NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[Anonymous]

It’s weird to me that they would run this story without discussing Bob Moses of the Algebra project. He was the most inspiring teacher I ever heard speak as an educator and the big takeaway for me was that this isn’t about when you teach “algebra” the course, it’s about how you teach math all along the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

Flexible clusters could work if the teacher gave each cluster equal time. That isn't happening in most FCPS schools. My gen ed child who was above grade level in reading had a group that met with the teacher for 15 minutes one or two times per month. For the other 2000-ish hours per month of reading block, they had to work independently or do edu-tainment programs. The FCPS model is to try to get kids up to grade level at all costs and ignore the kids who are already likely to pass the SOL. I imagine that math would work the same way, where the kids who learn quickly would get no attention whatsoever from the teacher. I'd be okay with that if the school purchased a bunch of subscriptions to Beast Academy online or a similar high quality program and just let the top kids work at their own pace. Instead, they'll get something awful like ST Math plus a lot of busywork.

Kids could switch classrooms for the ELA and math portions of the day. And change groupings (up or down) during the year as needed.

the problem with "each cluster gets equal time" - suppose I have a heterogeneous classroom split into 5 very different levels. Each kid gets explicit teacher one-on-one time during one day a week, while the other kids play ST math and other laptop games. Now, compare that to a class that has kids at only two of those levels. You can have an all-class lesson during that same timeframe 3 days a week, then each half gets more specialized teacher attention a remaining day of the week. Kids in that class are only spending one session a week on ST math/laptop games as opposed to 4. The kids are just getting more on-level instruction when more kids in the class are on that level.

This really would benefit everyone - because the kids in the lowest tier class? guess what, *they're getting more instruction at their level*!

It's fine if they switch classrooms by subject (because not all kids are at the same level in each subject) and also fine if someone is a late bloomer and catches up to be moved up, or for someone who starts struggling to be moved down. But realistically, in these kind of setups, kids are rarely moving way up and down in a subject over the course of the year. Almost all kids are going to either stay at the same level (in a given subject) or be borderline between 2 levels and move just between those two.

We don’t need 5 levels of differentiation in ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

You like to make use of the 'proposals were not fleshed out and in final form' in a handful of videos to argue they were not proposing things. Yet when Loudoun talked to the same people about the same things they did eliminate a year of acceleration with plans to eliminate more going forward. It was presented with 'Introducing VMPI'. High caliber students who the previous year would have been in algebra, were placed in prealgebra. Because Youngkin won in response to what you call right-wing lies about VMPI, the Loudoun school board reversed the changes(at one point specifically said ,"now that they've ended VMPI") and high caliber students are again eligible to take algebra in 6th grade, and many more in 7th grade.
They still have on staff the person who said "I strongly believe in detracking for equity reasons".

The national exposure of VMPI and subsequent backtracking happened because Loudoun implemented it ahead of schedule. Without that, they might have gotten away with it, as the only place I saw talking about it
was a thread here that got deleted because you claimed it was lies.

The title was wrong. They were never banning advanced math.

Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

But the issue was that Republicans started twisting the truth and hyper-sensationalizing it. They have pushed lies about it ever since.

VMPI has been dead for years, but even today they still roll out VMPI and “equity math” as some sort of battle cry before elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

[Anonymous]

PP again. And it wasn't just detracking students. VMPI wanted to detrack teachers as well.

"[an advanced student] probably had the best teachers because she went from algebra two and then she went up in these AP classes she probably didn't have our our first year teachers or maybe our struggling teacher because what we typically do with our struggling teachers we give them to the students who need them the most we need the rich teaching the most and so hopefully in the process of this detracking of students we're also going to detrack teachers as well." 37:45

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

They were discussing how to change people's minds on heterogeneous classes. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

They were discussing how to change people's minds on heterogeneous classes. Big difference.

Right. They were discussing it.
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."

48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Let’s say the VMPI leaders went rogue and ignored all input from parents and schools over this multi-year process and did include a ban of all accelerated/advanced math classes across the entire state of VA in their final proposal…it still would have to pass the GA and be signed by the governor. You think they’d approve an unpopular proposal?

They'd have people like you arguing in favor. "Other states are doing it, get in line!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

No they did not say the words “we will outlaw acceleration”. They did say repeatedly that they needed to do away with math grouping and different classes. Go back and look at the post that has time stamps from the umpteen times this was referred to in the VMPI video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

+100!
Exactly!
The ONLY reason the “detracting” part got walked back was because of the huge uproar it created. Only after that uproar did they start saying it was just one option and then killing the whole thing eventually because the detracking idea had poisoned the well on anyone being receptive to other things VMPI was aiming to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

They were discussing how to change people's minds on heterogeneous classes. Big difference.

Right. They were discussing it.
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."

48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

Did you listen to the whole video? Yes there was intended to be flexibility options for deep classes - in 11 and 12th grades. K-10 was intended to be all heterogenous classes and that was said many times over in the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

They were discussing how to change people's minds on heterogeneous classes. Big difference.

Right. They were discussing it.
58:15 "rwe have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."

48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

Did you listen to the whole video? Yes there was intended to be flexibility options for deep classes - in 11 and 12th grades. K-10 was intended to be all heterogenous classes and that was said many times over in the video.

I was responding to the PP about the discussion/feedback aspect. It early in the process.

"we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

And they said schools would have a lot of flexibility so it wouldn’t have been them dictating just a single way to do it.

"schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

Yes, and as I said, it was early in the process and they didn’t hash that all out. His example would not have worked because not all schools offer civics in 8th. That would have come out when they sought feedback. Inter would have been a nice-to-have.

INTER was not “the whole premise”, INTRA was. Blending the strands.

e.g.

Heterogeneous courses were the backbone of VMPI. In the video they said the two main features of VMPI were heterogeneous classes and high school courses:

"two main aspects of the overall pathways initiative one of those being the idea of heterogeneous groupings of classes and eliminating some of that tracking and i saw from that poll earlier we're going to have some work to do as some of you have recognized there's folks in your division who may not believe that it's appropriate to detrack um the other thing that we really want to focus on is what happens during high school." 27:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

They asked for feedback on what math content to put in the Grade 8-10 courses. They did not ask for feedback on heterogeneous classes as this was a given from their perspective. After a disastrous response to their poll about heterogeneous classes, they did not ask for feedback. Rather, they said they would have to work hard to get people to accept it.

It was one idea they were considering and discussing.

The primary change they were discussing - and was actually included in their documentation - was updating the math content and blending strands - INTRAdisciplinary.

They were discussing how to change people's minds on heterogeneous classes. Big difference.

Right. They were discussing it.
58:15 "rwe have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."

48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

Did you listen to the whole video? Yes there was intended to be flexibility options for deep classes - in 11 and 12th grades. K-10 was intended to be all heterogenous classes and that was said many times over in the video.

I was responding to the PP about the discussion/feedback aspect. It early in the process.

"we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

And they said schools would have a lot of flexibility so it wouldn’t have been them dictating just a single way to do it.

"schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"

The only flexibility in course design would have been in Grades 11 & 12. Had VMPI passed, the 2023 Math SOL would have been built around it. Districts would have been obligated to build courses up through Grade 10 that matched the content of VMPI's courses lest their students underperform on the SOL.