Wow. I know algebra can be very hard for some people, but isn’t this what teachers are for? They’re there to help students learn, aren’t they? I feel like these teachers have just given up on (some of) the students. I don’t believe anyone is unable to learn a given subject.

I understand the shocked/appalled reaction to this letter (giving up on children! Gasp! For shame!) and lots of their word choices are unwise, but I can also sympathize with these teachers. NY requires 3 years of math, and if kids had to pass regents algebra 2 with trig to graduate, our graduation rate would go down. A tad dramatically, I’m afraid, to the tune of three sections of kids currently enrolled in non-regents trig. And it’s not that all these kids couldn’t learn this material under the right conditions, but it would never happen in the status quo of so very much content crammed into one year culminating in the most ridiculous state examination you have ever seen. In a nutshell, if our board of Ed declared all kids had to pass regents alg2/trig, I’m not sure our letter would read much different.

Well except for all the tone deaf elitist parts. Which are objectively rather appalling.

I am in Michigan where we require 4 years of math, Alg2 being one of them — for ALL students including LD kids. Parents can do a “personalized curriculum” which deletes the Alg2 req ONLY after the kid tries it for a semester (and fails).

Personally, I think Alg2 is a bit much for all kids, not just “those” kids. I think we should require personal finance (credit/debt, bank statements, budgets, etc.) MUCH before Alg2.

Luckily, Michigan’s 4th year math class can be integrated, such as: Accounting, Programming, Construction, Personal Finance, etc. The problem though is that MANY schools are stretching the Alg2 requirement over two years (and counting it as 2 years — that part I really don’t get).

I think we should have grade level entrance exams. — If you can’t pass, you can’t get in. Kids are merely socially promoted through so many grades. When they come to high school with 3rd grade reading and math levels, I think Alg2 will be a little hard no matter how great that Alg2 teacher is.

I just read this and am appalled! I teach in NYC and I teach the 2-year algebra I track. These kids were quite weak when I first started with them last year but with enough hard work and determination between me and the kids, I feel that we’ve achieved so much. From not being able to solve a one-step equation, now they’re able to solve quadratics and trig problems! I truly do believe that given the chance, these kids can and will make it to Algebra II, and they will do well. I’ve worked too darn hard (and so have they) for someone to pre-determine their future that way. I know for a fact that my brother never made it to Algebra II in HS, he only completed Algebra I. In college he had to make the jump from Algebra I to Calculus (he was a business major), which by far, was the most difficult thing he has ever endured! I always feel a sense of responsibility to help my students keep as many ‘doors’ open as possible, just in case. Maybe I’m delusional …

We require Algebra II for our sophs to graduate in 2 years. I believe that a math literacy course would benefit a portion of students that are not calculus bound. There are ways to give students math knowledge that will help them more than Algebra II.

If students aren’t understanding content in the traditional method of teaching then teach it to them differently. Perhaps the teachers could read one of the books by Ron Clark about motivating students and holding all students to high standards. “The End of Molasses Classes: Getting Our Kids Unstuck. 101 Extraordinary Solutions for Parents and Teachers.” He is one of the most inspiring motivational speakers a teacher can ever see. I think the teachers you mention above would then feel more confident about being able to educate ‘those’ kids.

UC is not the bogeyman here. I had occasion to find out exactly what the real UC requirements are, because I’m home-schooling my son in high school. I posted about it at
http://gasstationwithoutpumps.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/satisfying-ucs-a%E2%80%93g-requirements-with-home-school/

Students can satisfy the math requirement with a 480 on the SAT 2 math 2 test or a 570 on the SAT 2 math 1 test (a level which probably doesn’t really require mastery of algebra 2). (Note: since my son, as as sophomore, is taking the Art of Problem Solving online calculus class, and got an 800 on the SAT 2 math 2 his freshman year, we weren’t worried about the UC math requirement. The English requirement, on the other hand, is much stricter and harder to dodge.)

I think that, in general, it is a mistake for a high school to match their graduation requirements to the entry requirements for UC, which is supposed to take the upper 1/8th of high school graduates. Encouraging students to aim high is all very well, but requiring everyone to jump over a bar intended for separating the top eighth from the rest is not really fair. Since UC can’t take everyone, even if by some miracle all high schoolers in the state did pass Algebra 2, all that would happen is that the bar would have to be raised.

The wording of the teachers’ statement was very poor–I hope that none of them also teach English or politics.

I’ve been struggling lately with my mission, which seems a lot like trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes. I think we sometimes miss the question. It’s not *can* we get all students to learn Alg 2, but *should* we? I agree with a previous poster that there’s a lot of math we could teach besides Alg 2 that would probably be more beneficial for students than Alg 2 (namely stats).

I get frustrated with the single-mindedness of college preparation. Not every kid is going to college. Or should go to college. I think we over-push college on kids. There are a LOT of great career opportunities for hs grads that don’t require a college degree (or Alg 2), and we do students a disservice by implying that it is needed.

Final thought: kids come to us with a wealth of talents and abilities. That group of unmotivated, disengaged students that drives us all nuts is probably that way because “what they’re good at is not valued, or is actually stigmatized in school.” (Sir Ken Robinson- see the full TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html).

Can we teach high level math to every kid? Probably. Does every kid need high level mathematics? I remain unconvinced.

Somehow, seeing someone else grumpy about having three preps plus etc plus life makes me feel a little more normal for going frickin’ crazy with four preps (one of which I actually had never actually, y’know, learned before teaching it – anyone care to learn about double-entry accounting, because I am now the frickin’ MASTER).

I wanted to scream SHAME. But @jason buell got it right (comment 14). Instead, SHAME on Math Education writ large, and specifically in CA. Why can’t mathematics education remake itself from its public school origins meant to prepare mathematicians to develop the logico-mathematical mind of all children? [yes, I did just drop some Piaget] I often wish I could re-find some cognitive science research I read 15 years ago suggesting that the cognitive requirement necessary to learn language was more demanding than what was necessary to understand the mathematics of calculus.

It seems so obvious to me that Algebra II is useless to such a huge percentage of the population that it should certainly not be mandatory in high school. This is the epitome of rigor solely for rigor’s sake.

@Dan: If there’s any kind of causal relationship between Algebra II completion and success in higher education, I’m willing to change my mind. I haven’t seen any.

Is there “any kind of causal relationship” between ANYTHING and success in higher education?

Haven’t these people seen Stand and Deliver?

@timfc. “*But, I’m pretty sure a lot of this data says, “good students are good students.” It’s correlations that they’re looking at, not causation.”
I so agree! I teach both ends of the spectrum, and often wonder how can I help change the not so good students into good students. Last year, in a College prep geometry class I had a student who stepped outside of what was normal for him and took that class rather than regular geometry. He struggled the whole year and despite my encouragement felt discouraged he could not reach the grades the others in class seemed to be able to do with ease. The biggest factor? His parents. They never encouraged him to try these classes earlier in his education, they were satisfied with just passing, and that was the level he worked to. The disadvantage this created for him was huge! How do we change that, when there are families whose values and cultures do not value education? He is sticking with the college prep ( honors) program, and still struggling, but doing better. He is very motivated and will be the first one to go to college in his family. I am very proud of him, but he is swimming upstream against a strong current with his family. He is rare. How can the education system make that difference for all of the others in those situations? Very frustrating!

@ Timfc: I like your summation, but I’d even go a step further: “good high school math students are good college math students.” Not really any surprise there.

I still sense an emphasis on college preparation, and I don’t believe that our sole purpose of existence is to prepare students for college.

There’s a difference between “students objectively can’t learn Algebra II” and “students objectively can’t pass Algebra II class.” They used the latter wording, unless I missed something. I took that to mean that many students, due to objective reasons, are not able to pass Algebra II at the pace and rigor of their school. Keep in mind the school is next to Stanford and Silicon Valley and probably serves children of parents who have strong math backgrounds or with access to resources.

Even if they spent the additional resources as you suggested they could, there will still be some students who will fail their Algebra II classes at their current pace and rigor. So it’s a choice between having kids go through a whole year of Algebra II and failing in the end requiring a waiver to graduate or watering down the course so students can pass just to graduate or, as they stated, kids with resources can “buy their units” thus unfairly punishing those with limited means who were the likeliest to fail in the first place.

They feel their school has a reputation where the math grades mean something to colleges in the admissions process (anyone has insight?). They would prefer not changing that perception by watering down. They do offer an alternative where 3 years of math is the criteria for graduation instead of Algebra II. It would allow them to create classes that better targets the student in terms of ability, access, and motivation.

@ Adam Hall: I would never argue for a world absent of Algebra or Calculus or any higher math. Don’t mix up “teaching high level mathematics” with “teaching every kid high level mathematics.”

You’re right when you say we are going to need people to do the “crap” jobs. But we also need people to do a whole host of other jobs like plumbers, electricians, truck drivers, chefs, bank employees and [a thousand other great jobs] that pay well, make good careers for kids, and require NO HIGHER ALGEBRA OR CALCULUS to be successful.

We need *some* kids to be taught and be successful at higher mathematics. We need to focus some extra effort at this group of kids. I know at our school that we are under-serving this population while we try desperately to get the bottom end up high enough to pass the state test at the end of their sophomore year. We expend very few resources taking mathematically gifted kids to the zenith of *their* abilities. And it makes me feel bad.

Dan, (or anyone else here), do you know what level of math is required for high school students in other countries?

I think many people are missing the point. What is appalling is that it is PALO ALTO teachers who have given up on these kids.

For those who don’t know, Palo Alto is one of the most elite suburbs in Silicon Valley. The population is mostly white, with very well educated families who live there because they either inherited the money or made big bucks (we are talking multi-millions) when their company took off during the Internet boom of the late 90s. It’s a city where you can’t buy a 1500 sq foot house for less than $1M. The 1500 sq foot condos *start* at around $850K. I know, because I have been looking for a long time to find something affordable in that neighborhood, and have failed so far.

This school district has actually passed a parcel tax on top of the already sky high property taxes to fund the schools.

We are talking about the cream of the elite, who have all the resources and then some to spare, giving up on their kids.

That’s what makes this appalling.

Many good comments. Look at the percentages of college (and community college) students who need to repeat high school level algebra classes. Many are kids who did pass algebra 2, then took no math in their senior year.
Look at the current mess we are in after the housing bubble. How many people signed contracts with financial obligations based on math they didn’t understand? Whether it’s taught in algebra 2 or statistics or a financial math class, people in this country would be better off knowing and understanding how money works in this economy. (And that takes algebra at least through exponential functions.) Ignorance of all that is very expensive for all of us.
Talk to community college instructors of those remedial classes. They will tell you many of their students were not yet ready for those classes in high school (Piaget again?); many of the students, according to surveys, claim they would have worked harder in high school if it had been demanded of them.
See achieve.org for more on the push to require algebra 2 as a component of “college readiness = work readiness”. Readers of this and other blogs know that the way much of what we teach is changing, and more change is needed and underway.
I agree that for many students, stretching it over 2 years would be very helpful, but that does run up against budget troubles.

Isn’t this all just speculation? How difficult is thier algebra II program – don’t know. What sorts of skill & motivation levels are we talking about for these kids that can’t pass – don’t know. Do these kids really have lack of support at home, and do the teachers really know who has a lack of support – don’t know. Do the teachers give a darn about these or any other students? Do these failing students receive the mountains of extra support that apparently should be available to them in Palo Alto? Did they mean “don’t pass even though they are trying” when they wrote “can’t pass”?

I disagree that concluding that a student will not pass means you have relinquished responsibility for that student. I have had many students reach the point where they cannot pass for the year – doesn’t mean I stop reaching out or trying to engage them. For survival sake alone you have to show those students that you still care about them and their learning.

I can’t see a purpose of this post.

I have had kids who are 15 and have had no schooling in written language until a year ago. They can’t pass Algebra 1, but our school system will put them in algebra 1, then geometry, then algebra 2, and they will fail it all. Because of that paper (thanks for the cite) that says students will do better in college if they take higher level math, regardless of whether they pass it.
And I do not think they are in any way stupid – they’re learning a written language, a culture, an oral language, all at the same time. Way more than I could do.
We just pass them along so they can go to Community College and take remedial math (we aren’t allowed to do remedial math because that would be lowering the bar…). Sure it costs taxpayers more, but that way we don’t have to face reality. I suspect that avoiding this is the purpose of the PA teachers. And by the way, we do have huge numbers of students who drop out at 17 without passing a single high school math course, so evidently they do learn an application eventually.
80% of my kids cannot reliably add and subtract whole numbers. I’m not assigning blame, I’m not saying they can’t pass Algebra 2 eventually, but I am saying that if we don’t help them learn how arithmetic works, then how algebra 1 works, they aren’t going to be able to actually pass algebra 2.
At some point, requiring kids to complete work that every one else does on a computer program, is just cruelty.
Unlike the English system, it’s all or nothing. You either get a high school diploma or you don’t. Most adults (including teachers) in the US would not have a HS diploma had this been in place for them. Most adults have no idea what’s in Algebra 2, they just think more is better.
There’s a difference between requiring every kid to try algebra 2 and requiring them to pass it.

46 comments later, I very much agree with Dan on this. The issue isn’t whether or not all students should be able to pass Algebra 2 before graduating high school. The real issue is how will ALL students’ needs be met, understanding that their needs are as diverse as they are. If Algebra 2 isn’t an appropriate graduation requirement, then what’s an alternative path? To me, what’s lacking in their letter, is a proposed alternative of how to best meet the needs of students who struggle to pass Algebra 2. And then, what resources will be committed to meeting those needs. Finally, what role do students and their families have in the decision making process about what’s needed and best for their future. THOSE are the real questions, as far as I’m concerned.

Although most 8th graders take Algebra 1 in Berkeley, I teach a course called Algebra Scholars which is a second year of pre-algebra. Near the end of 7th grade, I meet with all students who have scored below a certain proficiency in pre-algebra and give them 2 options for 8th grade: Algebra Scholars; or double period algebra (giving up their elective). Some of these families choose a single period of algebra, agreeing to get tutoring outside of school. By no means is it a perfect choice, but it means that students and their families choose to take a second year of pre-algebra instead of our staff making that choice.

The issue of who makes tracking decisions is critical to me as is the issue of how to help students and their families make an informed choice with an understanding of the implications of their decisions.

I wonder if any of the Palo Alto teachers who petitioned the school board would like to respond here? I would also love to hear from the 6 who didn’t.

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.

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.)

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

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.

http://pausd.org/parents/programs/VoluntaryTransfer/

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

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.

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.:)

btw…
allsum is the cool weigh of spelling awesome.
and capitals are for losers.

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.

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:

“It is our goal in the Palo Alto High Mathematics Department to place students in courses that provide the
appropriate level of challenge. When placed appropriately, a committed student who puts in the amount of work
required should be able to master the content of that course.”

And the second bullet point (and the real kicker):

For PAUSD students, readiness for a particular course is determined by the present teacher, who knows both the PAUSD curriculum and the student’s preparedness level and makes a careful, informed recommendation for placement with the student’s best interest in mind.”

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.

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.”

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 (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)

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.

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.)

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.