Virginia Dept. of Ed. Possibly Eliminating Advanced Math Until 11th Grade

a reply to: JBurns

This is another reason Russia will eat our lunch on demand

I don't buy into the McCarthyism partisans would have us believe. They're an economic adversary, not an enemy. We've collaborated much more than we've been at odds.

Lest us forget, Russia sacrificed more for WWII than anyone else... And I think part of the contention on their end is they get treated like a child in the geopolitical arena. They're always a lesser, and not an equal. I'd be mad if I was Russian too. They've contributed quite a bit to modern humanity.

That's not to glorify the Putin regime though. They are despicable... But Russian people, and a nation as a whole are alright in my book. We have much more in common than we do with China culturally and ideologically, we should probably treat them as such.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: infolurker

Much easier to level everything than to grow them up.

As a parallel example, not everyone can be in the NFL or NBA.

a reply to: dug88

But at the same time, you cut down the kids who could be flying high and learning the advanced stuff by not offering them the option at all.

It's one thing to redesign the basic courses and another to remove the advanced math tracks.

Trust me, I have experience with differentiated instruction. It's only as good as the individual teacher makes an effort to let it be. For some teachers, all it means is that the advanced student is simply delegated to teach others who don't get it, for others it means extra practice problems over concepts already mastered ... only some actually take it for what it should be -- individualized instruction to allow students who are advanced to work advanced concepts at an advanced pace.

All kids better have a short bus to ride on then.

The below explains why Anglo-Americans are steadily becoming the minority in areas that require high skills.

originally posted by: Ohanka
In China, the dumb kids are shamed into working harder to achieve better results.

In America, the smart kids are shamed because their achievement hurts the dumb kids feelings.

In China, the dumb kids are shamed into working harder to achieve better results.

In America, the smart kids are shamed because their achievement hurts the dumb kids feelings.

Maybe through this new approach the more gifted children can learn the valuable lesson to aid their struggling peers so that they can all learn how to be good soldiers of the state.

a reply to: dandandat2

Allow me to be blunt: You can't help stupid. Not only that, why is it incumbent upon the smart kids to make sure the rest learn what they've already mastered? That is what the teacher in the classroom is for, no?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dandandat2

Allow me to be blunt: You can't help stupid. Not only that, why is it incumbent upon the smart kids to make sure the rest learn what they've already mastered? That is what the teacher in the classroom is for, no?

Maybe a rising boat lifts all tides

a reply to: ketsuko

All I know is that when kids are bored, which many will be, nothing good happens.

originally posted by: dandandat2
Maybe through this new approach the more gifted children can learn the valuable lesson to aid their struggling peers so that they can all learn how to be good soldiers of the state.

How about no? Buck up and be parents, buck up and be professional teachers. Stop being lazy and heaping the teaching responsibility off on the other kids.

We (the US) are already far far behind in student STEM skill/fluency relative to say East/Southern Asia. At my tech company, this is plainly evident in hiring and interviewing trends (I am member of the teams that conduct interviews for hiring software engineers).

On the one hand, it is great to see that US industry, and especially the tech sector, is still attracting top talent from all over the world (my feeling is that we will eventually see a shift where top tech talent will be scooped up by Chinese companies).

On the other hand .... WTF is going on in our learning institutions in the US?? Why am I not seeing more native US candidates interviewing for software positions? I honestly can't explain the disconnect, as I'm not really close to my alma matta, and I don't have visibility into the university level and the demographic breakdown of who is pursuing STEM curriculum. From what I hear, anecdotally, there have been huge influxes of foreign students enrolling in our universities and taking up, e.g. engineering, math, computer science. That is their right and prerogative in our open society, and good for them in chasing the American dream, and making smart choices in their career path relative to what jobs are out there today. However, if/when many of these students opt to return to their (or their parents) native country, we will have a serious brain drain in our industry, and this is already happening now.

When I read stories like this, it starts to "fill in the blanks" concerning why I see a hiring gap in the tech industry between the US and other countries.

The people that are making these decisions, and neutering the US educational system, should be chased out of academia/school systems and run out of town on a rail. They are responsible for the implosion of the US as a thought leader and R&D leader in STEM fields.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dandandat2

Allow me to be blunt: You can't help stupid. Not only that, why is it incumbent upon the smart kids to make sure the rest learn what they've already mastered? That is what the teacher in the classroom is for, no?

Maybe a rising boat lifts all tides

It does, but only when it's allowed to do what it does best - excel and learn. Just because a kid is smart does not mean the kid is supposed to teach the rest.

The difference between gifted kids and the other kids is in the number of repetitions it takes for a kid to master a new concept. Kids with higher IQs master things much faster. Some need to only be exposed to a new concept once in order to grasp it. The lower down on the register a kid is, the more times a kid will need to see something demonstrated in order to "get it".

So to say that smarter kids who have already mastered material just need to spend their time practicing it in a new way - demonstrating it to slower classmates - is the same as saying they should not be allowed to excel and absorb new content and concepts at the pace they are able to.

Do you think the Chinese hobble their best and brightest like that?

I will add that I *was* the higher IQ kid. Do you know how many times there were concepts and ideas that seemed crystal clear obvious to me as soon as the teacher showed them to us that I couldn't understand why the other kids just could not grasp? The same thing happens here, btw, I explain things and explain things in ways I think ought to be crystal clear obvious, and it's plain that the concepts fly right over people's heads, not that they simply disagree. I can tell when I run into a poster who disagrees - they take the time to do it and do so in a manner that plainly demonstrates that they get where I am at.

Btw, I am not making any comment on anyone in this thread. I am just telling it like it is and has been in my life. And this is what it's like for kids who are smarter. They learn at light speed, so to hobble them back to the speed of other kids is going to risk losing them entirely. Do you know how dull it can be to be stuck on your third, fourth, fifth day of practicing a concept you grasped easily on day one and hearing your classmates still struggle with it? You know it's not their fault, but you are so, so ready for something else, something new. You're starved for it, and that's your academic experience. You're supposed to get differentiated instruction, but this teacher just gives you 20 or 30 more problems than the rest of the class and calls it "differentiated".

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I think the tech company hiring trends you describe have a lot to do with the fact that we do not properly compensate our engineering work force. There are many more lucrative and less demanding career choices.

Ever since the tech bubble of the early 2000s tech companies have been treating their technical work force as a commodity that can easily be replaced and so not worthy of higher compensation.

On the job training is almost non existent at tech companies when in the past companies valued the continued learning of their tech work force. Their are now artificial barriers to advancement that bar young engineers to reach the same higher positions and compensation that their older colleagues have achieved. And those older colleagues have continued to choose a longer work life vs retirement leaving even less room for advancement for younger tech workers.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I dont disagree CS!

I only mean as far as "besting" us at nearly every turn

a reply to: ketsuko

Sure, if society is to be run as a zero sum game were the most capable are left to excel with total disregard to those less capable than we can happily model our education system after those found in totalitarian countries such as China. We can continue to foster the devide between the haves and have nots (in this case intelligence rather than wealth) and we can continue down this road where the more affluent must support the less affluent. Either in the compationate way the liberal democrats want to pay UBIs and subsidies the lives of the less fortunate or control the less fortunate the way China does in totalitarian fashion. In such a system, assuming we it, we could continue to segregate our population into smaller and smaller buckets and some of them will prosper more than they might had they lived through more inclusive education environmen. Your absolutely right.

Listen I actually do understand your argument; and I don't believe you are completely wrong. And I realize I was exaggerating a bit in that first paragraph; but it is the logical ending of your argument. And while I don't feel you are wrong in your opinion, perhaps you are missing a perspective that is important to address when talking about this subject.

MY family was blessed with having more than our share of higher IQ kids. My brothers and sisters attended the accelerated tracks in all school subjects and graduated at the top of their class in high school and college. Like you, they easily grasped concepts that others required continued tutorial in order to master. I can understand how it may have been wrong to hold my bothers and sisters back from their full potential.

My education story was a bit more mixed. Due to fate, or genetic abnormality, I was born with a severe learning disability even though my own IQ scores rivaled that of my brothers and sisters. Like them I also easily grasped concepts that others struggle with; but because of my disability I was routinely filtered into the remedial tracks of education. I know exactly how dull it can be sitting in a class with some students who can barely tie their shoes let alone understand the remedial subject mater; especially considering I otherwise would have been in the accelerated tracks had it not been for my disability. As a result I was continually behind my intellectual peers and I was required to make up for it on my own during the higher elementary grades and through college. Sufficed to say if this new integrated education approach has a potential to harm some students; the old segregated education system did in fact harm some students.

But I did learn somethings being the "gifted" student amongst those less "gifted"; lessons that I probably would not have learned had I been segregated into the accelerated classes. Lessons I know my brothers and sisters did not learn.

When your the person that the rest of the class looks up to, who they come to for advise and extra tutorial, you learn leadership skills. When you find yourself unchallenged by the external world you learn how to challenge yourself. When you have no other choice but to live amongst those who are different from your self you learn not only to tolerate them; but to recognize their strengths and how to use those strengths to your mutual advantage.

I'm not saying the new integrated education approach won't have its faults; but I am not oblivious of the fact the current segregated system has its faults. And I feel that the proposed integrated education approach does have its advantages. Advantages that make it worth experimenting with it.

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I think the tech company hiring trends you describe have a lot to do with the fact that we do not properly compensate our engineering work force. There are many more lucrative and less demanding career choices.

Ever since the tech bubble of the early 2000s tech companies have been treating their technical work force as a commodity that can easily be replaced and so not worthy of higher compensation.

On the job training is almost non existent at tech companies when in the past companies valued the continued learning of their tech work force. Their are now artificial barriers to advancement that bar young engineers to reach the same higher positions and compensation that their older colleagues have achieved. And those older colleagues have continued to choose a longer work life vs retirement leaving even less room for advancement for younger tech workers.

I would recommend plugging in 'software engineer salaries' into your search engine of choice. The big tech companies (a.k.a. FANG - Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) compensate their folks very well, and this trickles down to the rest of the industry. It is a highly lucrative profession now, perhaps not on the level of say an investment banker, but if I were a guidance councilor advising a young person on careers with good longevity and earning potential, software engineer would be up there with being an attorney or general practice physician.

I also don't agree with your point on career development opportunities and skewing towards elder/experienced members of tech companies. My company has a pretty comprehensive program for offering continuing education to employees on 'latest & greatest' of software skills, but this of course varies per company.

Also, from what I see , software engineers that stick around for a long time and become complacent/specialized/out of sync with industry trends are being ejected by many big tech companies. Not necessarily a fair or ethical practice, but companies figure they can hire a handful of young engineers out of school, train them up on their tech stack, and still save money on cost of employment from a senior engineer. Amazon is notorious for this, and actively seeks out 'purge candidates' from their ranks every year. Very cutthroat. But then again, supply and demand, if there are massive crops of bright, entry level engineers hitting the market from foreign countries, then it's going to be advantageous to the people hiring, not the people applying.

a reply to: dandandat2

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that those who can learn faster should have the right to do so and the opportunity. They will absorb more and quicker and go on to do the bigger things. That doesn't mean the rest don't do at all. It does mean the rest do what they can as they can.

But ask yourself ... If you understand a thing right away, how patient are you with having to go over it multiple times as if you don't get it? And that happens constantly.

Not only that, but how do you think you get the best and brightest scientists in a society? Do you hold them back to relearning the basics or do you let them fly past the basics and into the advanced curriculum as soon as they're ready so they can go on to bigger and better things?

Why are you stuck on the idea that someone as brilliant as Leonardo da Vinci ought to be learning basic math until 11th grade because it will make other kids feel badly to know they aren't learning at his pace?

SleeperHasAwakened

Software engineering is a bit of an outlier in the engineering careers because of its current prominence in our entertainment consumption practices. They can command a bit more compensation their peers simply because of supply and demand. But software is only one part of tech dominance; if we compensate our software engineers adequately it will mean nothing if we loss our ability to design hardware to host the software. Even then based on the depressed nature of Engineering salaries in general Software Engineers should be able to command higher salaries.

I have been in Engineering Management for a while now at a big multi national company we are leaders in compensation and benefits; but the industry at large has been in a downward tregertety for a while now.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You read that right. In order to promote equity, the VDOE is moving to possibly adopt a math learning framework that would eliminate different math pathways, including the traditional accelerated pathway through Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, until 11th grade.

All students would take the same courses until then.

There would supposedly be options for "differentiated instruction", and then the main pathway would supposedly provide all students the option to end up at calculus.

The other issue here is that they may not have enough qualified teachers.

Teacher pay is low and class numbers are high. Colleges tend to teach classroom management rather than focused subjects (I ran into this when I worked for a "fun science" afterschool program... I'd have elementary teachers ask me about some basic science stuff (like photosynthesis.))

I know some good teachers who are leaving simply because of the low pay/overcrowded class/poor resources issues. Given that Virginia is not a very wealthy state, I wonder if "poor access to qualified teachers" is part of this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dandandat2

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that those who can learn faster should have the right to do so and the opportunity. They will absorb more and quicker and go on to do the bigger things. That doesn't mean the rest don't do at all. It does mean the rest do what they can as they can.

But ask yourself ... If you understand a thing right away, how patient are you with having to go over it multiple times as if you don't get it? And that happens constantly.

Not only that, but how do you think you get the best and brightest scientists in a society? Do you hold them back to relearning the basics or do you let them fly past the basics and into the advanced curriculum as soon as they're ready so they can go on to bigger and better things?

Why are you stuck on the idea that someone as brilliant as Leonardo da Vinci ought to be learning basic math until 11th grade because it will make other kids feel badly to know they aren't learning at his pace?

How much better would society be if Leonardo da Vinci was able to use his brilliance to help rise all people rather than produce singular acts of brilliance?

Sure technology and sciencetific advancement might be slower; but what rule is there that technology and sciencetific advancement must occur at the quickest pace possible? And if society as a whole benefits from a more intelligent work force all around, and not just pockets of brilliance, would it than be worth the wait?