Perhaps you can tell me this Dottie,and anyone else who has math eduction experience, I get the impression that many teachers think it's just awful to actually go too far ahead in math taking no stock of a kid who is clearly interested and capable. It seems if they would rather have the children to logic and story problems as nauseum. I have no problem with logic/story problems, but what's the problem with letting the child go ahead and do the critical problem solving stuff?

We'll be having a meeting in a month or so to decide whether DD8 continues to leave school for math or stays when honors math starts. All the info I have indicates that she is ahead of honors math, although, it's not dreadful........

Any thoughts/suggestions would be greatly appreciated, especially if you've already been here and could guide me in what to say....However, any advice is very much appreciated.

Thanks!
Neato

Thanks,
Neato

That's an age old debate....the deeper enrichment, or the faster pacing. We've even had it on here a few times! I personally feel that both are greatly needed, but if the depth is lacking regardless, the child may as well advance. Hard core numbers are hard to argue. Developing Math Talent talks well about how to get them and how to use them for decision making.

It's hard to take on that line of thinking though. I was unsuccessful with DD13 back in 6th. I can still remember the teacher telling me that DDthen11 didn't choose to do the extra activities, and therefore didn't need them. DD11 claimed they were just more of the same.

Thankfully the same teacher did realize that DS was "different" when he came along. It found it easier to argue in the extreme. DD13 is and was very talented in math, but in a more "MG/HG" manner with lots of (equally neglected, ) company.

One thing we found once grouping started though is that a group of like minded kids really helps. DD13 is in great company at the moment. I can only dream though about how things might have gone with grouping from the start, .

I would try to formulate a concise summary of the Aleks data that says what you want it to say. Their eyes typically glaze over with too many details. Scores against other grades do speak loudly though, and DS got the most mileage from the Explore and the SAT in that regard. But for his official school skips, they used norm referenced tests from higher grades. Aleks can do what you want it to, with the right summary.

I wouldn't necessarily get the book, as you'll be disappointed in the lack of an actual plan (or school follow through), but it was full of practical advice for mathy kids.

I think at this point your best best is a well written summary of where she stands, that does include (Aleks) data.

Maybe plan on the Explore for the near future, to use once you have it (if it's still needed).

The Aleks guy himself suggested we move to pre-algebra after completion of the 6th grade module. If I remember correctly, DS did levels 4, 5 and 6 and most of pre-algebra in that one partial school year. He was more than ready for algebra after that. Keep in mind too that I was his "tutor" during that time period. Aleks isn't necessarily the greatest for one-on-one teaching without a real live person in the background, but it's a pretty good program nonetheless.

Where's Ania when you need her? Now where was that old thread.....

Good to know. That's advice I can do something with. Thanks so much I truly appreciate it.

I'd love to help you with why schools seem to think faster is bad, even when the kid is getting the deeper, too, but I don't get it myself.

I understand "The Calculus Trap," but I really do think there's only so much you can do to avoid that, especially in elementary school. Things change somewhat in middle and high school, when there's more math to do and more challenge to find. But in elementary school, I think there's only so much "deeper" you can do before you really just have to go faster.

<shrug>