Isha Sinha & Benjamin Vakil
YES
Benjamin Vakil
I have always considered myself “good” at math, and some of my most prominent childhood memories involve mathematics. For example, in first grade, I kept a notebook where I would calculate and list Fibonacci numbers, making it up to over 20 digits. Although math was always intuitive for me, I struggled with maintaining interest in the subject at school because its progression was too slow. While extracurricular math enrichment was always an option, I never had the bandwidth for much of it because of focus issues stemming from ADHD. Recently, while attempting to be placed into a higher math class, I encountered PAUSD’s draconian policies surrounding math placement, where I was squarely told that I was not allowed to skip. That experience has convinced me of the need for more accessible and flexible math lanes for all students.
PAUSD has an unfortunate culture of rejecting openness and cooperation—to put it in other words, it’s their way or the highway. This dynamic manifests in the mathematical educational framework of our district being harmful for students.
PAUSD actively discourages students from pursuing more advanced math. While it is possible to skip one year of math in middle school, it requires an obfuscated validation testing process that is—to put it bluntly— designed for failure. The deliberately obscure testing procedures, lack of rubric and syllabus, irrelevant questions and undue grading scales exacerbate demographic disparities, since students whose families lack the significant wherewithal needed to pass the validation tests are held back from their full potential. I experienced this firsthand in middle school, since despite being an all-around capable student, I was not given the organizational support—which the district was obligated to provide—to help me succeed.
When parents attempt to advocate for their students, school officials tacitly dismiss their concerns. In fact, after communicating with staff earlier this year, an assistant principal suggested that I drop my current math class—condescendingly implying that I didn’t need to take any math class at Gunn if I was not content with the one given to me. This rigid approach to math education leaves our district a year behind neighboring ones, such as Los Altos, Menlo Park City and Mountain View Whisman, that offer geometry in middle school.
Instead of taking the sensible approach of allowing students to take the classes they want, PAUSD tries to justify its radical policies by insinuating academic consensus on math delaning, when none exists. They would rather cite agenda-oriented consultants and cherry-picked data—including figures from the San Francisco Unified School District, which was found to have fudged data in their math programs according to an analysis by Families for San Francisco.
The fact is, forcing heterogeneous classes in regards to math interest and ability does not increase equity. Instead, the students who quickly understand the concepts become disillusioned as they are systematically under-challenged. Likewise, those who need more time and attention to understand the same material inevitably get left behind. Some talented students can get outside enrichment, but many can not. Some struggling students have access to tutors, but many do not. This dynamic creates a deep divide in the classroom, limiting students’ ability to collaborate, which is crucial in mathematics.
NO
Isha Sinha
I have always underestimated my math abilities. Although I could have pushed myself to take harder classes, I chose to take the pathway that would have me take Algebra 1 freshman year. Halfway through the course, however, I realized that I wanted to challenge myself more, and thus decided to take a geometry class over the summer, since it would allow me to take Algebra 2/Trigonometry A sophomore year. The program compressed a year of geometry into a few weeks and was highly demanding—most of the students—who like me, wanted to pursue a higher level of math—dropped out of the course
While this anecdote is specific to my experience, switching math lanes is stressful in general. For instance, although all students have the option to move between the advanced and honors lane, it is their responsibility to learn the missed topics, which are often the hardest ones, such as quadric surfaces in Analysis H. The substantial division between advanced and honors at Gunn makes self-teaching the curriculum nearly impossible.
For instance, if a student were to take Advanced Placement Calculus BC after taking Introduction to Analysis and Calculus, they would struggle in the class, since Analysis H devotes more time to the fundamentals of calculus. Merging the advanced and honors lanes into one would reduce the stress and difficulty of changing between the two.
The California Math Framework builds on a foundation laid in 1985 that describes the required math standards. The framework advocates for fewer lanes so that students in lower ones— who tend to be students of color—can take more difficult classes and access the opportunities they afford.
In my experience, students in a higher math lane often choose the lane because of a previous interest in the subject. Placing students from lower lanes in the same environment may encourage a similar interest. Merging the lanes may also push students to pursue a math-related field, even if they had never considered doing so before.
Although reducing the number of lanes would minimize the amount of personalization, students would still have a choice between pursuing the skip or merged pathway. It is important to note, however, that switching into the skip pathway is difficult, and may not always be the best solution. A perfect solution isn’t always easy to find, but the problem is clear: Having many math lanes creates more division in an already competitive environment, and there is no easy fix without compromise.
Comments