Over the years, many students have found problems with SAS's math course flow. Xin Ru Chew '24 lays out the issue and provides an alternative.
SAS is a community where equality and the pursuit of excellence is often emphasized and encouraged, yet when it comes to their system for the mathematics courses through high school, I believe the school has not lived up to its standards.
To give a bit of context: when students rise from 8th to 9th grade, they are either placed in IM1 or IM2 through teacher recommendation, and, very rarely, they are placed in harder courses. However, new students are simply given a placement test to determine where they will be placed. Due to this, it is significantly harder for returning students to skip, unlike their new peers.
Although there are numerous reasons as to why it is imperative for returning students to be given the opportunity to sit the placement test, the primary reasons are for equal chances between new and returning students and SAS’s “best fit” philosophy.
First of all, giving returning students the chance to take a math placement test could be proof of the school’s effort to encourage equality, and it also demonstrates that a student’s intellectual abilities are tested and not just assumed. As stated before, SAS often asserts that there should be equality between all of its students, but equality should be a right that is observed and not merely promoted.
While it may be justified that new students could have gone through a different math education, therefore causing them to require a higher-leveled course, why should it be any different for returning students? Even if returning students go through SAS’s math education, many also study math outside of school, which means that simply going to IM2 won’t be challenging enough for some.
In terms of mathematical proficiency, new and returning students don’t actually vary that much, which makes it all the more important for SAS to amend their math system in a way that gives equality for all its students, new and returning alike.
Second of all, on the SAS course catalog, it is written that the school supports something called the “best fit” philosophy, where they strive to “develop the student’s strengths, interests, and passions”. It is also stated that they aim to challenge “the student to grow and develop into a vibrant member of our learning community”.
If students are not even given the chance to take the math placement test, SAS may not be able to accurately judge the student’s proficiency in math. As many students study math outside of school, the courses that they are enrolled in may not challenge or stimulate them to grow, which contradicts the ideas of the “best fit” philosophy stated above. Furthermore, studying content already covered is a waste of the student’s time, as they could be learning more difficult content that would stimulate them to grow more. This also goes against the purpose of education— if students do not learn new things in school, then it completely takes away the objectives and intentions of them being there in the very first place.
Finally, when students are forced to relearn something, it may potentially lead to a loss of interest in the subject, as the redundancy of class content can largely affect a student’s engagement during class, which may also negatively affect the student’s outlook on the subject. Therefore, SAS contradicts their goals to “develop the student’s strengths, interests, and passions” when students are not challenged enough, or when they lose their enthusiasm as a result of relearning old contents.
So, what can SAS do?
Instead of the current system, a placement test should be allowed for students that teachers recommend a higher-leveled course, and if students who are recommended the normal course aren’t satisfied, then they should also be allowed to take the placement test. And, obviously, skipping a level of math isn’t for everyone, but the chance should be given to students who desire it.
Although arguably, students have the possibility of skipping from IM3+ to AP Calculus when they rise from tenth to eleventh graders, as shown on the mathematic department flowchart, this skip is significantly harder than if a student were to skip from IM1 to IM3, due to the difference in content levels. Additionally, this skip may even create problems, because gaps in simpler contents such as IM2 can be overcome with less guidance, but gaps in harder courses such as Pre-calculus would not be as simple to overcome.
Depriving students the chance to skip may mean making it entirely impossible for them to skip in the future, as a student with the ability to skip in ninth grade may no longer have the advantages of being ahead of their peers or the ability to skip courses when they get to eleventh grade. This takes away students' chances to advance on the subject when they could do so, and, even if they still do, it would be riskier and much harder.
To help stimulate students’ growth and to help them achieve more, it is crucial that SAS amends their mathematics systems to address this issue of inequality and threat to students’ interests and strengths. As educators, it is not only SAS’s duty to support their students in their endeavors for greater achievements, but also to offer them opportunities to prove themselves, and when a system threatens that, a change should be made to ensure that it does not.
Comments