NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[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

Modeling real world scenarios? Haha.

These clowns wouldn't understand anything real world related if it hit them in the head. I'm still laughing out loud at their suggestion that budding cosmetologists should take discrete logic in their VaMPIre math track. Maybe they confused cosmetology and cosmology, which I wouldn't put past them.

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials 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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

And who comprised VMPI? Representatives from the major VA school districts comprised a large share of the 30-member VMPI team. Do you think a district representative would spend hours of their time helping design VMPI only to go back to their district and do something different?

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

+1
Public outcry and the governor election dynamics that coincided with it. I can’t be the only one that wrote to McCauliff’s team and told them I hated the idea of having to vote R but would if this thing plowed ahead with the k-10 heterogeneous classes element. (Yup it’s about the only thing that would have made me do it. Mixed grouping classes do NOT work and would have destroyed FCPS. Admittedly this was before Dobbs though so wasn’t as wrenching a choice).

[Anonymous]

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 know, I can believe that they never intended to get rid of calculus. But that’s the problem with using extreme, almost polemic equity language like they did about “detracking.” It’s like the people to who desperately backtracked to claim “defund the police doesn’t ACTUALLY mean defund, it means reform.” It’s only your own fault if people take your slogans at face value.

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

And who comprised VMPI? Representatives from the major VA school districts comprised a large share of the 30-member VMPI team. Do you think a district representative would spend hours of their time helping design VMPI only to go back to their district and do something different?

There is nothing stopping school districts today from changing the accelerated/advanced courses they offer. In fact, before VMPI some districts were already eliminating/reducing the number of kids in 6th grade algebra. Because, according to the math dept, they were seeing that some of the kids rushed through didn’t have deep understanding of the concepts.

[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

Modeling real world scenarios? Haha.

These clowns wouldn't understand anything real world related if it hit them in the head. I'm still laughing out loud at their suggestion that budding cosmetologists should take discrete logic in their VaMPIre math track. Maybe they confused cosmetology and cosmology, which I wouldn't put past them.

I hate this with a passion. The amount of math required actual model any real problem is more than most students are going to be exposed to in high school unless they are taking full advantage of TJ's offerings. Instead you get some dumbed down scenario that can be solved with basic algebra and waste time that could have been spent learning math

[Anonymous]

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 know, I can believe that they never intended to get rid of calculus. But that’s the problem with using extreme, almost polemic equity language like they did about “detracking.” It’s like the people to who desperately backtracked to claim “defund the police doesn’t ACTUALLY mean defund, it means reform.” It’s only your own fault if people take your slogans at face value.

Yes, but then there are those people, who are in power in D.C. at the moment, who have clarified they literally meant to defund the police, and by that they meant “divest” or “abolish.”

VMPI intended to eliminate most, if not all, advanced math in HS in Virginia. It is laughable some VMPI proponents are still trying to backtrack from what they planned to do.

Do not trust them about their intentions with Equity Cubed or “E3” alliance math in FCPS elementary schools.

The E3 proponents are planning to dismantle AAP math and put in place programs which will inhibit advanced math in elementary schools.

[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

Modeling real world scenarios? Haha.

These clowns wouldn't understand anything real world related if it hit them in the head. I'm still laughing out loud at their suggestion that budding cosmetologists should take discrete logic in their VaMPIre math track. Maybe they confused cosmetology and cosmology, which I wouldn't put past them.

I hate this with a passion. The amount of math required actual model any real problem is more than most students are going to be exposed to in high school unless they are taking full advantage of TJ's offerings. Instead you get some dumbed down scenario that can be solved with basic algebra and waste time that could have been spent learning math

The VMPI guy didn’t say anything about “modeling real life”. PP was confused.

The VMPI guy said it’d be cool to tie math concepts to real-life applications. While learning about probability, look at polling info from civics class.

[Anonymous]

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 know, I can believe that they never intended to get rid of calculus. But that’s the problem with using extreme, almost polemic equity language like they did about “detracking.” It’s like the people to who desperately backtracked to claim “defund the police doesn’t ACTUALLY mean defund, it means reform.” It’s only your own fault if people take your slogans at face value.

Yes, but then there are those people, who are in power in D.C. at the moment, who have clarified they literally meant to defund the police, and by that they meant “divest” or “abolish.”

VMPI intended to eliminate most, if not all, advanced math in HS in Virginia. It is laughable some VMPI proponents are still trying to backtrack from what they planned to do.

Do not trust them about their intentions with Equity Cubed or “E3” alliance math in FCPS elementary schools.

The E3 proponents are planning to dismantle AAP math and put in place programs which will inhibit advanced math in elementary schools.

This has been debunked countless times. Stop pushing 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: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

Modeling real world scenarios? Haha.

These clowns wouldn't understand anything real world related if it hit them in the head. I'm still laughing out loud at their suggestion that budding cosmetologists should take discrete logic in their VaMPIre math track. Maybe they confused cosmetology and cosmology, which I wouldn't put past them.

I hate this with a passion. The amount of math required actual model any real problem is more than most students are going to be exposed to in high school unless they are taking full advantage of TJ's offerings. Instead you get some dumbed down scenario that can be solved with basic algebra and waste time that could have been spent learning math

The VMPI guy didn’t say anything about “modeling real life”. PP was confused.

The VMPI guy said it’d be cool to tie math concepts to real-life applications. While learning about probability, look at polling info from civics class.

"In those essential concepts, we’re going to try to frame everything through the lens of mathematical modeling. How can we take a real world problem, develop our mathematical ideas and mathematical concepts by trying to solve that real world problem." 32:40

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

And who comprised VMPI? Representatives from the major VA school districts comprised a large share of the 30-member VMPI team. Do you think a district representative would spend hours of their time helping design VMPI only to go back to their district and do something different?

There is nothing stopping school districts today from changing the accelerated/advanced courses they offer. In fact, before VMPI some districts were already eliminating/reducing the number of kids in 6th grade algebra. Because, according to the math dept, they were seeing that some of the kids rushed through didn’t have deep understanding of the concepts.

In LCPS, their math official acknowledged they were scaling back 6th grade algebra in anticipation of VMPI.

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

And who comprised VMPI? Representatives from the major VA school districts comprised a large share of the 30-member VMPI team. Do you think a district representative would spend hours of their time helping design VMPI only to go back to their district and do something different?

There is nothing stopping school districts today from changing the accelerated/advanced courses they offer. In fact, before VMPI some districts were already eliminating/reducing the number of kids in 6th grade algebra. Because, according to the math dept, they were seeing that some of the kids rushed through didn’t have deep understanding of the concepts.

In LCPS, their math official acknowledged they were scaling back 6th grade algebra in anticipation of VMPI.

LCPS has demonstrated that Algbera 1 in 6th grade is appropriate for advanced math students with 98% success rate with highest math proficiency scores. 100+ students each year, more if barriers are removed further.

[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

Modeling real world scenarios? Haha.

These clowns wouldn't understand anything real world related if it hit them in the head. I'm still laughing out loud at their suggestion that budding cosmetologists should take discrete logic in their VaMPIre math track. Maybe they confused cosmetology and cosmology, which I wouldn't put past them.

I hate this with a passion. The amount of math required actual model any real problem is more than most students are going to be exposed to in high school unless they are taking full advantage of TJ's offerings. Instead you get some dumbed down scenario that can be solved with basic algebra and waste time that could have been spent learning math

The VMPI guy didn’t say anything about “modeling real life”. PP was confused.

The VMPI guy said it’d be cool to tie math concepts to real-life applications. While learning about probability, look at polling info from civics class.

"In those essential concepts, we’re going to try to frame everything through the lens of mathematical modeling. How can we take a real world problem, develop our mathematical ideas and mathematical concepts by trying to solve that real world problem." 32:40

He doesn’t mean build a complex real-world model. He is saying kids could apply their math skills to real-work applications. Like election polling. They are going to apply math knowledge to understand polling data; they aren’t going to be building a complex election prediction model.

[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:

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.

Bullcrap. It was never actually in the materials they shared. And, by April 2021, they very explicitly said they were not changing how school districts can accelerate/create their own classes.

They could have accelerated/compacted any portion of the Essentials courses.

It was shared many times by the VMPI leaders in the video; VMPI was built around heterogeneous classes. Only public outcry caused them to back away.

And who comprised VMPI? Representatives from the major VA school districts comprised a large share of the 30-member VMPI team. Do you think a district representative would spend hours of their time helping design VMPI only to go back to their district and do something different?

There is nothing stopping school districts today from changing the accelerated/advanced courses they offer. In fact, before VMPI some districts were already eliminating/reducing the number of kids in 6th grade algebra. Because, according to the math dept, they were seeing that some of the kids rushed through didn’t have deep understanding of the concepts.

In LCPS, their math official acknowledged they were scaling back 6th grade algebra in anticipation of VMPI.

A tad premature, eh?

Other districts did it before VMPI.