On greatschools.org , I looked up some top rated (greatschools.org rating of 10) public high schools in the Silicon Valley area (with lots of parents in computing and engineering) and looked up their AP math participation rate.
School
Location
AP math %
Notes
Statewide
6%
Aragon
San Mateo
16%
Carlmont
Belmont
14%
Cupertino
Cupertino
26%
Evergreen Valley
San Jose
22%
Henry M. Gunn
Palo Alto
24%
Homestead
Cupertino
20%
KIPP San Jose Collegiate
San Jose
14%
charter school
Lehigh
San Jose
13%
Los Gatos
Los Gatos
14%
Mission San Jose
Fremont
16%
Monta VIsta
Cupertino
30%
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
36%
Saratoga
Saratoga
11%
Note that “AP math” might not necessarily be calculus, since AP statistics and (recently) AP precalculus also exist. However, some schools may offer a non-AP calculus course less rigorous than AP calculus AB.
The percentages above suggest that, even in “top” high schools, math acceleration is nowhere close to universal. It also suggests that parents should not be afraid that their high achieving students are “behind” in math if they are “only” on the +1 track (versus the +2 or +3 track).
I wondered about the figures, and working back from the data from our school, it seems that the AP percentages greatschools calculates are out of the entire school. I am not sure that is the best way to reflect especially math APs, given generally (I know there are exceptions on the +3 track) it is only juniors and seniors who take them. Another way of looking at it: our school has the overall AP participation rate listed by greatschools as 54%, which it is if you look at total AP students/total number of students (noting freshmen are not allowed to take APs but still get included in the denominator). But the school profile also notes that 283 seniors (out of a class of 297) took at least one AP course, which of course is a vastly different impression about the AP participation rate.
Your conclusion that math acceleration is not universal would still mostly hold, of course, but the “effective” prevalence might look quite different if it was, say, % of seniors doing AP math out of total seniors.
“Districts de-prioritize math. While 63% of California districts ranked English language arts as their top priority, only 16% ranked math first, with math trailing both English language arts and social-emotional learning.”
Our current district changed the middle school math curriculum several years back so that everyone could reach calculus by senior year. The intent was to get rid of the gate keeping caused by early tracking. The first class that went through those curriculum changes just started their sophomore year of HS so we’ll see how it plays out. My guess is that they won’t see a change because only three years of math is required by our state to graduate and I hear about many kids stopping after junior year.
That said, I do think that for students that are gunning for the top colleges, it does seem like “everyone” is accelerated because they are surround by those students who are in that top decile of rigor. They aren’t comparing themselves to the kids who are just meeting the state minimum requirements.
At my S24’s feederish “good for STEM” HS, there was some chatter among the kids about how maybe the most selective colleges would “require” at least doing BC as a junior and advanced math electives as a senior (a few kids did BC even earlier and then 2+ years of advanced math electives). The college counselors assured them that was not accurate, and then in his senior year, 2 out of the 3 Yale admits had not in fact done that (for whatever reason, Yale was the most popular HYPSM that cycle). Many other admits to the most selective colleges had also not done that.
Of course that is just one high school and one cycle, but I think those college counselors knew that to be true, and it is consistent with what these colleges say as well. Reasonably challenging yourself across all the core areas each year may be a good idea, but then you don’t necessarily have to match every other kid in the world for Math acceleration, or indeed in your HS if it is the sort of HS where people are doing MVC, LA, and so on. Cool if you actually want to, particularly if you are interested in Math outlier colleges like MIT or Caltech. But just not necessary for highly selective colleges in general.
But all students that are math-accelerated & perhaps also science-accelerated don’t need to attend schools like Caltech or MIT for college. Students shouldn’t be placed on an accelerated track just for the sake of getting admitted to a highly selective college after high school. There are mathematically gifted students (if you believe in multiple intelligences theory) that would be capable of completing subjects like algebra & geometry as early as 6th grade during middle school & spending time in high school with trigonometry, calculus, statistics, linear algebra, & possibly higher-level subjects. All colleges have math departments, some more reputable than others. These students are being held back 2 or possibly 3 years due to a flawed educational framework or system. Forcing students to wait until 9th grade to take Algebra I is a step backward. We cannot go back to days of offering lower-level subjects like Consumer Math to high school students.
Research Supports Academic Acceleration, National Association for Gifted Children
I view the acceleration as a decision that is independent of college admissions. It should fit your learning needs, and if in the process you do a certain amount of math including HS and College, by the end of 4 years of college, that is the body of knowledge you will be entering the work force with. It has its own benefits if you are interested in that kind of work. Learning math is not to impress someone else. Ideally the kid will not be accelerated. They will be doing math at their own pace. If it looks accelerated relative to other people, it is of no consequence. I would advice kids to take as much math as they would like without worrying about what someone else feels about it – whether it is high or low.
The mathematically gifted outliers tend to be obvious and rare.
But what is likely more common is that some students who would do best in the +0 or +1 math sequence are pushed by their parents into more accelerated math sequences, on the probably-mistaken belief that doing so helps them to get into more selective colleges. Over-acceleration in math sometimes shows on these forums, where a student doing a chance-me mentions struggling or lower grades in (for example) precalculus in 10th grade (+2 track).
This is true and I don’t support parents pushing their kids into academic sequences they may not belong in. But many children do get academically underestimated, ones where the system has failed or neglected to correctly identify them as gifted or high ability learners, or at least smarter than they think they are.
You seldom if ever hear of parents trying to accelerate their children in English/language arts. This is probably because those kids find productive avenues for their language talents outside of English class – reading on their own, writing, joining the school paper, etc.
Math seems to be different in that students are rarely encouraged to pursue their interest in the subject outside of class.
Our kids were all somewhat precocious in the math department, but we were based in a very small public school system that didn’t offer multiple math tracks or formal opportunities for acceleration.
So we took the same tack that we would have taken for the precocious young reader/writer: we kept them surrounded by books and other materials that matched their math levels and interests, and watched as they worked through them mostly on their own. (My spouse and I are not math or even STEM people.)
They worked through these materials at home at varying speeds and intensities over the years, even as they marched dutifully (but joylessly) through the public school math curriculum.
When it was time for high school, they both opted for independent school, largely because they were they were looking for academics that were more demanding and (to them) engaging than our public school could offer.
When they arrived at their new school, one was placed in BC in 9th and the other in 10th. Both did extremely well.
The point here is two-fold: 1) don’t let your school’s curriculum set the ceiling for your student if s/he has a higher aspiration, and 2) sticking with the non-accelerated track, at least until calculus, while heavily supplementing with outside materials lets a child pursue those higher aspirations without skipping past the fundamentals along the way.
So I agree ideally each kid would be able to reasonably challenge themselves each year in math. For a few kids, this would involve progressing a lot quicker than most through the initial core sequence.
However, realistically if a public school district with budget issues has very few such students at most, then regularly offering classes appropriate for them might not be viable. How to then fill that gap is a tough policy question.
However, my comment was not meant to discourage such kids. Just to help all kids (and parents) understand that if reasonably challenging themselves each year in math did NOT involve a highly accelerated sequence, that’s not the issue for highly selective college admissions that some people sometimes suggest.
A other reason is that English texts can read at many different levels of depth, and complex assignments like essay writing naturally accommodate students at a wide range of ability.
realistically if a public school district with budget issues has very few such students at most, then regularly offering classes appropriate for them might not be viable
[/quote]
Even the least resources public school can allow a kid to work independently on material they bring in themselves, as this doesn’t take away any resour from the school or teacher.
Right, but offering a graded class for credit is a different sort of thing. Indeed, I am not aware of any school actually preventing kids from working truly independently on Math or anything else.
I do know of many schools where class participation / in class assignments / activities are a large part of the grade, so a student working independently at their own pace during class time would be penalized not just through grades but also behaviorally, e.g. being called out and redirected by the teacher to focus on the lesson.
And credit can be as simple as administering a final exam and awarding credit based on that. In fact, some states require their schools to offer credit by exam as an option.
I have no idea how they are counting this, but I don’t entirely buy those numbers..I just looked at a few good (and Lexington is tippy top) MA districts..
Also, bear in mind they may have non-AP calc too - that is still calc. (one of my kids school also offered “honors calc” senior year). At this HS, if you counted that, I think more than 35% of kids took calc of some sort, which is by no means universal, but universal for kids applying to top 100% schools.
Lexington (MA) has about 50% (I used 1 year of students as a denominator) take AP calc of some sort it looks like (regular public school) They likely have non AP calc too. (I didn’t check) (And a lot of those kids are beyond calc, at least outside school) (Note they don’t AB/BC as a sequence)
Milton High - 38%
35% at Concord-Carlisle
I don’t think anyone thinks 100% of regular public schools graduating class takes calc. But nearly 100% of those applying to top 75s… Kids going to “eastern state” or 150 on US news may not be…and kids at number 75 on US News may have take honors Pre-Calc..
So to me the concept of every HS having to administer customized math exams on demand and then offer credit does not really sound that simple to implement. Indeed, the process of getting a course approved for credit is not typically simple, so I am not sure how it would even work to have kids proposing their own content and related exams.
Of course kids can already do outside of school math classes, including with exams if they choose. They may not get HS credit for them, but why is that the important part?
Not necessarily customized, you could just use last year’s final exam for the class, or have the student sit exams along with the class while allowing them to work independently otherwise as long as they score above a certain range on the class’exams.
The issue is that it doesn’t solve the inappropriateness of their in-school class covering content that is well below their zone of proximal development.
I thought we were discussing classes a school does not regularly offer, so there would be no last year’s final.
This is where being able to get credit with just an exam might make sense. Like if you can ace the Algebra 2 final, you can get credit for Algebra 2 without attending the class.