VDOE - VMPI is dead? Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous]

But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

+1. My kid's principal recently announced that the school will be piloting E3 math next year for all students. At Q&A time one of the parents asked if 5th graders in Advanced Math would continue to take the 6th grade Math SOL under the new program and if 6th graders in Advanced Math would take the 7th grade Math SOL. The principal hemmed and hawed and did not say yes. Students who don't take the 7th grade Math SOL in 6th grade in our district and pass advanced cannot take Algebra in 7th grade. How is that not detracking math?

I don't see a problem with what you're deeming "detracking" of math. Sounds like this is making sure kids are taking the most appropriate level of math. As a PP described, pushing the highest levels as early as possible doesn't always pan out the best way. Main reason slowing down the progression has been looked at is because a lot of students fall off the advanced math path by the time they get to Alg 2 in high school.
This isn't de-tracking. Quite the opposite - it's actually properly tracking kids onto the best path for them.

Did you have a rising 5th grader in Advanced Math? Serious question. If so, would you be okay with them not taking the 6th grade math SOL? If the answer is yes, don’t complain when your child is used as a peer tutor for the next two years.

What school system are you talking about? The systems all have different tracks/programs.

What school system in NOVA doesn't follow this track?

Which ones do? Is that FCPS?

If every school system follows their own track anyway, and VMPI is totally optional (as PP claimed) what is the point of it?

No loss at all if it was optional anyway.

VDOE defines the curriculum that all VA public school systems use as a starting point.

Right now, they define the curriculum (SOL) for Math 6, Math 7, Math 8, Algebra, etc.

And then school systems decide what specific courses to offer and tracks/acceleration:
6th graders: Math 6, Math 6/7, Math 6/7/8
7th graders: Math 7, Pre-Algebra, Algebra I Honors
8th graders: Math 8, Algebra I, Algebra I Honors/Intensified
etc.

Kids all still need to pass the SOL assessments.

[Anonymous]

It's not "totally optional" - it's a starting point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

.

You have that backwards.

But I know you. I recognize your writing style.

You’ve been here for months, vociferously defending VMPI and attacking anyone who questioned the need to VMPI.

But you failed. You convinced no one of the need for VMPI.

And your radicalized view of education cost you the last election.

Now your radical VMPI is dead. I’m not trolling. With VMPI thankfully gone, there’s nothing left to discuss with you.

Buh bye!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

.

You have that backwards.

But I know you. I recognize your writing style.

You’ve been here for months, vociferously defending VMPI and attacking anyone who questioned the need to VMPI.

But you failed. You convinced no one of the need for VMPI.

And your radicalized view of education cost you the last election.

Now your radical VMPI is dead. I’m not trolling. With VMPI thankfully gone, there’s nothing left to discuss with you.

Buh bye!

You must recognize my style of posting FACTS.

I've vigorously debunked lies and misinformation about VMPI. Pretty easy to do when the facts are readily available.

I'm driven by my disdain for people spreading lies for political purposes. And now a politician has killed this initiative over that misinformation, not for a valid reason. It's disgusting.

We should have been having a real discussion about the pros/cons of VMPI, but instead the discussion was dominated by lies and misinformation - even to this day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

DP. You seem to be misguided on what is really at fault for your vehemence. VMPI in and of itself was a review of the curriculum which is required by state law. You just didn't like the DRAFT proposals. Can't comment on your opinion of the final proposal because the VMPI process didn't get to its final proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

This is a good question. I would be curious to hear how this has gone in other states who've made similar changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

.

You have that backwards.

But I know you. I recognize your writing style.

You’ve been here for months, vociferously defending VMPI and attacking anyone who questioned the need to VMPI.

But you failed. You convinced no one of the need for VMPI.

And your radicalized view of education cost you the last election.

Now your radical VMPI is dead. I’m not trolling. With VMPI thankfully gone, there’s nothing left to discuss with you.

Buh bye!

You must recognize my style of posting FACTS.

I've vigorously debunked lies and misinformation about VMPI. Pretty easy to do when the facts are readily available.

I'm driven by my disdain for people spreading lies for political purposes. And now a politician has killed this initiative over that misinformation, not for a valid reason. It's disgusting.

We should have been having a real discussion about the pros/cons of VMPI, but instead the discussion was dominated by lies and misinformation - even to this day.

There are many folks in this thread who opposed VMPI who are “not spreading lies for political purposes.” I’ve posted several times on this thread and self-identify as a moderate Democrat. I last voted for a Republican in 1994. I worked on Mark Warner’s and Tim Kaine’s campaigns. I not only voted for McAuliffe, but donated money to his campaign.

There are many reasons I don’t like Governor Youngkin, but his killing of VMPI is not one of them. You can’t have it both ways by saying VMPI would have had no effects on school curricula, yet at the same time complain that it was terrible that this was killed off. The reality is that initial VMPI proposals were part of a broader push to restructure math education in America. Some of the ideas may have warranted discussion, but there is no escaping that many of the original proposals would have watered-down rigor in the name of equity. And while there was some backpedaling, the reality is that nothing would have stopped those equity-based proposals from reappearing in later drafts. As for notice and comment, yes it acts as a check, but it also has limited effect in this context. Just because the Department of Education would have had to take comments on the proposal doesn’t mean that they would have had to follow those comments—they could have just given them lip service.

In any event, this is all irrelevant now with one exception—before you write off everyone who opposed VMPI as being political, you might want to consider why the message surrounding VMPI resonated with folks like me. While I’m glad VMPI is dead, I truly hope that Republicans being in control (save for the state senate) lasts only four years. I am concerned, however, that Republican control will last for longer if folks like you continue to disregard or downplay the legitimate concerns of people on the center-left who generally favor more progressive policies and for whom this issue resonated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

.

You have that backwards.

But I know you. I recognize your writing style.

You’ve been here for months, vociferously defending VMPI and attacking anyone who questioned the need to VMPI.

But you failed. You convinced no one of the need for VMPI.

And your radicalized view of education cost you the last election.

Now your radical VMPI is dead. I’m not trolling. With VMPI thankfully gone, there’s nothing left to discuss with you.

Buh bye!

You must recognize my style of posting FACTS.

I've vigorously debunked lies and misinformation about VMPI. Pretty easy to do when the facts are readily available.

I'm driven by my disdain for people spreading lies for political purposes. And now a politician has killed this initiative over that misinformation, not for a valid reason. It's disgusting.

We should have been having a real discussion about the pros/cons of VMPI, but instead the discussion was dominated by lies and misinformation - even to this day.

There are many folks in this thread who opposed VMPI who are “not spreading lies for political purposes.” I’ve posted several times on this thread and self-identify as a moderate Democrat. I last voted for a Republican in 1994. I worked on Mark Warner’s and Tim Kaine’s campaigns. I not only voted for McAuliffe, but donated money to his campaign.

There are many reasons I don’t like Governor Youngkin, but his killing of VMPI is not one of them. You can’t have it both ways by saying VMPI would have had no effects on school curricula, yet at the same time complain that it was terrible that this was killed off. The reality is that initial VMPI proposals were part of a broader push to restructure math education in America. Some of the ideas may have warranted discussion, but there is no escaping that many of the original proposals would have watered-down rigor in the name of equity. And while there was some backpedaling, the reality is that nothing would have stopped those equity-based proposals from reappearing in later drafts. As for notice and comment, yes it acts as a check, but it also has limited effect in this context. Just because the Department of Education would have had to take comments on the proposal doesn’t mean that they would have had to follow those comments—they could have just given them lip service.

In any event, this is all irrelevant now with one exception—before you write off everyone who opposed VMPI as being political, you might want to consider why the message surrounding VMPI resonated with folks like me. While I’m glad VMPI is dead, I truly hope that Republicans being in control (save for the state senate) lasts only four years. I am concerned, however, that Republican control will last for longer if folks like you continue to disregard or downplay the legitimate concerns of people on the center-left who generally favor more progressive policies and for whom this issue resonated.

I never said it have would “no effects on school curricula”. Where do you think I said that?

There is a difference between being concerned about the initial proposal vs still harping on the original proposal/tracking now nine months later after detracking was clearly pulled off the table.

And saying that detracking would be snuck back in later in the process is pure conspiracy theory. Ultimately, the GA has to approve the new curriculum and if there was negative public backlash (again) they wouldn’t pass it.

Anyway, it’s dead now thanks to people pushing politics. Non-political conspiracy theorists can rejoice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But VMPI would have accelerated the masses. The standard algebra/geometry/algebra 2 track was 9/10/11 grade, possibly 9/10/12 if you took AFDA during 11th as a bridge. The proposed sequence is mixed A1/G/A2 in 8/9/10. For a lot of kids, that’s accelerating them 1-2 years.

As a math teacher, I agree that taking calculus as a sophomore is a race to nowhere for a lot of kids. For some though, it’s not terrible. So what if you repeat it in college? You have a foundation to build on. What IS terrible is forcing everyone to have algebra in 8th grade. It’s going to result in massive failures, because you’re taking away prealgebra from the very kids that desperately need another year to process the idea of abstract math.

Not only was VMPI a recipe for failure for many disadvantaged students, it sought to close the educational gap by eliminating high level math for the top students.

Yes, we need to address many problems in public math education. But VMPI was the wrong approach, and it would have made the situation worse.

No, it didn't.

In April 2021, VDOE very clearly stated that school systems could continue to accelerate students and offer advanced options.

Stop lying.

Any “exemption” to VMPI they might have suggested was only that: an empty suggestion which VADOE might or might not have honored. And given VADOE’s dishonesty surrounding the whole VMPI, many of us were understandably doubtful.

But more to the point: VMPI was intended to eliminate the current advanced math curriculum and year long offerings , and replace it with partial year “surveys” (ie - a shallow preview), and water down what was left through the muddled “blending” of topics.

It is you, PP, who needs to stop lying. No one believes you anymore.

An “exemption” from what exactly?

They weren’t “eliminating current advanced math offerings”. They very clearly stated that. They were adding additional advanced math options because not every kid wants/needs calculus.

Seems like you’re just trolling at this point.

.

You have that backwards.

But I know you. I recognize your writing style.

You’ve been here for months, vociferously defending VMPI and attacking anyone who questioned the need to VMPI.

But you failed. You convinced no one of the need for VMPI.

And your radicalized view of education cost you the last election.

Now your radical VMPI is dead. I’m not trolling. With VMPI thankfully gone, there’s nothing left to discuss with you.

Buh bye!

You must recognize my style of posting FACTS.

I've vigorously debunked lies and misinformation about VMPI. Pretty easy to do when the facts are readily available.

I'm driven by my disdain for people spreading lies for political purposes. And now a politician has killed this initiative over that misinformation, not for a valid reason. It's disgusting.

We should have been having a real discussion about the pros/cons of VMPI, but instead the discussion was dominated by lies and misinformation - even to this day.

There are many folks in this thread who opposed VMPI who are “not spreading lies for political purposes.” I’ve posted several times on this thread and self-identify as a moderate Democrat. I last voted for a Republican in 1994. I worked on Mark Warner’s and Tim Kaine’s campaigns. I not only voted for McAuliffe, but donated money to his campaign.

There are many reasons I don’t like Governor Youngkin, but his killing of VMPI is not one of them. You can’t have it both ways by saying VMPI would have had no effects on school curricula, yet at the same time complain that it was terrible that this was killed off. The reality is that initial VMPI proposals were part of a broader push to restructure math education in America. Some of the ideas may have warranted discussion, but there is no escaping that many of the original proposals would have watered-down rigor in the name of equity. And while there was some backpedaling, the reality is that nothing would have stopped those equity-based proposals from reappearing in later drafts. As for notice and comment, yes it acts as a check, but it also has limited effect in this context. Just because the Department of Education would have had to take comments on the proposal doesn’t mean that they would have had to follow those comments—they could have just given them lip service.

In any event, this is all irrelevant now with one exception—before you write off everyone who opposed VMPI as being political, you might want to consider why the message surrounding VMPI resonated with folks like me. While I’m glad VMPI is dead, I truly hope that Republicans being in control (save for the state senate) lasts only four years. I am concerned, however, that Republican control will last for longer if folks like you continue to disregard or downplay the legitimate concerns of people on the center-left who generally favor more progressive policies and for whom this issue resonated.

I feel like I could have written this. Agree completely.

Especially liked the parts in bold.

The person you were arguing with? She seems to have become radicalized and will fight incessantly with anyone who questions VMPI. I suspect she works at VA DOE, or at least in some sort of equity job in VA.