VADOE adjustments to advanced math track

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the moron/liar who can’t read again.

Let’s go straight to the website:

The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.

The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.

Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

This is what they've published after they had revealed their true intent but were forced to eat their words.
It has zero credibility and if you put any credence into it, you'd be an moron.

More relevant link is: http://web.archive.org/web/20210318150314/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml and none of the statements appear there. This is not because of an oversight, it's because the entire effort is aimed at removing acceleration and reducing opportunities for advanced math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the moron/liar who can’t read again.

Let’s go straight to the website:

The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.

The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.

Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

This is what they've published after they had revealed their true intent but were forced to eat their words.
It has zero credibility and if you put any credence into it, you'd be an moron.

More relevant link is: http://web.archive.org/web/20210318150314/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml and none of the statements appear there. This is not because of an oversight, it's because the entire effort is aimed at removing acceleration and reducing opportunities for advanced math.

“True intent”? This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory.

Their “true intent” is updating the curriculum - blending AGA & adding new content. Detracking came up as a side topic for discussion early on. They are still early phases and narrowing on scope of the effort. Have you never worked on a large project before? They are still figuring out the scope.

But given the feedback they are very explicitly saying now it’s *not* happening.

No crazy conspiracy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, the moron/liar who can’t read again.

Let’s go straight to the website:

The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.

The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.

Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

This is what they've published after they had revealed their true intent but were forced to eat their words.
It has zero credibility and if you put any credence into it, you'd be an moron.

More relevant link is: http://web.archive.org/web/20210318150314/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml and none of the statements appear there. This is not because of an oversight, it's because the entire effort is aimed at removing acceleration and reducing opportunities for advanced math.

“True intent”? This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory.

Their “true intent” is updating the curriculum - blending AGA & adding new content. Detracking came up as a side topic for discussion early on. They are still early phases and narrowing on scope of the effort. Have you never worked on a large project before? They are still figuring out the scope.

But given the feedback they are very explicitly saying now it’s *not* happening.

No crazy conspiracy here.

DP. And they need to continue to hear that feedback so that they continue to drop detracking.

Parents voices need to continue to speak. It's not time to sit down and go back to ignoring this stuff. We're not finished yet.

[Anonymous]

Stay engaged but don’t act like there is some crazy conspiracy here. Don’t spread misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Their “true intent” is updating the curriculum - blending AGA & adding new content. Detracking came up as a side topic for discussion early on. They are still early phases and narrowing on scope of the effort. Have you never worked on a large project before? They are still figuring out the scope.

But given the feedback they are very explicitly saying now it’s *not* happening.

No crazy conspiracy here.

This ("detracking came up as side topic") is definitely untrue. It was (and reasonable person would suspect still is!) a core tenet of their effort, as is evidenced by the large body of leftist reform education literature they cited and still cite. Please don't pretend otherwise.

And they haven't taken any feedback as of yet - critical questions asked are routinely ignored, they choose softball questions instead and haven't made the actual feedback they got public.

All we've seen is their reaction to the backlash, and that was likely handed down from the top. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's how small organizations work (keep in mind that it's only a handful of people at VDOE).

So, let's stay alert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“True intent”? This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory.

Their “true intent” is updating the curriculum - blending AGA & adding new content. Detracking came up as a side topic for discussion early on. They are still early phases and narrowing on scope of the effort. Have you never worked on a large project before? They are still figuring out the scope.

But given the feedback they are very explicitly saying now it’s *not* happening.

No crazy conspiracy here.

You set the scope before you start on the project, not in the early phases. That's how you avoid scope creep. That is a very, very basic project management principle and if there are changes without going through a reasonable and transparent change process it's considered evidence of an out-of-control process or an inexperienced project manager (or both). It's not definitive, but such a quick change is certainly evidence of something funny going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if we haven't surveyed every school system in the state, or if the other districts haven't announced plans yet.
Bottom line, at least two data points that show what VMPI will mean, despite their walkback and your claims of 'it was just some suggestions'.

So you think VMPI will ban acceleration / advanced math?

As explained on the deleted thread, they consider algebra 2 as not necessary for high schoolers, yet they claim they are including it in 10th grade math.
It will be a weak version at best, leading to not having enough to take calculus. This is OK for VMPI, as they don't care about people taking calculus in high school. They just include it so they can claim, "Don't worry, we still have calculus available".
Their push is for detracking in the name of equity, holding back acceleration and honors classes. They claim they are doing otherwise, but they have made their opinions clear. Site admin isn't aware of it, but detracking means you are eliminating advanced math.

These blended classes allow them to hide how much they are holding kids back.
It would be possible for school districts to get around it, but beyond accelerating, they would need to develop a stronger curriculum than what VMPI proposes. I don't see any districts doing that, though in many places I suspect there is no separate staff so perhaps with a good teacher and acceleration some kids will be able to take calculus properly.
Loudoun has adopted VMPI's thinking and has moved backwards, and kids will end up taking algebra in 9th grade instead of current 6th or 7th grade.

Acceleration is exactly how school districts can provide advanced math today. And VDOE has explicitly said that they are not banning acceleration or advanced classes/tracking. So this continued handwringing sounds...contrived.

The default path today does NOT include calculus. So if they end up providing a path does that include calculus then they would be providing *more* advanced math.

Until they come out with more specifics about what concepts would be included in what "course" it's all speculation.

A pathway that includes calculus us now MORE advanced?

[Anonymous]

Equity is top priority. Detracking is a primary way of focusing on equity. It is why they have the papers on social justice and detracking on their website.
They started out talking about equity, and detracking was confirmed buy pointing to equity(stop isolating kids in slower paced classes).

It was never a side discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if we haven't surveyed every school system in the state, or if the other districts haven't announced plans yet.
Bottom line, at least two data points that show what VMPI will mean, despite their walkback and your claims of 'it was just some suggestions'.

So you think VMPI will ban acceleration / advanced math?

As explained on the deleted thread, they consider algebra 2 as not necessary for high schoolers, yet they claim they are including it in 10th grade math.
It will be a weak version at best, leading to not having enough to take calculus. This is OK for VMPI, as they don't care about people taking calculus in high school. They just include it so they can claim, "Don't worry, we still have calculus available".
Their push is for detracking in the name of equity, holding back acceleration and honors classes. They claim they are doing otherwise, but they have made their opinions clear. Site admin isn't aware of it, but detracking means you are eliminating advanced math.

These blended classes allow them to hide how much they are holding kids back.
It would be possible for school districts to get around it, but beyond accelerating, they would need to develop a stronger curriculum than what VMPI proposes. I don't see any districts doing that, though in many places I suspect there is no separate staff so perhaps with a good teacher and acceleration some kids will be able to take calculus properly.
Loudoun has adopted VMPI's thinking and has moved backwards, and kids will end up taking algebra in 9th grade instead of current 6th or 7th grade.

Acceleration is exactly how school districts can provide advanced math today. And VDOE has explicitly said that they are not banning acceleration or advanced classes/tracking. So this continued handwringing sounds...contrived.

The default path today does NOT include calculus. So if they end up providing a path does that include calculus then they would be providing *more* advanced math.

Until they come out with more specifics about what concepts would be included in what "course" it's all speculation.

A pathway that includes calculus us now MORE advanced?

The current path doesn’t include calculus without acceleration so ya....

[Anonymous]

One of their primary defenses of the new framework is that people don't need calculus. Now you and they are claiming that calculus is available without acceleration to everyone. Everyone will be accelerated, including the kids who previously would have been deemed not eligible to take algebra in 8th grade.
The reality will inevitably be the classes will be slowed down for everyone, and kids who would have been advanced will be less advanced.

The usual path is pretty much every kid who is in honors classes takes calculus in senior year. This will no longer be the case under the new framework. Not just because different classes will be offered, but these honors kids will end up in the standard pathway, not accelerated, because of the false labeling that it is algebra/geometry/algebra 2. These kids will find themselves unprepared for calculus and precalculus.

And of course, unlike decades ago, algebra in 7th grade is more common, with LCPS having the majority in some middle schools taking it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of their primary defenses of the new framework is that people don't need calculus. Now you and they are claiming that calculus is available without acceleration to everyone. Everyone will be accelerated, including the kids who previously would have been deemed not eligible to take algebra in 8th grade.
The reality will inevitably be the classes will be slowed down for everyone, and kids who would have been advanced will be less advanced.

The usual path is pretty much every kid who is in honors classes takes calculus in senior year. This will no longer be the case under the new framework. Not just because different classes will be offered, but these honors kids will end up in the standard pathway, not accelerated, because of the false labeling that it is algebra/geometry/algebra 2. These kids will find themselves unprepared for calculus and precalculus.

And of course, unlike decades ago, algebra in 7th grade is more common, with LCPS having the majority in some middle schools taking it.

They are saying that they want to offer MORE math options because not everyone "needs" calculus. Not that calculus won't be offered. They want to add data science, etc.

And this isn't a clear "plan", but they have included calculus on the infographic as an option since day 1. So either they are offering more advanced math to everyone OR acceleration has been there all along.

I'm not claiming anything - they haven't provided enough detail about the course content yet to understand the path to calculus (and other math disciplines).

Your wackadoodle scenario about honors kids doesn't make sense. If, for some reason, the new default path doesn't lead to calculus (which is true today), acceleration will be an option for school systems (which is true today).

[Anonymous]

The default plan is claimed as leading to calculus, in a way that honors kids would stay on the default plan, but the reality is they will be left behind and unable to take calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The default plan is claimed as leading to calculus, in a way that honors kids would stay on the default plan, but the reality is they will be left behind and unable to take calculus.

So many off-the-wall assumptions there.

Totally wackadoodle.

[Anonymous]

I'll start off by saying that I have no idea what the VADOE is planning to do and I haven't read any of their documents. What I do know is that there are, and always have been, people who would like to believe that giftedness is a purely social construct - and who, for that reason, would prefer to eliminate all forms of AAP and Advanced Math.

There's nothing wrong with believing that - giftedness is certainly at least in part a social construct. It's a problem, though, to assume that it's an absolute, because there will always be a cohort of unavoidably gifted students who will be underserved if they're not recognized as such. If we were to do away with Advanced Math and/or the notion of giftedness, we'd be reviving the long-resolved struggle where we succeeded in realizing that gifted kids are smart and a benefit to society, rather than an abnormality, and inconvenience, or an existential threat to conformity.

Worth mentioning, because the philosophical currents at play are known and always recognizable - once again, nothing wrong with the belief that giftedness is a social construct, but the counterweights to the belief are weak enough these days that I could plausibly see someone really trying to get rid of Advanced Math, and bringing on all of the predictably unintended damage as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The default plan is claimed as leading to calculus, in a way that honors kids would stay on the default plan, but the reality is they will be left behind and unable to take calculus.

So many off-the-wall assumptions there.

Totally wackadoodle.

It is based on what they have said.
Is the default plan claimed as leaving a pathway to calculus in high school? Yes it is. In fact is being used as a selling point for the plan.
Is the current default for honors kids to take calculus as a senior?