thanks Tom, I recently heard Tom Loveless a prominent SoL advocate make interesting comments about the change of Maths curriculum: San Francisco initially mandated Algebra I for all eighth graders, aligning with California’s previous standards that encouraged early algebra. However, after adopting Common Core, the district reversed course and prohibited Algebra I in eighth grade, aiming for uniformity in math education as a form of equity. Loveless argues this approach backfired: affluent families could bypass the system by purchasing private tutoring or enrolling in external courses, while disadvantaged students—who relied solely on public schools—were left behind. The policy, intended to promote equity, ended up reinforcing inequality.
Thanks for sharing George, interesting right. Raises a few questions initially for me. For instance, why would affluent families consider it worthwhile to spend extra money to get algebra taught earlier? Who cares?
I believe many parents supported the policy because they thought it would benefit their children. A key factor in this was the simultaneous removal of ability grouping—what Americans refer to as 'tracking'—which meant their children were no longer being accelerated. This raises important questions about what we mean by a 'knowledge-rich' curriculum. Both the Common Core and algebra acceleration could be described as knowledge-rich, yet they take very different approaches. Also, what role does ability grouping play in delivering such a curriculum? None of these significant issues are addressed in the promotion of "knowledge-rich".
Some really important questions George, I wonder whether “knowledge-rich” cannot be determined until within a school context? 🤔
There is still the question as to why parents feel the need to “fast-track” learning, such as algebra. In what ways would it benefit their children? Why would algebra “benefit” these children? (No need to answer, just some thoughts!)
thanks Tom, I recently heard Tom Loveless a prominent SoL advocate make interesting comments about the change of Maths curriculum: San Francisco initially mandated Algebra I for all eighth graders, aligning with California’s previous standards that encouraged early algebra. However, after adopting Common Core, the district reversed course and prohibited Algebra I in eighth grade, aiming for uniformity in math education as a form of equity. Loveless argues this approach backfired: affluent families could bypass the system by purchasing private tutoring or enrolling in external courses, while disadvantaged students—who relied solely on public schools—were left behind. The policy, intended to promote equity, ended up reinforcing inequality.
Thanks for sharing George, interesting right. Raises a few questions initially for me. For instance, why would affluent families consider it worthwhile to spend extra money to get algebra taught earlier? Who cares?
I believe many parents supported the policy because they thought it would benefit their children. A key factor in this was the simultaneous removal of ability grouping—what Americans refer to as 'tracking'—which meant their children were no longer being accelerated. This raises important questions about what we mean by a 'knowledge-rich' curriculum. Both the Common Core and algebra acceleration could be described as knowledge-rich, yet they take very different approaches. Also, what role does ability grouping play in delivering such a curriculum? None of these significant issues are addressed in the promotion of "knowledge-rich".
Some really important questions George, I wonder whether “knowledge-rich” cannot be determined until within a school context? 🤔
There is still the question as to why parents feel the need to “fast-track” learning, such as algebra. In what ways would it benefit their children? Why would algebra “benefit” these children? (No need to answer, just some thoughts!)