Last April, fourteen of Palo Alto High School's twenty math teachers petitioned their school board [pdf] against raising graduation requirements to include Algebra II:
We live in an affluent community. Most of our students are fortunate to come from families where education matters and parents have the means and will to support and guide their children in tandem with us, their teachers. Not all of them. [..] We are concerned about the others who, for reasons that are often objective (poor math background, lack of support at home, low retention rate, lack of maturity, etc) can't pass our Algebra II regular lane course. Many of these are [Voluntary Transfer Program] students or under-represented minorities.
Since those students objectively can't pass Algebra II, the next appropriate step is to compile a list of those students and prevent their enrollment in Algebra II in the first place. Otherwise, you're putting them in a position to care about passing a class we can be objectively certain they will fail. If I were a parent of one of those students, this determinism would probably drive me out of my mind.
The signatories are Radu Toma, Suzanne Antink, Kathy Bowers, Judy Choy, Arne Lim, Deanna Chute, Natalie Simison, Misha Stempel, Maria Rao, Charlotte Harris, Scott Friedland, Lisa Kim, Ambika Nangia, and David Baker.
Featured Comment
Their hearts I think were in the right places but they whiffed badly. The point isn’t can every kid take Alg 2, but should they.
2012 Jan 16: Coverage from the San Jose Mercury News.
Those teachers brought this on themselves by making their letter public, but it would be nice to see a more thorough reporting of the issues before setting them up for a public beat down. Things are often much more complicated than they appear – espicially when you only have a poorly worded and tone deaf letter to go on.
I am not sure, but it doesn’t seem like their intent was to apply “objective” criteria to pre-judge individual students and decide whether that student is capable of passing algebra II.
It seems like they were simply trying to make the point that there are real barriers to having all kids graduate with algebra II in their current program, and expressing concern that many students will need to jump through some hoops in order to get a waiver to graduate, or they will need to lower the standards for the course.
Some may argue that they should be able to accomodate all students while keeping the current level of rigor. This, to me, is all speculation based on the information we have.
Although people are saying that Palo Alto is phenomenally wealthy, so should be able to afford nearly infinite resources, it doesn’t work that way in California. The amount of money that goes to a school district is based mainly on how wealthy the community was in 1972, not how wealthy it is now. (So Palo Alto does well relative to Santa Cruz or East Palo Alto, but not like a school district in New York with similar wealth, as Palo Alto’s switch from middle-class college town to dripping with money happened in the 1990s.)
Even so, not everyone at Palo Alto High is wealthy—California schools tend to be more diverse with respect to wealth than those in the Midwest and on the East Coast, perhaps because the boundaries don’t correspond to tax levels and housing prices as neatly. According to the state records
http://api.cde.ca.gov/Acnt2011/2011GrowthSch.aspx?allcds=43696414335782
9% of the students at Palo Alto High are “socioeconomically disadvantaged”, 6% are English learners, and 9% are students with disabilities. These numbers are very low for a California school, so Palo Alto gets very high API scores overall, despite doing about the same as other school districts on the non-English speakers, the kids in poverty, and the Hispanic kids (the three groups are reported separately in API scores, but the averages make it clear that they are mostly the same kids in the three subgroups).
Palo Alto does have a high proportion of Asian students, who are doing extremely well on the API tests and pulling up Palo Alto’s average.
It is quite likely that some of the students with severe enough mental disabilities are “objectively” incapable of learning Algebra 2, but I’m not sure that is who the Palo Alto teachers meant, since those kids tend to get ignored in all discussions of high school graduation requirements.
Palo Alto High is not doing particularly well for its poorer students (compare API scores on subgroups with schools like Monte Vista High in Fremont, which has similar fractions of impoverished students), so I think that there is some question about how Palo Alto High is using their resources and whether there is inequity there.
It seems that the “Reality-based” community has little grounding in reality. A useful reading list can be found at Linda Gottfredson’s publications page.
At what point should we stop? Should all students be required to be proficient in calculus? How about differential geometry or vector calculus?
What reasons would you give for not requiring calculus that also do not apply to algebra II? What is it that you think separates those who can handle calculus from those who cannot? (Hint, poverty is correlated with that hidden variable you do not want to talk about.)
Is semestering common in California schools? Maybe a compromise would be to offer Algebra II as both a 1/2 semester course and a full-year course?
Dear School Board,
We are sorry when we said those disadvantaged students objectively couldn’t pass our algebra 2 class. I mean, we totes have a bunch of smart students in these classes and these Oliver Twists are getting in their way! We have heard poor kids with the same disadvantages are passing in other poorer districts but our algebra 2 is different than what algebra 2 means everywhere else. Basically our algebra 2 is calculus which is why these kids can’t pass. What’s that? Poor kids in other districts have passed calculus? Hmm…well then they must not be as piss poor at school as these kids. Also we are not used to having to teach and scaffold to diverse learners so it’s not fair! Seriously, guys, come on. Do you really expect us teachers with masters degrees from Stanford who have never been around poor people to be able to concentrate enough to ignore that they’re wearing clothes from Mervyns! That store closed down years ago! Gross! Listen, we have busy schedules because all of these smart students can’t just learn without expertise so can’t we just dump these other kids back in East Palo Alto where they belong?
Sincerely,
Uncreative, entitled, lazy teachers who have great teaching jobs
One would think that there are, in fact, objective criteria for deciding which students can pass Algebra II.
For example, if the student can’t perform simple arithmetic, it is clear to me that that the student will not be able to pass Algebra II.
Yet, for some reason, some people on this blog seem to believe that it is _absolutely impossible_ to _objectively_ determine whether a student can pass Algebra II without subjecting the student to said class. Worse yet, apparently, it’s about to become a _requirement_.
What a preposterous idea.
Yet another manifestation of the “everybody must graduate from college” idiocy that’s spreading all over.
Oh, and Judah – how do you expect to “scaffold” a student who can’t perform arithmetic into understanding Algebra II, while still managing to teach the students who actually have the basics?
It’s not a question of lack of money; it’s a question of lack of skills and raw intelligence.
Oh, wait – that’s right – students are absolutely interchangeable units that do not differ in any way. Right.
I personally know one of the co-authors of the letter and she’s someone who has a lot of integrity. I have no doubt there’s more to this issue then what’s written in the letter. I’d love to hear more about the factors which led to the writing of the letter and what these teachers are doing to ensure a true narrowing of the achievement gap. Maybe not enough is happening, but I hope the ‘support’ of these students is more than the straightforward goal of eliminating Algebra 2 as a graduation requirement. Hopefully Jason is right that their hearts were in the right place. It’s hard to know from this one document.
I cannot help but re-ask CoQuejj’s question (post #34), but in the perspective of the (imminent) CCSS adoption. The CC standards are not organized by the de facto American course names. I am always surprised by the discourse around arbitrary course names and their ability to indicate college and/or career success.
In my opinion, identifying “Algebra 2″ as an indicator or requirement means absolutely nothing. (It would be no different than identifying English 11 or science 3 or math 10 or ‘advanced art’ or ‘math for liberal arts students’ as “the” course.) I have taught in a several states and several types of schools (each with a different belief about math progress) and no two were ever consistent.
Until we start talking about the skills/topics for college AND career success and developing math programs from those ideas, the discourse about any arbitrary course and its ability to indicate success is impractical. By no means do I think the CCSS (or any set of standards) is the answer to the current issues of math preparation, but I do think it is a chance to reconsider—or dare I say ‘transform’—the way mathematics is taught in American high schools. I truly believe that every good math program is developed around the ideas/beliefs, essentially a set of standards, that a school or department thinks is necessary for post-secondary (college or career) success. (Check out the math programs at Phillips Exeter in NH or the Urban School in San Francisco for examples. Note there is no mention of Algebra 2 anywhere.)
Unfortunately, I fear that schools/districts will force the CCSS standards on top of their current courses and the status quo will remain—a total exercise in futility. I just wish everyone could take one giant step backwards and inspect math education from a broader perspective and schools/districts develop programs that serve their students the best.
http://pausd.org/parents/programs/VoluntaryTransfer/
“Unfortunately, I fear that schools/districts will force the CCSS standards on top of their current courses and the status quo will remain—a total exercise in futility. I just wish everyone could take one giant step backwards and inspect math education from a broader perspective and schools/districts develop programs that serve their students the best.”
This.
How can it possibly help a student to be in a class that they are not prepared for? This is teaching? To put a student in a class that they are hopelessly behind in from day 1? And if this is a civil rights issue then civil rights is a dead issue. Where is the progress in putting students in classes that they will fail completely.
Reform didn’t start out this way, did it? Its goals were originally true and noble. Its goals were to make students more educated, not less. Its motives were simple and unselfish. A better education means a better life. And no teacher, and in fact no person, in their right mind would have ever suggested that a better education would involve putting a student into a situation of certain failure (I do not exaggerate, look at the test scores).
I find this twisted version of reform, to put students in classes they have no chance of succeeding in, highly suspicious and sad. Let me ask those of you here that promote such a practice. If it was your son or daughter that had done so poorly in Pre-Algebra and Algebra 1 that failure in Algebra 2 is a certainty, would you send them forward? I know what kind of parent would do that, an entirely uninvolved and unfortunately uneducated kind of parent. But what kind of teacher would do that?
Bob Hansen
And, as many posters have already pointed out, very few people use algebra! Even the majority of teachers that teach it. They use spreadsheets and solid arithmetic in their day to day lives and careers. Be honest with yourselves and look around your workplace, even if that workplace is a university. Math past arithmetic is like music, an art. Being good in algebra does open some doors, just like being good with music opens some doors. But those doors are only a fraction of the doors out there. It seems that the next reform needs to be a reform that acknowledges that reality. That every student DOES NOT need algebra. That people don’t even use it in most walks of life.
Hear, hear to many of the comments above that are appalled at this petition.
As a graduate of Palo Alto High School, a secondary math teacher, and now a mathematics teacher educator, I had a visceral response to this post.
I was NOT the student who found mathematics easy in high school. I had to work exceptionally hard to get mediocre grades. After a B- in Algebra I (9th grade), a B+ in Geometry (10th grade), and a C+ in Alg II (11th grade), I somehow got into the AB Calc AP class. The class prepared me so well to recognize cues in AP calc test problems and to follow memorized algorithms that I got a 5 on the AP. I couldn’t have told you what a derivative was if it would’ve saved my life (as I found out quickly in college).
Maybe Paly needs to reconsider what the kids who ARE passing Algebra II (and their other courses) are actually learning about mathematics. It wasn’t until I became a teacher that I really began to understand the conceptual intricacies of Algebra, Geometry, etc. And yes, of course parents and families are a huge part of kids being able to do well in school. But it IS also the responsibility of teachers to take the approach that ALL students can learn, and to put support in place that help students get there.
I think Dan’s comment (#40 above) hits the nail on the head in several crucial ways:
1) The fact that ANY teacher in ANY school system would claim access to objective, predictive knowledge that certain identifiable students will inevitably fail Algebra 2 strikes me as wince-worthy in the extreme;
2) the fact that a group of teachers in a district renowned for its support of quality education would actually sign their names to such a letter says something about their institutional acceptance of an ineffective system of preparing students for and prior to Algebra 2;
3) the clumsiness of their effort suggests a certain “learned helplessness” among these teachers, in which challenging a proposed graduation requirement is perceived to have a higher likelihood of success than an insistence that they address the underlying deficiencies of the system that leads up to Algebra 2.
I would respectfully submit that this whole situation reveals multiple facets of dysfunction that deserve to be looked at — not just this small group of teachers. If that many math teachers felt they had no choice but to petition the Board of Ed on this matter, there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Just my two cents.
To the last two posters, we are not talking about students getting by on C’s. We are not talking about minute failure, we are talking about complete failure. I think people are somewhat ignorant of just how poorly some students are doing in math. Blame who you wish, the teachers, the parents or the students themselves, or the lying bastards that rigged the lower level tests to show progress when there was none. But these students are not ready by any definition of the word.
If a student is barely passing math then you have a talk with them, you have a talk with their parents, you suggest strongly that maybe a repeat is in order to strengthen their understanding and put them on firmer mathematical ground. If they decide to press on anyways then let them.
But this is not the case here. These students have failed the majority of the necessary skills. They are not barely passing. They aren’t even barely failing. They are completely failing. Don’t tell me that a teacher or even a layperson cannot predict the outcome in that case. And the outcomes are dire, ridiculous even, in every state that has mandated Algebra II for every student, the same pretty much goes for Algebra I as well.
Is pushing students to fail in a subject that few people actually use anyways, helping anyone? Only about 20% of the students in CA are making it through Algebra II as it is. You are talking about failing 80% of the students. And I will say it again, in a subject that hardly anyone uses. Why not do this with Latin instead. At least (I think) most kids would have a chance with Latin.:)
@robert…
you have to be an allsum teacher.
if you have to tutor on the side to teach them to add.
so be it.
if you have to tutor on the side to teach them to divide.
so be it.
it can be done.
who cares if you won’t ever use it.
i can’t think of the last time i used shakespeare in life.
but i got something out of it.
and i am thankful for the language arts teacher who inspired my perseverance/appreciation through/of it.
growth mindset vs. fixed mind set.
btw…
allsum is the cool weigh of spelling awesome.
and capitals are for losers.
I still have this strong sense that posters are coming from this place in their heads where we MUST teach high level math to all students, or we’re failures. We’ve been sold this bill of goods by society, by the politicians, by the media, by the fear mongers with their whole sky-is-falling-USA-is-in-last-place-on-intl-math-tests-again-BS, and most of all by ourselves because we care about kids and we want them to be successful.
I believe in the power of mathematics, and I know what it contributes to the world we live in. I believe that we should take on any and every student that’s interested and take them as far as is reasonable to do. I also believe that it is incumbent upon us to help students identify their talents and abilities, and to help them cultivate and develop those talents and abilities as much as we possibly can. If their talents and interests lie along a different path (say music, or art, or culinary arts, or learning a trade), then our efforts at dragging this kid kicking and screaming through the rigors of algebra only contribute to the perceived ineffectiveness and irrelevance of public school. We’re flogging ourselves, and I don’t do self-flagellation.
Thanks James (68). Go back to Robert Hansen (61.62, 65). If you have not had a job/career/experience outside of school, you might not know that almost nobody uses Algebra 2 (dividing one polynomial by another, conic sections, normal curve distributions, trigonometric function combinations, logarithms). Mathematical models are done on computers. Nobody uses calculators either. In 20 years of engineering I never saw anybody use a calculator.
The question is not whether it is really cool for some people to acquire this knowledge at some point in their lives, the question is whether is it sensible that these skills are a requirement for everybody to master by age 18, or be labeled as a failure by society.
I could sort of buy the “we are teaching logic/thinking processes/how to learn” argument, but that’s not what we’re testing, and it’s surely not necessary to go to polynomial division to accomplish those goals. I believe there is logical thinking inherent in other subjects, although clearly not in the classes that teach administrators how to set curriculum.
You and Robert and louise are missing the point of most of those comments. Definitely my own. No one here has argued in favor of teaching Algebra II to students before they’re mathematically prepared. I’ve argued against the Algebra II requirement itself. All of that is beside the point. If the Paly High School letter had concerned multivariable calculus, my point would still stand:
The Palo Alto High School math teachers claim objective knowledge which they can’t possible have. This is arrogant. Particularly arrogant is the objective knowledge they claim of a student’s home life, her maturity, and the supportiveness of her parents. The Palo Alto High School math teachers are looking through an extremely cloudy lens having convinced themselves it’s clear and then saying that cloudy lens can objectively predict which students will pass and fail [insert any math class here]. This is wrong, both morally and factually.
A few rhetorical questions:
Do ELA teachers feel the same way about teaching poetry to students?
Do science teachers feel the same way about teaching the structure of the atom?
Do art teachers feel the same way about exposing students to the works of the greatest artists in antiquity?
Do social studies teachers feel the same way about exposing students to ancient civilizations?
Is there anything we learn in high school that is arguably an absolute necessity?
With those being asked, I do not think anyone can “objectively” determine what a student should or should not be able to accomplish academically. Furthermore, I don’t think any of us reading this blog (presumably math teachers, past and present) can “objectively” determine the usefulness of algebra after high school or college; we have all had the privilege of taken (or having taught) advanced math classes, and are therefore able make our own (subjective) judgment as to whether it is useful or not.
I agree with Dan’s latest post—the math teachers at Palo Alto are arrogant and wrong in their intentions. Check out the description of their program and course offerings: http://paly.net/academics/course-catalog.pdf (page 48-49).
Their first bullet point:
And the second bullet point (and the real kicker):
Furthermore, they offer four “lanes” of mathematics courses! They sure seem to have a predetermined conception of the capabilities of students in each lane. And their described process of transferring between lanes suggests that the structure is more rigid than flexible.
Again, I strongly believe there needs to be a shift in the paradigm of high school mathematics education.
Alg2 Teacher wrote…
“With those being asked, I do not think anyone can “objectively” determine what a student should or should not be able to accomplish academically. Furthermore, I don’t think any of us reading this blog (presumably math teachers, past and present) can “objectively” determine the usefulness of algebra after high school or college; we have all had the privilege of taken (or having taught) advanced math classes, and are therefore able make our own (subjective) judgment as to whether it is useful or not.”
First off, I am not a teacher, I am a software engineer, I have tutored (math) and I teach my son.
http://k12sense.wordpress.com/about/
That the majority of people don’t use algebra out of school is not subjective, it is a fact. That does not mean that I think math, including algebra and beyond algebra is not worthwhile. I personally find it to be very worthwhile like I am sure musicians find music to be very worthwhile. I just don’t see it right to push what I find to be worthwhile on students that don’t find it worthwhile, excepting of course the skills all of us use in our day-to-day lives. No one is saying to stop exposing students to algebra, that happens plenty in pre-algebra and algebra 1. And it isn’t just algebra, we should expose every student to all of the worthwhile things in life, and then trust the STUDENT to make their choice as to what is worthwhile to them. Not mandate it.
When you and Dan question whether a teacher can objectively determine if a kid will fail, you miss the point entirely. You should be asking the students what they want. Students know what they are good at and what they are not good at. They don’t sign up for these courses and fail them because they want to be challenged. They do so because you forced them to.
This is an argument for a universe that doesn’t include graduation standards. If you want to make an argument against graduation standards, I’m happy to read it at your blog. This post takes place in a different universe and considers an entirely different set of constraints.
Another feature of the universe of this post is that people don’t sign up for courses they’re already good at. They sign up for courses in things they aren’t good at, but want to be.
No more of this.
“Another feature of the universe of this post is that people don’t sign up for courses they’re already good at. They sign up for courses in things they aren’t good at, but want to be.”
I was only talking to signing up for algebra 2, not algebra 1. I think the students know what algebra is and whether they like it and whether they are good at it after they have suffered through algebra 1.
Dan and others, are you sure that the teachers signing the letter are claiming to have objective knowledge for individual students that would predict failure for those particular student? Do they mean the reasons themselves are objective (i.e. most people would agree those factors would tend to cause a student to have more difficulty) or do they mean they have objective data for individual student that would guarantee failure? It seems like they are writing about the group not passing algebra 2 collectively, not on a case by case basis. A lot of red flags went up for me as I read the letter, but I am not really sure about their motives or concerns. Have you spoken with any of them or do you have any behind the scenes information?
The full quote shown below comes across as, “85 students didn’t pass Algebra II – some probably could do it but it is unfair to expect all of them to overcome the significant obstacles they face”. Saying that out of 85 students, some could have passed and some couldn’t is a lot different than saying Jim & Jane didn’t pass Algebra 2, Jim could do it, but Jane can’t because of her unsupportive home life & immaturity.
Extended Quote from the Paly Letter:
“85 Students will graduate this year from Paly without having completed Algebra II. A change in graduation requirements could probably motivate some of these students, who have the emotional ability and academic support to do so, to work harder and meet the a-g challenge. We are concerned about the others, who for reasons that are often objective (poor math background, lack of support at home, low retention rate, lack of maturity, etc) can’t pass our Algebra II regular lane course.”
I guess I should apologize to Dan for ‘jacking this thread. I know my posts are off-point of Dan’s original post. The conversation brought up stuff that’s been rolling around in my head for a while that I really needed to articulate, and this thread seemed pretty close. I’ll try to control myself and stay on topic from now on. :)
James I think he was directing that at me.:) I apologize Dan, so to get back to your point…
“The Palo Alto High School math teachers claim objective knowledge which they can’t possible have. This is arrogant. Particularly arrogant is the objective knowledge they claim of a student’s home life, her maturity, and the supportiveness of her parents. The Palo Alto High School math teachers are looking through an extremely cloudy lens having convinced themselves it’s clear and then saying that cloudy lens can objectively predict which students will pass and fail [insert any math class here]. This is wrong, both morally and factually.”
Why do you think this is not possible? I mean why is it not possible to judge a student’s probability of success in algebra 2 based on their performance in algebra 1? I can understand borderline cases, but I have seen the scores, these are not borderline cases, and the actual resultant number of failures bares that out. It’s a bit out of order (logically) to say “predict” when they already did intact fail. But when did teachers lose the ability to perceive when a student was ready for the next course or not and advise them accordingly? Is that part of the “universe” also? If this were music and the student, after a year, was still unable to string 6 notes together into a melody would you still say that we can’t predict total failure in advanced music? That doesn’t seem very cloudy.
Robert: An individual student really can surprise you from year to year, or from 9th grade to 12th grade. Most don’t, but some do. I would be concerned if a poor algebra I performance prevents a student from ever taking algebra 2 (i.e. they are put on a lower track with no possibility of getting off). I am not sure if that is the case at Paly or not.
@Robert (post #72)
I don’t think Dan nor I are suggesting to force students into a course that they do not want to take. I believe Dan has already stated that in a previous post (#6, for one example) and my comments about shifting the paradigm were meant to imply the very same thing (see last sentence of my post #58). Also, I believe Dan’s track record, especially when he was teaching full time and posting his WWYDWT lessons, speaks for itself. And I have too seen the TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson that James posted in comment #17, and feel the same sentiments. (Actually, an animated version of this talk is also cool to check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U)
Your comment about teachers losing the ability to perceive when a student is ready implies subjectivity. (And just for the record, I am not arguing that this should be stripped from any teacher nor discounted as irrelevant.) The Paly letter references these as objective reasons: poor math background, lack of support at home, low retention rate, lack of maturity. What is the objective measure of ‘lack of support at home’ and ‘lack of maturity’? I can almost agree that the closest thing to objectively determining success is an Algbera 1 grade (math background/retention rate); however, even that is dictated by a school or teacher’s belief about how students should perform. (And a personal note: my Algebra 2 grade was significantly better than my Algebra 1 grade, so I don’t necessarily think that is a sure-fire method either.)
(Off the main topic, but IMO, I think we need to eradicate the Algebra 1-Geometry-Algebra 2 structure and start offering high school math programs that are congruent to the needs of 21st-century students. One of the reasons for the status quo math curriculum is largely due to the fact that university mathematics programs traditionally started with calculus. But as we all know, there are now many different math classes that are offered to first- and second-year university students. There is no need to prepare everyone for calculus any more, and we should provide high school courses that can prepare an individual student for which ever path he or she chooses.)
” how do you expect to “scaffold” a student who can’t perform arithmetic into understanding Algebra II, while still managing to teach the students who actually have the basics?”
Seriously? That is the whole point. Scaffolding in this type of situation is an essential skill and pretty much the norm for any school of lesser means. With some obvious exceptions nearly any student is “capable” of learning Algebra.
Regarding others speculating that we are arguing that it should be a requirement to graduate, you are mistaken. I agree that there is a frustratingly dumb notion to send everybody to college, take Algebra 2, etc. But the problem here is the letter is not questioning “why” in the letter but rather it shows a strange breed of entitlement that some elitist folk have.
It is possible. Performance in Algebra I is a reasonable predictor of performance in Algebra II, though different teachers will evaluate “performance” in different, highly subjective ways.
You’ve either misread their letter, my post, or both, if you think prior mathematical performance is what this has been all about.
Wow, this is a harsh crowd. Dan, I’m a huge fan of your pedagogical work, but I think you’re being overly uncharitable to the authors of the letter. OK, granted, they wrote a tone-deaf letter that could have been worded better. But it feels to me like you’re reading an awful lot into a few sentences. Perhaps this is just personal preference, but I prefer to try read letters like this charitably, under the assumption that the author is conscientious and concerned and passionate and acting in good faith, and see where that takes me. What would a charitable reading say?
You keep pushing on this word “objective”. That’s one word in a two-page letter. What if that was a clumsy word choice that doesn’t accurately convey what the authors were trying to express? Sometimes we all have experiences with poor wording choice that comes out wrong. Or at least I do; maybe you have better communication skills than I do. What if that word “objective” had never appeared in the letter? What if it had been replaced by something like “quantifiable” or “measurable” or “beyond the control of the high school”? Would you still be criticizing these teachers so harshly
I could easily imagine a situation where teachers who have a lot of experience with students who are blatantly failing Algebra I could form the kind of views expressed in this letter — without acting in bad faith, or being arrogant, or abrogating their responsibility.
Dan, I feel you have a better point when you suggest, instead of treating everything before Algebra II as a given and getting caught up on whether to mandate Algebra II, maybe Palo Alto should also be examining the entire math curriculum that leads up to Algebra II to see whether it meets the needs of all students. But I find that the attacks on the authors of this letter make me wince in sympathy for the authors.
@Dan
“You’ve either misread their letter, my post, or both, if you think prior mathematical performance is what this has been all about.”
I find the wording (in the snippet of the letter you posted) odd, dumb even yes, but I haven’t seen the whole letter, your pdf link doesn’t work. Do you have another link? I am assuming that they are talking about kids that are at a very real risk of failing.
Robert, the link should work fine, but the letter is also here.
http://wecandobetterpaloalto.org/downloads/palo_alto_high_anti_ag.pdf
It is still mind boggling that so many teachers would sign their names, but the full letter is a little more ambiguous and a little less offensive than you might think from the snippet.
Another few phrases that keep popping up are things like a math curriculum that “meets the needs of all students,” graduation standards, etc. Is there one math curriculum or set of standards that can meet the needs of all students? Or does each student have individual needs that can’t be met with one document/plan/curriculum?
As I ruminate the impending implementation of Common Core State Standards in Montana I keep having the thought that as soon as we point to *any* document and start with the words “every student will” we’ve pointed a loaded gun at our own heads and started pulling the trigger.
Not only do I think that any one math curriculum/set of standards/etc. is going to be too “high” for some and too “low” for others, but just plain the wrong stuff for many.
Which begs the question: How do we develop a flexible set of standards that helps each student obtain the education that they need as individuals?
Here’s a heretical thought: does a set of math standards need to be “rigorous?” I’m not sure I believe in rigor for rigor’s sake. I think that a kid that wants to be a musician should take rigorous music courses, but if they can do the arithmetic needed to function in their daily lives we should leave well enough alone. Are we obligated to challenge this kid mathematically? Why? How do we then identify kids that we should let be and ones that should take a rigorous mathematics curriculum?
Other random thoughts: Is it imperative that we make every aspect of a student’s life (meaning every subject they take) rigorous? Can some things just be easy? Can we provide rigor in a few areas that interest and are appropriate for the student and will that serve them just as well?
Okay. Too many questions. I’m now lost in my own head. It’s too late for this kind of deep thinking. Somebody throw me a life jacket. Or a large gin and tonic. Either one.
Thanks LL, my bad, I missed that dan’s post had two links, it looked like one long link.
I agree, a poor choice of words or just a clumsy way of explaining why kids do poorly in school. As soon as I read “brain theory” I knew this letter wasn’t going to enlighten me. But the message in the (whole) letter is pretty plain. There is a group of kids that will not be able to meet an algebra 2 requirement for graduation.
According to the California STAR results last year, 81% of the students at Palo Alto took Algebra 2 (the remaining 19% are the 85 students in the letter) resulting in 58% of the students being proficient (71% of the Algebra 2 takers). For the whole state, 58% of the students take Algebra 2 resulting in 19% being proficient (33% of the Algebra 2 takers).
My point here is that 71% of the students that take Algebra 2 at Palo Alto score proficient on the CST, 29% do not. I do not think that is being overly selective.
While we are talking about a requirement for algebra 2, The full proposal also adds two years of a foreign language! Yuck! That is probably what the Algebra 2 requirement looks like to some kids.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=21220
I read the whole letter and it paints a picture of teachers with their heads in the sand. They are a huge piece of what is wrong in that school. Everyone from administration to the parents need to be educated about what it means to be a 21st century learner. To come from an “affluent” family does not mean that you have a natural ability or motivation to do well in school. This I have seen first hand. After 11 years in an urban school where 75% of the students qualified for free or reduced lunch to 4 years in an independent school whose students come from more affluent backgrounds, I see little difference in the learner as a whole.
Students at this age do NOT know what they are good at. Isn’t that point of middle and high school? I know that I (and I know that many of you) have changed the mind of a student who thought they were dumb in math. It’s why we teach.
Algebra I and Algebra II content is way too cumbersome to be taught properly in the school year. The pace that some teachers employ insures failure. There is a better way to teach math.
I believe that the countries who integrate the math curriculum are doing the best job of engaging students and showing them the true meaning and application of math concepts.
We adopted this approach to math curriculum two years ago and the students are more motivated, work harder, see the “why” of math more clearly and are more successful on assessments. There is no gap between Alg 1 and Alg 2. All strands of math are taught every year. We teach basic trig in Alg1 and the students are geeked. Statistics runs through the curriculum from 6th grade on to Pre-Calc. We are seeing more high schoolers interested in Stats courses as juniors and seniors.
My students are girls, who either from their parents, elementary school teachers or society, assume that they could never be good at math. They can put up so many barriers and so many excuses that it would be easy to give up on them. Some come with little number sense and panic at the thought of a story problem.
For me to say “objectively” that they were unable to learn and be successful at math…. wow, I can’t imagine.
Carol Dwek http://mindsetonline.com/ needs to visit and work with the whole community on the growth mindset.
@Eileen, do you have any links to your curriculum or results? I said most people don’t use algebra, which is true, but when people do use it, it is the full technical and analytical version of it. iPhones, iPads and software are not designed nor built using statistics. How many women have you seen present the newest gadgets and technology that we see today? I’m just being honest here. There is a big question making the rounds as to what happened to the girls. There are actually less now in these fields than there were, say, 10 or 15 years ago, and female mathematicians are on the endangered list. It could be that they found other things that they like better, life sciences and such, which is cool. My theory is that they were taught too much damn statistics, which has almost nothing to do with the technical and analytical attributes that define most of the STEM fields. Just a thought.:)
My point eileen is that if you girl-proof your entire math curriculum then you are not exposing your girls to all the paths, specifically not the analytical and technical paths. I am not saying you did girl-proof your curriculum, I haven’t seen your curriculum. But I have seen the phenomena and it is my theory that is partly why we are loosing the girls in these fields. The other reason is simply that they find things they like to do better, which is fine.
I will stop hogging Dan’s blog now, I apologize. Thanks for putting up with me Dan, I will return the hospitality, some how.
“iPhones, iPads and software are not designed nor built using statistics.”
Having been a computer engineering professor for many years, I can say quite definitely that a lot of hardware and software does require statistics. Computer engineers are required to take at least one probability course, and recent developments (particularly the rise of machine learning and data mining) have made Bayesian statistics highly recommended for computer science grad students (required for bioinformatics).
Google looks for statistics knowledge as well as programming knowledge, and both more than algebra.
This kind of nonsense makes me not want to be a high school teacher anymore. I’m a freshman in college and I’m working towards a double major in physics and secondary education, but now I’m just considering getting a physics major. In my area these standardized tests are becoming a huge priority in our school districts. I know from experience; as an advanced placement calculus student I had to do what was the equivalent an algebra 2 review packet to ensure I would do well on this standardized test. We took valuable class time to review this packet because my teacher felt pressured by the administration to make us review.
It’s ridiculous. I may just become a research scientist until I can get a master’s degree so I can be a college professor and not have to worry about all this BS.
This is so discouraging. A college student with a dream, being deterred by stupid standardized tests.
Suzanne – This is the ugly side of teaching math for sure, but do not get discouraged. Teaching math is the greatest!! Right now mathematics education is going through some growing pains. The classroom is still the same. The students are still the same. I love being with my students. I wouldn’t do anything else. As teachers we whine and complain. In the end teaching Algebra 2 to every student may not be possible, but some of the topics covered in this class are essential for students to understand in order to take part fully in our society. For instance, I would argue that the housing crises could have been avoided if more Americans understood the exponential function. Many had no idea that a variable rate interest would make that big of a difference in their 30 year mortgage payment, or that y = mx + b occurs in almost every aspect of our lives. It is our jobs to show them these connections. It is our jobs to give them the tools to not be taken advantage of mathematically (finance). Show me a job that could possibly be better?
We get to be the advocates to those who the rest of society has given up on. We get to make a difference in the lives of students that are told by other teachers/parents/society they can’t do it. We get to prove the arrogant naysayers wrong. There is no greater feeling in the world than to hear that student who you yourself had almost given up on say, “Wow, Mr./Mrs._______, I get it!”
Pingback: Brooke in Math » Blog Archive » Algebra II Requirement
Most kids can learn Algebra II. Most kids should learn Algebra II, and too many don’t.
Algebra is a skill used to develop higher level thinking, analytical thinking. It teaches students to work hard, to seek understanding, to push themselves to succeed. But, not if the teachers don’t valuse these traits that make the learner sussessful.
Too many of the above are basing there ideas on insufficiant data – why – cant those kids learn? Why dont they learn? Is it cognitive ability? Do you even know what you are talking about, or is all you research on “why” they can’t learn based on your own beleif system, based on what you are conditioned to believe, based on ignorance and the inability to critically read research and develop lesson plans and tests that are significant.
Most of the above comments are based on personal ideas and lack in critical analysis. Maybe, perhaps if we had more teachers that could look past thier own simple ideas – kids could and would learn.
I would like to bring family educators into this conversation. At every homeschool meeting I visit, parents discuss decisions: “My kid will do these projects and subjects areas, and will not do those projects and subject areas.” These discussions never get to the level of drama and strife presented here, though of course, sometimes there are disagreements between kids and their parents, resolved within each family. These conversations and decisions, in family educator communities, are normal and non-controversial and very much a part of the daily routine of education. And yes, many delay Algebra II beyond the age of 18 years (possibly forever, as the case may be).
One size does not fit all.
But who will act in loco parentis for kids whose parents don’t?
My kid told me this Summer she does not want to do any math for a while, other than what comes in her freelancing. I don’t know what “a while” means. She’s doing that Stanford free programming course this Spring, though – because she’s inspired by Cory Doctorow’s work of programming as a social change force, and is doing a project with friends Cory though was a good idea, etc. I would rather she did this – or any number of other things – with love, than whatever math course is “next” without love.
Yesterday, I had a relevant conversation with a public school student I tutor in Algebra II. He loves math ideas and has beautiful insights, but he’s not good at computation by hand or paying attention to where the minus has to go. He would be brilliant in any computer-based math activity; as it is, he’s in the least demanding Algebra II class in his elite magnet school. He shared the fact both kids and the teacher in the class got so depressed this Fall that the teacher is quitting the profession over it. This isn’t right.
The point: this discussion can be about unique personal interests, desires and strengths of children.
Suzanne,
Daniel has a lot of good reasons not to give up. I would like to add that, in spite of the ugliness of the bashing of teachers, public education in general, etc, there has never been a better time to be teaching math (thanks iPad). The blog we are reading and responding to is part of a terrific guerrilla network of the best professional development anywhere. Finding these resources online has benefited me enormously as a teacher, and benefited my students as a result.
The state tests are focussed on minimums, and teaching problem solving skills beyond them is the best strategy – it’s the best preparation for those who continue in math and the best preparation for problem solving on tests, whether state or SAT.
You can find ways to connect math to all kinds of social issues and debates as well as science and finance connections. There is much that is poorly understood about important issues because people generally lack the necessary foundation in math. Kids appreciate being in on the know – because you brought them in.
I am 64 years old. I have always been very good at basic mathematics and finance but have a complete blank with Algebra and was a complete failure at scholl with it. I even went to adult classes for g.s.c.e maths qualifications, raced away from the rest of the class in general maths , then algebra starts……result , after one term of it , well I just gave up !! My job before I retired was as an engineer, everyone came to me for advice on finance and to work their calculations out, nobody remembered the Algebra they did at school and nobody ever needed to !! In UK children are leaving school unable to do even basic maths. Why not concentrate on teaching things that the average person will actually need in life, learn about avoiding getting into debt, mortgages, banking, how to get best value shopping etc and lastly basic maths. In my opinion Algebra should be an optional class, it spoilt my chances of getting qualifications as I could never understand it . Lastly a true story that happened to me . When I was studying as a mature student for my city and guilds in engineering, we had a gearing reduction question which the teacher worked out in algebra, everyone else followed, accept for me , I worked it out using fractions. Of course the answer he came up with was different to mine but I could not see where I had gone wrong, all the young students laughed at me !! So I said to the Teacher if he had an answer book …..and he looked the answer up……I was right and he and the rest of the class was wrong !! So he was very astonished, sent the class home while I stayed back and showed him how I had worked it out. He took my work, phot copied it and handed it out to the class next week to replace the wrong answer done by algebra. Problem is he had got it wrong and because the students did not understand algebra they just copied what he said was right !! I passed the course with top marks and was given the award as student of the year.
But I still cant do Algebra !!