Letter to the Editor: Math Department Instructional Lead Dave Deggeller responds to Forum articles regarding math lane skipping
Graphic by Audrey Tseng
Hey y’all, what’s the math rush?
I enjoyed reading the full page math spread in the Forum Section of The Oracle on Friday, Dec. 6. I was happy to hear that our existing math infrastructure in Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) served the two student authors, Ms. Suzani (who accelerated by skipping a year of math in middle school) and Ms. Moraes-Liu (who will impressively complete five years of math in four years by taking Geometry A over the summer) well in their math adventures. I also enjoyed reading the parental point of view from Ms. Cohen and Ms. Rosen and hearing their concerns about our current system. By the time you read this, the new PAUSD Middle School Math Vision will have been released, which I imagine may ease some parental concerns, while perhaps bringing up new ones. I thought I might add one more voice to the conversation—my own—as the Instructional Lead of Mathematics (this is my fourth year in that role) and as someone who has taught math at Gunn for 25 years.
I’d like to start by saying that there are students in PAUSD (many students perhaps) who absolutely should be accelerated through our math curriculum. If a student’s motivation for acceleration is that they love math and are feeling unchallenged in their current math class then I fully support such a decision. It’s the students who are accelerating either because their peers are doing it or because they think that it makes them a better college admissions candidate that I would encourage to rethink acceleration.
I particularly take issue with a quote from Ms. Cohen and Ms. Rosen’s guest column that “skipping carries significant academic and social benefits.” In my time in PAUSD I’ve met plenty of students who are thriving via an accelerated program (Ms. Suzani is an example). I’ve also met many students who are miserable and struggling to keep up. These students—in their words—accelerated because it’s what their friends were doing or (even worse) because a private college counselor has told them it could help them get admitted their dream University. Just this week I was talking to a Gunn senior who is currently enrolled in the Dual Enrollment Foothill College course Multivariable Calculus (the result of skipping a grade of math in middle school). She told me directly: “I wish I’d never skipped. It created undue stress in my life, and I don’t even love math that much.” Furthermore, our college counseling guru at Gunn, Ms. Linda Kirsch, has told me on multiple occasions that most college admissions offices do not want to see extra math on your transcript, nor are they impressed by a student who takes Calculus “early.” In addition, most colleges are going to insist that any math-major retake a course like Multivariable Calculus again on their campus! It’s enough to ask yourself, “what’s the hurry”?
Another reason for a student to reconsider acceleration is that it could lead to a weaker mathematical foundation. Though a student might show proficiency on mathematical content, such as Algebra, they may be lacking in other areas that are important to becoming a great mathematician. The Common Core defines these non-content areas as “mathematical practices.” These practices include mathematical modeling, constructing mathematical arguments and problem solving with perseverance, among others. I’ve met many students who can solve quadratic equations with 100% accuracy, but struggle to make sense of a real life word problem about parabolas. Slowing down a student’s math education can result in a deeper foundation of both content and mathematical practices.
The new California Math Framework, which incorporates the common core standards, will be released in 2021 and will emphasize a “slower and deeper mathematical education.” This is the philosophy we’ve tried to weave into the new Middle School Math Vision (presented to the PAUSD School Board on Tuesday, Dec. 10). It’s true that some other districts are accelerating more math students than we are. I’m not sure of their motivations and I have no proof that their curriculum is “faster and shallower” than ours. All I know is that at Gunn we are trying to grow deep mathematical thinkers who are well-balanced in life and joyful, confident problem solvers. And for the students who crave an accelerated “math path” to be joyful mathematicians, we have that option as well.
Sincerely,
Dave Deggeller
Instructional Lead of Mathematics
Gunn High School
Your donation will support the student journalists of Henry M. Gunn High School. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.
Avery Wang • Jun 19, 2023 at 4:20 pm
This article is in diametric opposition to Mr. Deggeller’s recent (May 23, 2023) board meeting speech in which he argues that Multivariable Calculus should NOT be offered because colleges WANT TO SEE that an applicant takes the highest level of math offered at the school. If MVC is offered, then that is the standard. If it only goes up to calculus, that is the standard so it is more “equitable” because more students can reach that level.
www **youtube ** com/live/aJgLbmGDDTI?feature=share&t=4711
This contradicts his statement in this article, “…most college admissions offices DO NOT WANT TO SEE EXTRA math on your transcript, nor are they impressed by a student who takes Calculus ‘early.’”
So which is it? Do colleges want to see more or less math?
Canceling MVC from the course catalog is futile anyway because students will take it regardless, and those students will get the credit with bonus point when the University of California and other colleges recalculate the GPA from both the PAUSD and community college transcripts. It is not a closed system. Furthermore, PAUSD is then the only district in our area that does not offer MVC in the course catalog. Our leadership is deluding themselves and causing many students a lot of inconvenience.
Jing • Aug 25, 2021 at 10:31 pm
Good point! Basically sacrifice the talent ?worry the future
Avery Wang • Jan 25, 2020 at 2:40 pm
I would like to make an analogy to this unfortunate opinion piece. It is astonishing that a leading teacher would advocate holding back students. There are many analogies in other areas where excellence and early learning is universally applauded, such as music, foreign languages, and athletics. In each of these areas, there are neurocognitive critical windows, after which excellence and fluid mastery is more difficult to achieve, and these coincide with the early teen years and before. Sure, a student can “do math”, but will he/she be excellent if they were held back? My daughter expressed to me that she wishes I had pushed her harder in piano in her early years to practice more diligently because she would be better now. My son was held back by the competition-style skip tests and to this day regrets missing the opportunity to learn advanced topics more deeply at an earlier age, though he managed to skip Algebra 2/TrigH later and is now on the Paly Math “A” team. I don’t think you appreciate the psychological damage that the extremely high barriers to “skipping” does to our kids who want to accelerate but are not allowed to. For example, the AIME requirement for A2TH is ridiculous. Effectively, an 8th grader would have to qualify for a math competition one level below the USA math olympiads. I don’t think most of the PAUSD math faculty could accomplish that.
Here is the article again, translated in athletic terms:
…
I’d like to start by saying that there are students in PAUSD (many students perhaps) who absolutely should be accelerated through our athletics program. If a student’s motivation for training is that they love soccer and are feeling unchallenged in their current PE class then I fully support such a decision. It’s the students who are training either because their peers are doing it or because they think that it makes them a better college admissions candidate that I would encourage to rethink joining the team.
I particularly take issue with a quote from Ms. Cohen and Ms. Rosen’s guest column that “joining the varsity team carries significant fitness and social benefits.” In my time in PAUSD I’ve met plenty of students who are thriving in the varsity soccer program. I’ve also met many students who are miserable and struggling to keep up. These students—in their words—joined varsity soccer because it’s what their friends were doing or (even worse) because a private college counselor has told them it could help them get admitted their dream University. Just this week I was talking to a Gunn senior who is currently on the varsity soccer team, having had external coaching and league experience. She told me directly: “I wish I’d never joined the varsity team. It created undue stress in my life, and I don’t even love soccer that much.” Furthermore, our college athletics counselor at Gunn, Ms. Linda Kirsch, has told me on multiple occasions that most college recruiters do not want to see extra sports on your transcript, nor are they impressed by a student who takes external coaching.
In addition, most colleges are going to insist that anyone who joins the varsity soccer team undergo daily training on their campus! It’s enough to ask yourself, “what’s the hurry”?
Another reason for a student to reconsider joining varsity sports is that it could lead to weaker physical fitness and injuries. Though a student might show proficiency on physical fitness, such as sit-ups, they may be lacking in other areas that are important to becoming a great athlete. The Common Core defines these non-content areas as “athletic practices.” These practices include sitting, standing, and walking, among others. I’ve met many students who can kick a ball into a goal with 100% accuracy, but struggle to make sense of tactics in a real game. Slowing down a student’s athletic training can result in a better physical fitness and sportsmanship.
The new California Physical Education Framework, which incorporates the common fitness standards, will be released in 2021 and will emphasize a “slower and deeper fitness training.” This is the philosophy we’ve tried to weave into the new Reimagining Athletics Vision (presented to the PAUSD School Board on Tuesday, Dec. 10). It’s true that some other districts are training their athletes more than we are. I’m not sure of their motivations and I have no proof that their curriculum is “faster and shallower” than ours. All I know is that at Gunn we are trying to grow high-performing athletes who are well-balanced in life and joyful, confident players. And for the students who crave a varsity “athletics path” to be joyful athletes, we have that option as well.
Chantel Keona • Dec 20, 2019 at 11:06 am
Great post! Thanks for sharing,