating it for me by a pretty good margin.

I'd say trying to turn it up several notches across the board (by moving algebra several years earlier than it already is) would accomplish very little.

As usual, my opinions are likely influenced by the public schools that surround me.

Here's a link to the current requirements for grades 1-8 in math in Georgia

The most basic fundamental principles of algebra (such as symbols representing unknown numbers) begin by 3rd grade. By grade five, it's solving by substitution, by grade 6 it's solving one-step equations.

Yet, as simple as that sounds, we've yet to reach even 20% "exceeding standards" in grade 6, have between 25-38% every year "does not meet standards". As soon as "solving" appears in the standards, the exceeds rate drops by half (as high as 36% in earlier grades).

That gives me a pretty good indication of how successful trying to move algebra earlier in the curriculum is going to be with the majority of students (as our statewide public enrollment dwarfs our statewide private enrollment).

You can present it whenever, but that's not likely to have a lot of impact beyond having a lot more students who are completely lost in math (and we don't exactly have a shortage of those already).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Teach algebra sooner, not tack it on as an extra class hour during the school day.

Takes me back to my point though, there's a difference between presenting it and having students able to learn it.

We've got a shortage of students who know what to do with "c", "a", and "t" in words, wtf makes anyone think they'd know what to do with them as numbers?

As I mentioned (which I hadn't posted before your comment), they already start seeing it in 3rd grade even in the backasswards clusterfuck that are Georgia schools, how much earlier can it really go?

Also as I mentioned, my son's class is roughly 1-2 years ahead of the state norm already. And while I didn't see even basic algebra until the 8th grade (circa 1980) he's seen basic algebra for several years already. But that has come at the expense of things that I had much earlier (such as understanding the relationship between fractions & division; a/b = a divided by b) not coming until the past year or even not fully yet at all.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Takes me back to my point though, there's a difference between presenting it and having students able to learn it.

We've got a shortage of students who know what to do with "c", "a", and "t" in words, wtf makes anyone think they'd know what to do with them as numbers?

In all seriousness, I think this is written brilliantly, and I agree with it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Takes me back to my point though, there's a difference between presenting it and having students able to learn it.

We've got a shortage of students who know what to do with "c", "a", and "t" in words, wtf makes anyone think they'd know what to do with them as numbers?

As I mentioned (which I hadn't posted before your comment), they already start seeing it in 3rd grade even in the backasswards clusterfuck that are Georgia schools, how much earlier can it really go?

Also as I mentioned, my son's class is roughly 1-2 years ahead of the state norm already. And while I didn't see even basic algebra until the 8th grade (circa 1980) he's seen basic algebra for several years already. But that has come at the expense of things that I had much earlier (such as understanding the relationship between fractions & division; a/b = a divided by b) not coming until the past year or even not fully yet at all.

I did not realise they'd already advanced the curriculum (I hit it in around 7th grade in the early 80s as I remember). As far as the rest of it, I agree wholeheartedly that they aren't really worried about TEACHING it, at least beyond what it takes to pass the standardized tests. And even those some teachers and admins have been cheating on to keep pushing kids ahead.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I am a huge fan of allowing kids to "work ahead". I had several classes like that growing up and they were all that kept me from being bored.

This is a more interesting concept to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

In all seriousness, I think this is written brilliantly, and I agree with it.

Well thanks Pumpy, I appreciate that. I've always loved the old quote about Terry Bradshaw & it inspired me in this thread.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The public schools have been dumbing down the kids for a while. I feel very strongly that we can make more effective use of the time the kids are already in school, not that we have to extend the day a single notch.

The "4.5 hours per day kids watch TV" has ZERO to do with the kind of schooling they receive at the school itself and is a stupid stat to pull out here. Sure the parents may be dimwits that do this, but to say we could eat into that time to do more teaching is absurd. We've already lengthened the school year, put mandatory minimum days kids go to school, and test scores still fall and the schools still pass kids that are WAY below grade level, so none of it is helping.

Teach algebra sooner, not tack it on as an extra class hour during the school day.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here. The answer is not to dumb down the curriculum.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First, I gotta ask: did you intentionally spell "dumming" that way?

It's funny you should ask. I thought it didn't look right. I even got the "red squiggly" in Google Chrome, but it had no suggestion so I figured "dummy/dumby" was not a real word and just moved on. I just looked it up on dictionary.com and while Random House entry does not list it as a form of "dumb", the American Heritage entry does.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Otherwise, that's probably overstating it for me by a pretty good margin.

I'd say trying to turn it up several notches across the board (by moving algebra several years earlier than it already is) would accomplish very little.

As usual, my opinions are likely influenced by the public schools that surround me.

Here's a link to the current requirements for grades 1-8 in math in Georgia

The most basic fundamental principles of algebra (such as symbols representing unknown numbers) begin by 3rd grade. By grade five, it's solving by substitution, by grade 6 it's solving one-step equations.

Yet, as simple as that sounds, we've yet to reach even 20% "exceeding standards" in grade 6, have between 25-38% every year "does not meet standards". As soon as "solving" appears in the standards, the exceeds rate drops by half (as high as 36% in earlier grades).

That gives me a pretty good indication of how successful trying to move algebra earlier in the curriculum is going to be with the majority of students (as our statewide public enrollment dwarfs our statewide private enrollment).

You can present it whenever, but that's not likely to have a lot of impact beyond having a lot more students who are completely lost in math (and we don't exactly have a shortage of those already).

I'm not sure when the argument became that it needs to be earlier -- maybe that is just a tangent started by Greg. I apologize if I'm just the asshole that refuses to read every post. But in regards to reducing the math requirements, as the original question stated, I think it's definitely going in the wrong direction. Unless the failure rate has been steady since the current standards existed, why lower them? If it's just a byproduct of a poor education system and the reduction of responsibility by many parents, then I don't think reducing the requirements is the correct answer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I'm not sure when the argument became that it needs to be earlier -- maybe that is just a tangent started by Greg. I apologize if I'm just the asshole that refuses to read every post.

That tangent came in somewhere up the thread (ace mentioned it around pg 3, give or take your posts-per-page setting) & I thought it was kind of where you came in so I ran from there. Could have been reading comprehension failure and/or errant post combining on my part.

as the original question stated, I think it's definitely going in the wrong direction. Unless the failure rate has been steady since the current standards existed, why lower them? If it's just a byproduct of a poor education system and the reduction of responsibility by many parents, then I don't think reducing the requirements is the correct answer.

On the original question though, I believe the focus was indeed mostly about the utility of math beyond algebra for the masses period. On that I really do tend to agree with the original premise (i.e. that Algebra I should be the maximum min. required math course) that going beyond that is largely a waste for the majority of students & that time could probably be better spent elsewhere. Thing is, I really don't know how much further than that actual "requirements" go from one state to the next.

Going back to the specific Georgia examples I used earlier, here's the thing:
The actual state HS graduation requirement (math-wise) is to have 4 credits in mathematics, pass any required EOCT's for classes taken, and pass the mathematics section of the graduation test.

Looking at a more detailed course catalog from Gwinnett County, I find:
-- All 9th graders are required to take Algebra I & pass a state EOCT (end of course test)
-- All 10th graders are required to take Integrated Geometry* and pass an EOCT (* or equivalent course, name could vary I think)

From there, it gets kind of fuzzy, there are options starting as early as 9th grade that let you work at a higher pace & basically combine more than a year of material into a single year (the requirements above + more) preparing you for (as well as leaving room in your schedule for) things like AP Calculus toward the end of your HS career. Or you could take the standard track starting with those two above and then go Algebra II in 11th, with half-year courses in Stats/Discrete Mathematics in your senior year.

Now here's where it gets even more confusing. That's the Gwinnet County version, one of the state's largest, most affluent, and highest student achievement areas & what I described is their minimum standards. Thing is, they're higher than the newest version than the state has issued. The state requires the newly named Math I, which integrates a combination of Algebra I, Geometry, some Algebra II, and some Statistics.. The required follow up is Math II, which follows the same Chinese Menu approach, giving a little bit of each. Math III is described as Advanced Algebra/Statistics (but from the more detailed descriptions, looks like 80-90% of it is what I had under the name "Algebra II") and then Math IV is Pre-Calc/Trig/Adv. Stats. And those appear to be the actual "required" courses.

My concern would be about the practical benefit of requiring, say, Trig to masses of students in a country where roughly half the jobs are in sectors such as health care/public assistance + retail + accomodations/food svc + government, and yet in spite of all the seemingly lofty requirements it's still hard to find people in those jobs who can make change without using the register to do it for them. Either there's some sort of disconnect between what is being learned & what is being presented or else we're in such a rush to present these higher concepts that we forget (or intentionally ignore shortcomings in) things like "how to count money of less than $1". Or more likely, both of those things occur.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

For those that talk about how important math is in developing critical thinking, I agree. For those that talk about emphasizing practical application learning, I also agree. And my solution to both is this - we need to start placing a much greater emphasis on teaching probability and statistics. Too many people have really distorted ideas of probability, and it affects their thinking on a scale far beyond just math.

I'm surprised that no one has commented on your post because if there's one area in which the mainstream public have an abject inability to handle, that is crucial to our ability to understand processes in society, it is probability and statistics. Much debate is consequently reduced to the binary as a result.

If maths education is to prepare students for later life then a basic understanding of probability and statistics is not only essential but may well help to remove many of the antagonisms in society.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

If maths education is to prepare students for later life then a basic understanding of probability and statistics is not only essential but may well help to remove many of the antagomisms in society.

Completely agree. I'm a firm believer this kind of math should be mandatory teaching for all high school students.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

the schools still pass kids that are WAY below grade level, so none of it is helping.

Regardless of anything else, it seems to me that this is the root problem.

[Passacaglia]

Can we take this question to other subjects as well? We can even argue if I've framed the questions in the right way...

Do kids need to read Shakespare?
Do kids need to know that the War of 1812 actually ended in 1814?
Do kids need to know that objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum?

[ISiddiqui]

Well, personally, I am a big believer in a wide variety of subjects being taught through high school. Kids can decide what to specialize in during college, but in order to make an informed decision on that account, they need to experience everything.

Regardless, though, I think students do need to learn more than simply algebra in math (and I would be on board for statistics being a part of that requirement).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, personally, I am a big believer in a wide variety of subjects being taught through high school. Kids can decide what to specialize in during college, but in order to make an informed decision on that account, they need to experience everything.

But in order to do that, then at least some colleges/universities are probably going to have to rethink their requirements for admission.

I'll pick on the Univ. System of Georgia for an example of what I'm talking about.

Starting with the (HS) Class of 2012, to be eligible for enrollment into most of the state's public universities, you must have

*4 units of College Prep English - must include American, English, and World Lit courses, integrated with grammar, usage, and adv. composition skills

*4 units of College Mathematics - must include "Math" I, II, and III (see earlier discussion for how traditional Algebra I/II/III and Geometry I/II into this model) plus a 4th year of advanced math.

*4 units of college prep Science - must include 1x Biology, 1x Physics or Physical Science, 1x Chemistry or Earth Science or Environmental Science, plus 1x additional science course

*3 units of college prep social science - must include 1x US, 1x World, and 1x other

*2 units of foreign language - must be consecutive years of the same foreign language

-- So there's 17 units that are basically proscribed, whether you want to enroll at UGA or at Valdosta State.

Now we head to the HS requirements

-- Let's be generous & assume that the student has one outside interest that's got creditable classroom time, for discussion purposes let's say they're in band. 1x each year, so that's 21 units.

-- State HS graduation requirements mandate at least 1/2 year of PE & 1/2 year of Health, so now we're at 22 units (i.e. classes)

-- The state min. units to graduate is now 23, the assumption is generally 24 units is the max available (figuring 6 classes per year gr. 9-12)

So the remaining slots available for that "wide variety of subjects" is a maximum of 2 ... unless you want to eliminate something.

edit to add: I feel like I've got to make sure it's clear that I'm not trying to give you a hard time or arguing against your position. This was just an exercise meant to illustrate how it can be easier to say what we'd like than it is to actually get it. Even with my kid in one of the highest performing private schools in the state, one of my biggest concerns is how "mile wide but inch deep" the experience can be, they end up piddling at a goodly number of things but getting insufficient depth to be of any significant value in a large percentage of those.

[AENeuman]

Should the goal of high school be prepping all students for college? It seems that it is, but i'm not sure why. I know there has been a tripling of universities and enrollment over the last 40 years, but in 2006 in the U.S. only 17 degrees are earned for every 100 students enrolled. i think the big part of this failure is due to an inertia where most high school grads think they have go on to a 4 year or community college. essentially we have created a 13th and 14th grade with very little accountability.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll pick on the Univ. System of Georgia for an example of what I'm talking about.

Starting with the (HS) Class of 2012, to be eligible for enrollment into most of the state's public universities, you must have

I'm not sure why you think I'm against that. I think that's a good and wide variety of subjects mandated. Now I'd like to have more social studies, but that's not a bad start.

one of my biggest concerns is how "mile wide but inch deep" the experience can be, they end up piddling at a goodly number of things but getting insufficient depth to be of any significant value in a large percentage of those.

It's a valid concern, but I wonder how much depth you want to get into in high school. Not to belittle anyone who is or is married to a high school teacher, but the difference in 'depth' of subject from even AP high school classes and their corresponding freshmen college classes is night and day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not sure why you think I'm against that. I think that's a good and wide variety of subjects mandated.

I thought you were looking for more of a variety than was already there. Interpretation fail on my part I guess, my bad.