The Princeton Day School math department offers excellent opportunities for motivated students. Programs like Zoom, which advances students from Honors Algebra 2 directly to Calculus BC, show a clear commitment to helping students move ahead. At the same time, the way access to these opportunities is determined raises important questions.
In a recent interview, the math department chair, Mrs. MacDonald, underlined that the goal of the department is to ensure students are truly prepared before advancing. She explained this through a metaphor: “If you have your kid and you love them a lot, you won’t just give them candy because it makes them happy: you would give them a healthy balanced diet.” In other words, the department prioritizes long-term success over rapid acceleration, even if that means encouraging students to “marinate in Precalculus instead of rushing them into AP Calculus.”
This philosophy is reasonable. No student benefits from being placed in a course where they are overwhelmed. However, the way readiness is measured deserves closer attention.
This year, eleven students met the initial criteria for Zoom, including high grades and teacher recommendations. After the GRIT assessment, only four were admitted. When asked about it, an anonymous student who was turned down from the Zoom program said: “I had prepared so much, and I did everything right, but I was still rejected. It feels like they were gatekeeping and it feels unfair.” This raises a key question: if students have already demonstrated consistent mastery over time, in many instances earning averages of 96 or above as is the case with the previous student, what additional readiness is the GRIT assessment capturing?
Because the assessment is not strictly tied to course material, it can feel “less like a measure of learned understanding and more like almost an IQ type of test that [is] difficult to prepare for” as stated by a current member of the Zoom program. At that point, it becomes unclear why a single additional measure is needed to confirm what months of classroom performance have already shown.
Placement is complex, and the department’s intentions are clear. Still, there is a meaningful difference between maintaining standards and restricting access. Revisiting how readiness is evaluated and how pathways are structured could provide opportunities for students who have already proven they are ready.
The existence of Zoom and the Bridge program, both of which compress or skip standalone courses, suggests that independent Geometry, Algebra 2, and Pre-Calculus courses are not the only workable sequence of courses. Several high schools in the Princeton area have implemented combined courses, such as a unified Algebra 2 and Pre-Calculus course or Geometry and Algebra 2 course, allowing students to move through material at a pace that reflects their ability while still allowing them to “marinate.” This of course would pose structural challenges, as it would add a whole new class to the math department, but it may allow the math department to accomplish the goal of ensuring students are ready without stymieing the drive and eagerness of PDS students. With thoughtful adjustments, the department could continue to support student readiness while avoiding the perceived notion of gatekeeping.
