Students have widely varying abilities and aptitudes for various academic (and other) activities. This results in cumulative differences in mastery over time. Educators largely deliberately ignore the consequences of this.
As I remember it, when Boston started public schooling over a century ago they used a crude form of mastery progression, with students being held back until they demonstrated mastery. After being held back 2 or 3 times, most students dropped out - hence age grouping and social promotion.
But even so, the difference in mastery makes common assignment to grade classrooms problematic even in elementary school. By the end of 5th grade (the last grade in elementary school in the local school districts where I live) some students are fully ready for algebra, others are still struggling with arithmetic; some are reading at the 12th grade level while others have very rudimentary reading levels. A shared classroom with such a span is inappropriate for both the advanced and lagging students.
Classes should not be gated on grade level - but on advancement and readiness - with support for some students taking classes at significantly higher grade levels. Students can be fully ready for university STEM classwork by age 15 - but this means that the schools need to support mastery level placement as soon as the students start Middle/Junior high school.
My son, who was not at all academically inclined, still survived STEM calculus when he took it via Running Start/ College in High School when he would have been a high school junior. His older sister, who was academically inclined, took it when she was in 10th grade. There were a lot of high school students taking advantage of the Running Start program - although many were slackers.
Interestingly, I attended a public school board meeting many years ago when they were discussing the sizing of a high school that was being replaced. The school board knew that a substantial fraction of the students would do Running Start - and reduced the school size because of the correspondingly reduced student body. So it is planned for - and the regular curriculum here would support students being ready for Calculus in 11th grade. The students just had to select into the more advanced curriculum and survive it. Doing Calculus earlier then 11th grade required extra work on the part of the parents and their students.
What is on offer for the elective? Along with a cohort of about 5 other families, we fought to have our kids take pre-algebra in 6th grade. This is a tiny district and our families are about 15% of the kids in their year. The school relented and allowed our kids to advance (all scored above 90% on the state test), but only if they simultaneously took Math 6 with their age group. But they didn't lose an elective. They lost a study hall. Even with that, they still take a study hall. The alternative to doubling on math was two study halls! Our electives are only things like music and art. We have no real electives. I wonder what the SF district electives are like. If the kids are being asked to give up a study hall, that is one thing. If they are losing out on taking an actual real course, that is something else entirely.
I understand why everyone looks to SF. However, our shrinking rural schools are also a disaster. Everyone who can leave does. We are pulling out kids out. Originally, the plan had been to wait until after middle school, but we can't continue with the way things are now. The only kids left are the truly underserved who have no one to advocate for them. It is a crying shame.
Unsure if any particulars here change with the new scheduling, but according to their website, for 8th grade electives include journalism, computer science, drama, creative writing, visual/ media art electives, band, arabic culture, and anyone in middle school can do more math, choir, or guitar as an elective.
Students have widely varying abilities and aptitudes for various academic (and other) activities. This results in cumulative differences in mastery over time. Educators largely deliberately ignore the consequences of this.
As I remember it, when Boston started public schooling over a century ago they used a crude form of mastery progression, with students being held back until they demonstrated mastery. After being held back 2 or 3 times, most students dropped out - hence age grouping and social promotion.
But even so, the difference in mastery makes common assignment to grade classrooms problematic even in elementary school. By the end of 5th grade (the last grade in elementary school in the local school districts where I live) some students are fully ready for algebra, others are still struggling with arithmetic; some are reading at the 12th grade level while others have very rudimentary reading levels. A shared classroom with such a span is inappropriate for both the advanced and lagging students.
Classes should not be gated on grade level - but on advancement and readiness - with support for some students taking classes at significantly higher grade levels. Students can be fully ready for university STEM classwork by age 15 - but this means that the schools need to support mastery level placement as soon as the students start Middle/Junior high school.
My son, who was not at all academically inclined, still survived STEM calculus when he took it via Running Start/ College in High School when he would have been a high school junior. His older sister, who was academically inclined, took it when she was in 10th grade. There were a lot of high school students taking advantage of the Running Start program - although many were slackers.
Interestingly, I attended a public school board meeting many years ago when they were discussing the sizing of a high school that was being replaced. The school board knew that a substantial fraction of the students would do Running Start - and reduced the school size because of the correspondingly reduced student body. So it is planned for - and the regular curriculum here would support students being ready for Calculus in 11th grade. The students just had to select into the more advanced curriculum and survive it. Doing Calculus earlier then 11th grade required extra work on the part of the parents and their students.
What is on offer for the elective? Along with a cohort of about 5 other families, we fought to have our kids take pre-algebra in 6th grade. This is a tiny district and our families are about 15% of the kids in their year. The school relented and allowed our kids to advance (all scored above 90% on the state test), but only if they simultaneously took Math 6 with their age group. But they didn't lose an elective. They lost a study hall. Even with that, they still take a study hall. The alternative to doubling on math was two study halls! Our electives are only things like music and art. We have no real electives. I wonder what the SF district electives are like. If the kids are being asked to give up a study hall, that is one thing. If they are losing out on taking an actual real course, that is something else entirely.
I understand why everyone looks to SF. However, our shrinking rural schools are also a disaster. Everyone who can leave does. We are pulling out kids out. Originally, the plan had been to wait until after middle school, but we can't continue with the way things are now. The only kids left are the truly underserved who have no one to advocate for them. It is a crying shame.
Unsure if any particulars here change with the new scheduling, but according to their website, for 8th grade electives include journalism, computer science, drama, creative writing, visual/ media art electives, band, arabic culture, and anyone in middle school can do more math, choir, or guitar as an elective.