If your school is currently piloting or offering E3 Math next year

[Anonymous]

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

Having dedicated advanced math classes is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

That is not remotely close to the truth.

Pull-outs are epic failures when compared to ability-grouping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

That is not remotely close to the truth.

Pull-outs are epic failures when compared to ability-grouping.

Pull outs can be implemented as ability groupings.

Do you mean full-time homogenous vs. part-time heterogenous?

Going to need some serious citations for "epic failures". The data I've seen is mixed.
https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2019/04/The-Effects-of-Ability-Grouping-of-Gifted-Students-on-Gifted-and-Non-Gifted-Achievement-Growth.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

That is not remotely close to the truth.

Pull-outs are epic failures when compared to ability-grouping.

True, but nobody cares about those advanced kids. They'll be fine no matter what. The priority is to close the gap even if some advanced kids never get advancement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

That is not remotely close to the truth.

Pull-outs are epic failures when compared to ability-grouping.

True, but nobody cares about those advanced kids. They'll be fine no matter what. The priority is to close the gap even if some advanced kids never get advancement.

OMG!!! NEVER GET ADVANCEMENT!!!!

Talk about hysterics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

Having dedicated advanced math classes is better.

+1


Despite that, FCPS has gone ahead and implemented E3 this year, apparently county-wide.

The 3rd grade AAP math is significantly diminished compared to last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

Having dedicated advanced math classes is better.

+1


Despite that, FCPS has gone ahead and implemented E3 this year, apparently county-wide.

The 3rd grade AAP math is significantly diminished compared to last year.

It would be great if someone who had a copy of the 3rd grade E3 standards could compare them to the new advanced math standards:

https://www.fcps.edu/academics/elementary/third-grade/year-at-a-glance/advanced-math

I assume 4th grade will roll out next year. 5th grade and up should be untouched based on the prior plans (E3 only covered 3rd and 4th).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

In hindsight, I wonder if this is because every advanced math class is now E3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Union Mills elementary is one of the E3 Pilot schools. Their website states:

“ Strategy 2

“Pilot E3 mathematics curriculum in 3rd and 4th grade so all students are offered opportunities to be engaged, enriched, and extended in mathematics.”

OP: After googling it, I was unable to find any public list of the pilot schools. It was only by chance that Union Mills put E3 on their page, which is here:

https://unionmilles.fcps.edu/about/school-innovation-improvement-plan

I just check that link.

They have scrubbed any mention of E3 on that page.

Seems like they are hiding it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union Mills elementary is one of the E3 Pilot schools. Their website states:

“ Strategy 2

“Pilot E3 mathematics curriculum in 3rd and 4th grade so all students are offered opportunities to be engaged, enriched, and extended in mathematics.”

OP: After googling it, I was unable to find any public list of the pilot schools. It was only by chance that Union Mills put E3 on their page, which is here:

https://unionmilles.fcps.edu/about/school-innovation-improvement-plan

I just check that link.

They have scrubbed any mention of E3 on that page.

Seems like they are hiding it.

Or like a PP said VRES's AART said in April, E3 has been folded into the regular curriculum so they don't need to mention it any more. It's just part of the standards now.

[Anonymous]

^^^

Per the above, strategy 1 at that link now says

Strategy 1:

Increase teachers' content knowledge and implementation of the 2023 FCPS mathematics program of studies.

If 2023 advanced math POS is just E3, they don't need to mention E3 any more. It's already there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

Having dedicated advanced math classes is better.

+1


Despite that, FCPS has gone ahead and implemented E3 this year, apparently county-wide.

The 3rd grade AAP math is significantly diminished compared to last year.

Is that the case at centers too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God forbid kids from lower income families get the chance to do advanced math too. Rich people gotta hoard, hoard, hoard!

San Francisco's math track has been a pure disaster. Everyone admits it now. It harmed high achieving students, low achieving students, URMs, everyone.

That’s not FCPS’s E3.

Neither is the PP's post about lower income families and hoarding.

San Francisco is relevant because their goal, to increase math attainment particularly for URMs, by creating a single math track for everyone, failed everyone. It did not achieve its goal. And it didn't help URMs or any students. It's a bad idea. Irrefutably.

That is NOT what E3 advocates for. They want more kids in accelerated tracks.

And it has nothing to do with SF.

Stop spreading misinformation.

E3 waters down math instruction by placing students in heterogeneous math classes in 3rd and 4th grade. Students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer as even good teachers can't differentiate in heterogeneous classes as well as teachers can in classrooms matched to student needs. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of San Francisco's math reform.

Yes exactly.

Good summation of why E3 is a step backwards for FCPS.

However, it appears FCPS has gone ahead and implemented E3 county-wide now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, the pull-out method does not work.

Certainly not in some scenarios.

But, for gifted services, it has been very successful in many (most?) school districts for decades.

Having dedicated advanced math classes is better.

+1


Despite that, FCPS has gone ahead and implemented E3 this year, apparently county-wide.

The 3rd grade AAP math is significantly diminished compared to last year.

Is that the case at centers too?

If you go over to the thread about it there are comparisons between old and new. The standards county-wide for 3rd are changed and do seem similar to the way E3 was described in 2022/2023.

This link will take you right to where someone compared old to new.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/1226968.page#28331524