Not sure if this should be in the policy forum instead... Anyone here voting for Youngkin because of

[Anonymous]

Don’t worry, McAuliffe will win. NoVa controls the state.

[Anonymous]

Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin seems like a stand up candidate. Not a career politician, values family, schools and proposed tax cuts in a way that benefit poorer individuals more than an income tax cut which benefits the wealthy more. Reducing the food tax where a disproportionate amount of poorer individuals income goes. It’s a refreshing approach.

Vmpi is a wreck. If you value mathematics and/or have mathematically inclined children you should really be aware of the underpinnings of this movement and the ultimate policy goal and what the state is willing to sacrifice to meet this goal. I am amazed so many people are so interested in AAP or advanced schools/good colleges etc but would support this initiative. It’s shooting our students in the foot. Look up what the VA Tech professor had to say. Colleges are not going to find these pathways competitive for programs looking for advanced students. Education should work to meet the needs of all students, the failure to help bridge that gap should not be reached by lowering our educational options/pursuits and standards. It’s insane. Spend less of the money to lower math through VMPI and get more specialist to work with struggling students in a smaller setting.

I think we all know Terry is sleazy. Some will vote for him because he is Dem. VA is better than this. Served up a re-do candidate who is associated with the Clinton era and expects to win because he reiterates the tired campaign line of trying to say a candidate is Trump. Facts Terry, provide us some facts. We have brains and can see that we deserve better than some entitled campaign that expects us to believe some line and think that line is enough for us to give you are vote. What do you Terry bring to the table? How is your tax plan better for the average VA citizen. We are VA we deserve more than being told what to do by lifelong politicians. Elected officials work for the people. That is often forgotten with the entitled political lifers.

I would be excited for some fresh candidates to represent us.

VMPI doesn’t “lower math”. Stop spreading RWNJ lies.


Have you read the actual program and supporting document texts? I have. And when you limit when a student can take certain advanced classes to 11 grade or above you do indeed cap mathematics. The students cannot take the level of classes during the time constraints left in high school. Look into the different pathways and how many semesters are available for higher level math. I can presume you and your family are not familiar with advanced mathematics and also higher level educational pursuits beyond curriculum dictates. If you were you would likely be much more attuned to the impact these restrictions impose from a practical standpoint. Not to mention the actual curriculum being taught. I implore you to read the supporting documents and the social goals of VMPI and it will be quite clear improving the mathematical prowess and higher level thinking of students is NOT the goal. The state failed to bridge the gap and this program is to bridge the gap by lowering the range of math available/Ie capping more advanced students. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml#resources

This is absolutely false. I have read it and you clearly have not. VMPI *in no way* limits or caps classes. From the link that you did not read:

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.

Stop spreading misinformation. Retract or I’ll report to Jeff to remove.

-STEM major/career (including several college-level math courses)

DP. Obviously this limits math since FCPS high schools have math classes beyond calculus.

Dial it back a notch.

- BSEE who took Algebra 1 in 7th grade and Multivar as a senior in FCPS years ago

You are misinformed. VMPI doesn’t touch that.

School districts can continue to offer all of those classes beyond algebra. Use offer dual enrollment, etc.

They very clearly state that. Stop spreading misinformation.

“Follow the math path!” 2 classes starting 11-12 when they mention calculus. It’s literally front and center on the page. Oh and also if you attended the meetings you would see they backtracked to claim schools could adjust per student. However the push is all about avoiding different tracking for students so it really is a bunch of public appeasement without making a lot of sense working the original proposed framework. Like I said please review the underlying studies fueling the initiative behind VMPI. The goal is made very clear early on it’s important to understand the fundamental reasons for the changes to see why this whole “oh no we didn’t say that” type of response doesn’t logically fit. It is all about putting kids in same classes regardless of ability, not tracking students based on ability grouping and yes capping when calculus is offered under the “Math Path”. Rather I am interested in how you see schools provided for advanced mathematics needs under the proposed curriculum or how will schools provide for mathematically gifted students without tracking them or allowing them to take classes separate from the main “math path” based on their math level. It fundamentally goes against the whole premise of their idea math is for everyone, not everyone needs calculus, relinquish your privilege etc etc.

On the original infographic they included grade levels on the pathways. As in, the default path. Like today, Math 6 would by default be taken in 6th grade.

But that was clearly misunderstood so they removed the grade levels from the infographic. And they have since very clearly explained how schools districts could accelerate kids and offer compressed courses - just like they do today. They even showed a sample pathway - I shared a screengrab on one of the other threads.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Ok let me spell it in layman’s term. Underlying cited support -detrack, it’s inherently racist, group math, revise math to make easier for more students
Original VMPI-keep groups mixed ability, teacher to teach to all (which as amazing as teachers are is going to be teach to lowest common denominator), “not everyone needs calculus”, no tracking -remember it’s racist segregation. In all seriousness from one of the supporting documents.
Public backlash-ok do our VMPI but schools can still let kids do advanced. Ok so this is the important part-you know the goal right, equitable outcomes. Which is inherently problematic in of itself. However the premise is tracking -bad, math inequities exist, middle class privilege needs to be given up for equity in outcomes to show they “bridged the gap”. how do you take at face value the appeasement they offer when it fundamentally goes against the premise the entire change rests on?!? Also if students can track and do all the same advanced math why all the group ability classes and no tracking pushed through VMPI. The math doesn’t add up!

You are fixating on one link from the bottom of the webpage and one topic discussion early on. It wasn’t even important/core enough to make it on the infographic. And has clearly been rejected now.

You are trying to make VMPI into something that it’s not. Why is that? What is your motive here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. My last kid is a senior this year. And is not applying in state. Sibling was a TJ grad and is also not attending college in state. We’ll move to. Lower COL area once my kid is settled in college.

Youngkin is my f—k you to FCPS, the SB and the teachers unions on my ah out the door.

Sorry. Not sorry. You reap what you sow.

“Sorry not sorry?” Are you 12? Ah, the below average intellect of the IMMA STICK IT TO THE MAN Youngkin voter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote Republican for SB members. But a Republican Governor isn’t going to have a huge impact on local school district decisions.

+1

Perhaps. But he could at least get rid of Northam’s K-12 mask mandate and let that be a local decision.

He won’t let it be a local decision. He has supported DeSantis and Abbot who ban mask mandates.

Great mandates should be banned. Parents can still choose to send kids in one.

Nope. Good thing he’s going to lose “bigly.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin seems like a stand up candidate. Not a career politician, values family, schools and proposed tax cuts in a way that benefit poorer individuals more than an income tax cut which benefits the wealthy more. Reducing the food tax where a disproportionate amount of poorer individuals income goes. It’s a refreshing approach.

Vmpi is a wreck. If you value mathematics and/or have mathematically inclined children you should really be aware of the underpinnings of this movement and the ultimate policy goal and what the state is willing to sacrifice to meet this goal. I am amazed so many people are so interested in AAP or advanced schools/good colleges etc but would support this initiative. It’s shooting our students in the foot. Look up what the VA Tech professor had to say. Colleges are not going to find these pathways competitive for programs looking for advanced students. Education should work to meet the needs of all students, the failure to help bridge that gap should not be reached by lowering our educational options/pursuits and standards. It’s insane. Spend less of the money to lower math through VMPI and get more specialist to work with struggling students in a smaller setting.

I think we all know Terry is sleazy. Some will vote for him because he is Dem. VA is better than this. Served up a re-do candidate who is associated with the Clinton era and expects to win because he reiterates the tired campaign line of trying to say a candidate is Trump. Facts Terry, provide us some facts. We have brains and can see that we deserve better than some entitled campaign that expects us to believe some line and think that line is enough for us to give you are vote. What do you Terry bring to the table? How is your tax plan better for the average VA citizen. We are VA we deserve more than being told what to do by lifelong politicians. Elected officials work for the people. That is often forgotten with the entitled political lifers.

I would be excited for some fresh candidates to represent us.

VMPI doesn’t “lower math”. Stop spreading RWNJ lies.


Have you read the actual program and supporting document texts? I have. And when you limit when a student can take certain advanced classes to 11 grade or above you do indeed cap mathematics. The students cannot take the level of classes during the time constraints left in high school. Look into the different pathways and how many semesters are available for higher level math. I can presume you and your family are not familiar with advanced mathematics and also higher level educational pursuits beyond curriculum dictates. If you were you would likely be much more attuned to the impact these restrictions impose from a practical standpoint. Not to mention the actual curriculum being taught. I implore you to read the supporting documents and the social goals of VMPI and it will be quite clear improving the mathematical prowess and higher level thinking of students is NOT the goal. The state failed to bridge the gap and this program is to bridge the gap by lowering the range of math available/Ie capping more advanced students. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml#resources

This is absolutely false. I have read it and you clearly have not. VMPI *in no way* limits or caps classes. From the link that you did not read:

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.

Stop spreading misinformation. Retract or I’ll report to Jeff to remove.

-STEM major/career (including several college-level math courses)

DP. Obviously this limits math since FCPS high schools have math classes beyond calculus.

Dial it back a notch.

- BSEE who took Algebra 1 in 7th grade and Multivar as a senior in FCPS years ago

You are misinformed. VMPI doesn’t touch that.

School districts can continue to offer all of those classes beyond algebra. Use offer dual enrollment, etc.

They very clearly state that. Stop spreading misinformation.

“Follow the math path!” 2 classes starting 11-12 when they mention calculus. It’s literally front and center on the page. Oh and also if you attended the meetings you would see they backtracked to claim schools could adjust per student. However the push is all about avoiding different tracking for students so it really is a bunch of public appeasement without making a lot of sense working the original proposed framework. Like I said please review the underlying studies fueling the initiative behind VMPI. The goal is made very clear early on it’s important to understand the fundamental reasons for the changes to see why this whole “oh no we didn’t say that” type of response doesn’t logically fit. It is all about putting kids in same classes regardless of ability, not tracking students based on ability grouping and yes capping when calculus is offered under the “Math Path”. Rather I am interested in how you see schools provided for advanced mathematics needs under the proposed curriculum or how will schools provide for mathematically gifted students without tracking them or allowing them to take classes separate from the main “math path” based on their math level. It fundamentally goes against the whole premise of their idea math is for everyone, not everyone needs calculus, relinquish your privilege etc etc.

On the original infographic they included grade levels on the pathways. As in, the default path. Like today, Math 6 would by default be taken in 6th grade.

But that was clearly misunderstood so they removed the grade levels from the infographic. And they have since very clearly explained how schools districts could accelerate kids and offer compressed courses - just like they do today. They even showed a sample pathway - I shared a screengrab on one of the other threads.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Ok let me spell it in layman’s term. Underlying cited support -detrack, it’s inherently racist, group math, revise math to make easier for more students
Original VMPI-keep groups mixed ability, teacher to teach to all (which as amazing as teachers are is going to be teach to lowest common denominator), “not everyone needs calculus”, no tracking -remember it’s racist segregation. In all seriousness from one of the supporting documents.
Public backlash-ok do our VMPI but schools can still let kids do advanced. Ok so this is the important part-you know the goal right, equitable outcomes. Which is inherently problematic in of itself. However the premise is tracking -bad, math inequities exist, middle class privilege needs to be given up for equity in outcomes to show they “bridged the gap”. how do you take at face value the appeasement they offer when it fundamentally goes against the premise the entire change rests on?!? Also if students can track and do all the same advanced math why all the group ability classes and no tracking pushed through VMPI. The math doesn’t add up!

You are fixating on one link from the bottom of the webpage and one topic discussion early on. It wasn’t even important/core enough to make it on the infographic. And has clearly been rejected now.

You are trying to make VMPI into something that it’s not. Why is that? What is your motive here?

To have people consider the underlying motivations of educational changes taking place so they may thoughtfully determine if they believe these changes are in the best interest of their children, schools, our broader community and country. Education is so important and children spend so many hours of their lives in school (if attending a school vs. homeschooling). Those hours should matter and not be frittered away. Not everyone has to be great at everything, but to discourage exceptionalism goes against many aspects that make our country a wonderful place to live. Not everyone has to be great at math, but this one idea of taking away to level the field. Let the math person pursue a challenging curriculum, let the athlete practice on varsity as a freshmen if their talent warrants it. No need to cap our future. Everyone brings their own special talents to bear. We should nourish that instead of discourage those that may start to break away from the pack. We need leaders, innovators, everything. One person’s success doesn’t necessarily mean another’s failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin seems like a stand up candidate. Not a career politician, values family, schools and proposed tax cuts in a way that benefit poorer individuals more than an income tax cut which benefits the wealthy more. Reducing the food tax where a disproportionate amount of poorer individuals income goes. It’s a refreshing approach.

Vmpi is a wreck. If you value mathematics and/or have mathematically inclined children you should really be aware of the underpinnings of this movement and the ultimate policy goal and what the state is willing to sacrifice to meet this goal. I am amazed so many people are so interested in AAP or advanced schools/good colleges etc but would support this initiative. It’s shooting our students in the foot. Look up what the VA Tech professor had to say. Colleges are not going to find these pathways competitive for programs looking for advanced students. Education should work to meet the needs of all students, the failure to help bridge that gap should not be reached by lowering our educational options/pursuits and standards. It’s insane. Spend less of the money to lower math through VMPI and get more specialist to work with struggling students in a smaller setting.

I think we all know Terry is sleazy. Some will vote for him because he is Dem. VA is better than this. Served up a re-do candidate who is associated with the Clinton era and expects to win because he reiterates the tired campaign line of trying to say a candidate is Trump. Facts Terry, provide us some facts. We have brains and can see that we deserve better than some entitled campaign that expects us to believe some line and think that line is enough for us to give you are vote. What do you Terry bring to the table? How is your tax plan better for the average VA citizen. We are VA we deserve more than being told what to do by lifelong politicians. Elected officials work for the people. That is often forgotten with the entitled political lifers.

I would be excited for some fresh candidates to represent us.

VMPI doesn’t “lower math”. Stop spreading RWNJ lies.


Have you read the actual program and supporting document texts? I have. And when you limit when a student can take certain advanced classes to 11 grade or above you do indeed cap mathematics. The students cannot take the level of classes during the time constraints left in high school. Look into the different pathways and how many semesters are available for higher level math. I can presume you and your family are not familiar with advanced mathematics and also higher level educational pursuits beyond curriculum dictates. If you were you would likely be much more attuned to the impact these restrictions impose from a practical standpoint. Not to mention the actual curriculum being taught. I implore you to read the supporting documents and the social goals of VMPI and it will be quite clear improving the mathematical prowess and higher level thinking of students is NOT the goal. The state failed to bridge the gap and this program is to bridge the gap by lowering the range of math available/Ie capping more advanced students. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml#resources

This is absolutely false. I have read it and you clearly have not. VMPI *in no way* limits or caps classes. From the link that you did not read:

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.

Stop spreading misinformation. Retract or I’ll report to Jeff to remove.

-STEM major/career (including several college-level math courses)

DP. Obviously this limits math since FCPS high schools have math classes beyond calculus.

Dial it back a notch.

- BSEE who took Algebra 1 in 7th grade and Multivar as a senior in FCPS years ago

You are misinformed. VMPI doesn’t touch that.

School districts can continue to offer all of those classes beyond algebra. Use offer dual enrollment, etc.

They very clearly state that. Stop spreading misinformation.

“Follow the math path!” 2 classes starting 11-12 when they mention calculus. It’s literally front and center on the page. Oh and also if you attended the meetings you would see they backtracked to claim schools could adjust per student. However the push is all about avoiding different tracking for students so it really is a bunch of public appeasement without making a lot of sense working the original proposed framework. Like I said please review the underlying studies fueling the initiative behind VMPI. The goal is made very clear early on it’s important to understand the fundamental reasons for the changes to see why this whole “oh no we didn’t say that” type of response doesn’t logically fit. It is all about putting kids in same classes regardless of ability, not tracking students based on ability grouping and yes capping when calculus is offered under the “Math Path”. Rather I am interested in how you see schools provided for advanced mathematics needs under the proposed curriculum or how will schools provide for mathematically gifted students without tracking them or allowing them to take classes separate from the main “math path” based on their math level. It fundamentally goes against the whole premise of their idea math is for everyone, not everyone needs calculus, relinquish your privilege etc etc.

On the original infographic they included grade levels on the pathways. As in, the default path. Like today, Math 6 would by default be taken in 6th grade.

But that was clearly misunderstood so they removed the grade levels from the infographic. And they have since very clearly explained how schools districts could accelerate kids and offer compressed courses - just like they do today. They even showed a sample pathway - I shared a screengrab on one of the other threads.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Ok let me spell it in layman’s term. Underlying cited support -detrack, it’s inherently racist, group math, revise math to make easier for more students
Original VMPI-keep groups mixed ability, teacher to teach to all (which as amazing as teachers are is going to be teach to lowest common denominator), “not everyone needs calculus”, no tracking -remember it’s racist segregation. In all seriousness from one of the supporting documents.
Public backlash-ok do our VMPI but schools can still let kids do advanced. Ok so this is the important part-you know the goal right, equitable outcomes. Which is inherently problematic in of itself. However the premise is tracking -bad, math inequities exist, middle class privilege needs to be given up for equity in outcomes to show they “bridged the gap”. how do you take at face value the appeasement they offer when it fundamentally goes against the premise the entire change rests on?!? Also if students can track and do all the same advanced math why all the group ability classes and no tracking pushed through VMPI. The math doesn’t add up!

You are fixating on one link from the bottom of the webpage and one topic discussion early on. It wasn’t even important/core enough to make it on the infographic. And has clearly been rejected now.

You are trying to make VMPI into something that it’s not. Why is that? What is your motive here?

To have people consider the underlying motivations of educational changes taking place so they may thoughtfully determine if they believe these changes are in the best interest of their children, schools, our broader community and country. Education is so important and children spend so many hours of their lives in school (if attending a school vs. homeschooling). Those hours should matter and not be frittered away. Not everyone has to be great at everything, but to discourage exceptionalism goes against many aspects that make our country a wonderful place to live. Not everyone has to be great at math, but this one idea of taking away to level the field. Let the math person pursue a challenging curriculum, let the athlete practice on varsity as a freshmen if their talent warrants it. No need to cap our future. Everyone brings their own special talents to bear. We should nourish that instead of discourage those that may start to break away from the pack. We need leaders, innovators, everything. One person’s success doesn’t necessarily mean another’s failure.

Let the creative writers manufacture wild fantasies about math curriculum conspiracy theories?

The proposed changes to the math curriculum are going to be very clearly documented over the next year+. You will have time if anyone tries to sneak in any hidden agenda.

In the mean time, stop spreading misinformation.

[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:Youngkin seems like a stand up candidate. Not a career politician, values family, schools and proposed tax cuts in a way that benefit poorer individuals more than an income tax cut which benefits the wealthy more. Reducing the food tax where a disproportionate amount of poorer individuals income goes. It’s a refreshing approach.

Vmpi is a wreck. If you value mathematics and/or have mathematically inclined children you should really be aware of the underpinnings of this movement and the ultimate policy goal and what the state is willing to sacrifice to meet this goal. I am amazed so many people are so interested in AAP or advanced schools/good colleges etc but would support this initiative. It’s shooting our students in the foot. Look up what the VA Tech professor had to say. Colleges are not going to find these pathways competitive for programs looking for advanced students. Education should work to meet the needs of all students, the failure to help bridge that gap should not be reached by lowering our educational options/pursuits and standards. It’s insane. Spend less of the money to lower math through VMPI and get more specialist to work with struggling students in a smaller setting.

I think we all know Terry is sleazy. Some will vote for him because he is Dem. VA is better than this. Served up a re-do candidate who is associated with the Clinton era and expects to win because he reiterates the tired campaign line of trying to say a candidate is Trump. Facts Terry, provide us some facts. We have brains and can see that we deserve better than some entitled campaign that expects us to believe some line and think that line is enough for us to give you are vote. What do you Terry bring to the table? How is your tax plan better for the average VA citizen. We are VA we deserve more than being told what to do by lifelong politicians. Elected officials work for the people. That is often forgotten with the entitled political lifers.

I would be excited for some fresh candidates to represent us.

VMPI doesn’t “lower math”. Stop spreading RWNJ lies.


Have you read the actual program and supporting document texts? I have. And when you limit when a student can take certain advanced classes to 11 grade or above you do indeed cap mathematics. The students cannot take the level of classes during the time constraints left in high school. Look into the different pathways and how many semesters are available for higher level math. I can presume you and your family are not familiar with advanced mathematics and also higher level educational pursuits beyond curriculum dictates. If you were you would likely be much more attuned to the impact these restrictions impose from a practical standpoint. Not to mention the actual curriculum being taught. I implore you to read the supporting documents and the social goals of VMPI and it will be quite clear improving the mathematical prowess and higher level thinking of students is NOT the goal. The state failed to bridge the gap and this program is to bridge the gap by lowering the range of math available/Ie capping more advanced students. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml#resources

This is absolutely false. I have read it and you clearly have not. VMPI *in no way* limits or caps classes. From the link that you did not read:

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.

Stop spreading misinformation. Retract or I’ll report to Jeff to remove.

-STEM major/career (including several college-level math courses)

DP. Obviously this limits math since FCPS high schools have math classes beyond calculus.

Dial it back a notch.

- BSEE who took Algebra 1 in 7th grade and Multivar as a senior in FCPS years ago

You are misinformed. VMPI doesn’t touch that.

School districts can continue to offer all of those classes beyond algebra. Use offer dual enrollment, etc.

They very clearly state that. Stop spreading misinformation.

“Follow the math path!” 2 classes starting 11-12 when they mention calculus. It’s literally front and center on the page. Oh and also if you attended the meetings you would see they backtracked to claim schools could adjust per student. However the push is all about avoiding different tracking for students so it really is a bunch of public appeasement without making a lot of sense working the original proposed framework. Like I said please review the underlying studies fueling the initiative behind VMPI. The goal is made very clear early on it’s important to understand the fundamental reasons for the changes to see why this whole “oh no we didn’t say that” type of response doesn’t logically fit. It is all about putting kids in same classes regardless of ability, not tracking students based on ability grouping and yes capping when calculus is offered under the “Math Path”. Rather I am interested in how you see schools provided for advanced mathematics needs under the proposed curriculum or how will schools provide for mathematically gifted students without tracking them or allowing them to take classes separate from the main “math path” based on their math level. It fundamentally goes against the whole premise of their idea math is for everyone, not everyone needs calculus, relinquish your privilege etc etc.

On the original infographic they included grade levels on the pathways. As in, the default path. Like today, Math 6 would by default be taken in 6th grade.

But that was clearly misunderstood so they removed the grade levels from the infographic. And they have since very clearly explained how schools districts could accelerate kids and offer compressed courses - just like they do today. They even showed a sample pathway - I shared a screengrab on one of the other threads.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Ok let me spell it in layman’s term. Underlying cited support -detrack, it’s inherently racist, group math, revise math to make easier for more students
Original VMPI-keep groups mixed ability, teacher to teach to all (which as amazing as teachers are is going to be teach to lowest common denominator), “not everyone needs calculus”, no tracking -remember it’s racist segregation. In all seriousness from one of the supporting documents.
Public backlash-ok do our VMPI but schools can still let kids do advanced. Ok so this is the important part-you know the goal right, equitable outcomes. Which is inherently problematic in of itself. However the premise is tracking -bad, math inequities exist, middle class privilege needs to be given up for equity in outcomes to show they “bridged the gap”. how do you take at face value the appeasement they offer when it fundamentally goes against the premise the entire change rests on?!? Also if students can track and do all the same advanced math why all the group ability classes and no tracking pushed through VMPI. The math doesn’t add up!

You are fixating on one link from the bottom of the webpage and one topic discussion early on. It wasn’t even important/core enough to make it on the infographic. And has clearly been rejected now.

You are trying to make VMPI into something that it’s not. Why is that? What is your motive here?

To have people consider the underlying motivations of educational changes taking place so they may thoughtfully determine if they believe these changes are in the best interest of their children, schools, our broader community and country. Education is so important and children spend so many hours of their lives in school (if attending a school vs. homeschooling). Those hours should matter and not be frittered away. Not everyone has to be great at everything, but to discourage exceptionalism goes against many aspects that make our country a wonderful place to live. Not everyone has to be great at math, but this one idea of taking away to level the field. Let the math person pursue a challenging curriculum, let the athlete practice on varsity as a freshmen if their talent warrants it. No need to cap our future. Everyone brings their own special talents to bear. We should nourish that instead of discourage those that may start to break away from the pack. We need leaders, innovators, everything. One person’s success doesn’t necessarily mean another’s failure.

Let the creative writers manufacture wild fantasies about math curriculum conspiracy theories?

The proposed changes to the math curriculum are going to be very clearly documented over the next year+. You will have time if anyone tries to sneak in any hidden agenda.

In the mean time, stop spreading misinformation.

The best time to become informed is now. So many on this forum purport to care deeply about their children’s schooling and future opportunities to success. It’s important to be able to survey the landscape. That’s prudent. Once again I would encourage you to become familiar with the goals put forth in the cited to documents VPMI lists for support of this initiative. This is logical analysis. People spend tons of time and money researching where to live, school districts etc. Taking time to become familiar with the goals of the VPMI and other educational changes or focuses only makes sense. That is not misinformation, if anything I would love for the public to be more informed, more aware of what the goals are of those running for elected positions. See how those goals truly align with your own. I value education and see many of these changes as concerning regarding the rigor and effectiveness of public education. I want people to learn and be successful. I think bringing people up is a much better approach than cutting down the poppies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes I’m voting for him because of schools. It has to start somewhere. This race to the bottom equality crap has to stop.

This this this! I have had ENOUGH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vote Republican for SB members. But a Republican Governor isn’t going to have a huge impact on local school district decisions.

You’re wrong here. It sends a very powerful message that on the local and National level there needs to be a course correction. I’m a Democrat voting for Youngkin in hopes that it sobers up the Democratic Party before 2024. Youngkin is a pretty bland and reasonable guy, and losing VA would be a sobering bucket of ice dumped on the Democratic party’s head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Youngkin is that he will be leaving local school boards at the mercy of disgruntled parents.

McAuliffe will take a more hands on approach and for one thing, will be fixing segregation in our schools with a Chief Integration Officer and an equity council ( I forget the exact name but it’s on his website) that will force the issue. Schools won’t be accredited without the right amount of diversity, funding will be withheld and there will be state led efforts to diversify housing.

No one has to fear losing an election because of boundaries or any other issue. With the state directing it all, a loud obnoxious parents won’t make any difference at all.

This! Mcauliffe is for EQUITY!!!

[Anonymous]

Definitely voting Youngkin. For those saying governors don’t control education, you clearly have no clue how school systems work. Our current governor kept schools closed by essentially making guidelines that were impossible to follow for public school systems. Other governors prioritized in school education.

Youngkin is a smart successful guy and is not a trumper. People are calling him a trumper in order to get him votes from trumpers or in order to stop people from voting for him in northern Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. My last kid is a senior this year. And is not applying in state. Sibling was a TJ grad and is also not attending college in state. We’ll move to. Lower COL area once my kid is settled in college.

Youngkin is my f—k you to FCPS, the SB and the teachers unions on my ah out the door.

Sorry. Not sorry. You reap what you sow.

“Sorry not sorry?” Are you 12? Ah, the below average intellect of the IMMA STICK IT TO THE MAN Youngkin voter.

Yes well everyone who voted and still votes anti-Trump instead of pro-Dem is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Youngkin is that he will be leaving local school boards at the mercy of disgruntled parents.

McAuliffe will take a more hands on approach and for one thing, will be fixing segregation in our schools with a Chief Integration Officer and an equity council ( I forget the exact name but it’s on his website) that will force the issue. Schools won’t be accredited without the right amount of diversity, funding will be withheld and there will be state led efforts to diversify housing.

No one has to fear losing an election because of boundaries or any other issue. With the state directing it all, a loud obnoxious parents won’t make any difference at all.

This! Mcauliffe is for EQUITY!!!

Schools won't be accredited without the right amount of diversity? What does that mean? It sounds like a school won't be comprised of people in the neighborhood boundaries. Are you saying if a school is predominantly white, they have to bring more diversity? The only way I can see that happening is by busing in students from another area. Someone help me understand how he plans to accredit schools with this approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with Youngkin is that he will be leaving local school boards at the mercy of disgruntled parents.

McAuliffe will take a more hands on approach and for one thing, will be fixing segregation in our schools with a Chief Integration Officer and an equity council ( I forget the exact name but it’s on his website) that will force the issue. Schools won’t be accredited without the right amount of diversity, funding will be withheld and there will be state led efforts to diversify housing.

No one has to fear losing an election because of boundaries or any other issue. With the state directing it all, a loud obnoxious parents won’t make any difference at all.

This! Mcauliffe is for EQUITY!!!

Schools won't be accredited without the right amount of diversity? What does that mean? It sounds like a school won't be comprised of people in the neighborhood boundaries. Are you saying if a school is predominantly white, they have to bring more diversity? The only way I can see that happening is by busing in students from another area. Someone help me understand how he plans to accredit schools with this approach.

Someone has to give the cowards on the FCPS (and I’m sure other VA) school boards to live up to their ideals. We all saw how they caved in 2019 on the one Fairfax boundary policy and then what they did with the McLean Langley boundary change. A firm hand at the state level means parents can’t threaten them with losing elections for boundary changes and other measures to diversify schools. Things will finally change with McAuliffe, you have to read his education plan!