VADOE adjustments to advanced math track

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the VMPI insanity was part of the death by 1,000 cuts that led to the Terry McAuliffe's loss.

I saw a Youngkin ad specifically on VMPI, that he will get rid of it. Said the idea was parents need to give up their privilege for equitable schools.

You didn't put a subject in front of "said" - who said it? The Youngkin ad?

In actuality, this idea (of needing to give up "privilege") comes from the progressive material that is guiding the VMPI effort, which can be found under the additional resources section on their webpage, namely: Mathematics Education through the Lens of Social Justice: Acknowledgement, Actions, and Accountability a joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL, 2016 which states that:

"Mathematics teachers and leaders must self-reflect on privileges",
"a social justice stance interrogates and challenges the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in the current unjust system of mathematics education—and in society as a whole."
"some benefit by the current system and the differentiated status associated with it. Giving up privilege is difficult, even if it is the right thing to do."

That is gross indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But I think the advance math tracks are safe. FCPS is planning on preserving them, and that was before the election.

There was a post in the FCPS forum that said they got an e-mail from their school that Fairfax was moving away from accelerated math and was inviting the parent to a pilot class of teaching multiple levels in the same class.

That’s not what that post said.

"We will hold a virtual meeting for our 3rd and 4th grade parents this evening at 6:00 PM to discuss the math program we are piloting this year. The county is moving away from Advanced Mathematics courses which are focused on acceleration of mathematics concepts and moving toward instruction that provides increased engagement, advanced rigor, and opportunities for ample extemsions. This program is intended to meet the needs of any learners ready for more depth and complexity of the mathematics curriculum. Incorporating math instruction that will help children increase their level of understanding of the math curriculum will help students become more successful as they progress through higher levels of mathematics in middle and high school."

Could you provide more context? Which year, which school?

Don't hold your breath. No details were given the last time someone made this claim. It was never confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But I think the advance math tracks are safe. FCPS is planning on preserving them, and that was before the election.

There was a post in the FCPS forum that said they got an e-mail from their school that Fairfax was moving away from accelerated math and was inviting the parent to a pilot class of teaching multiple levels in the same class.

That’s not what that post said.

"We will hold a virtual meeting for our 3rd and 4th grade parents this evening at 6:00 PM to discuss the math program we are piloting this year. The county is moving away from Advanced Mathematics courses which are focused on acceleration of mathematics concepts and moving toward instruction that provides increased engagement, advanced rigor, and opportunities for ample extemsions. This program is intended to meet the needs of any learners ready for more depth and complexity of the mathematics curriculum. Incorporating math instruction that will help children increase their level of understanding of the math curriculum will help students become more successful as they progress through higher levels of mathematics in middle and high school."

Could you provide more context? Which year, which school?

That is a quote from the post on DCUM a month ago. It is this year, but I don't think the school was ever named. Search for 'pilot math' in FCPS forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the VMPI insanity was part of the death by 1,000 cuts that led to the Terry McAuliffe's loss.

I saw a Youngkin ad specifically on VMPI, that he will get rid of it. Said the idea was parents need to give up their privilege for equitable schools.

You didn't put a subject in front of "said" - who said it? The Youngkin ad?

In actuality, this idea (of needing to give up "privilege") comes from the progressive material that is guiding the VMPI effort, which can be found under the additional resources section on their webpage, namely: Mathematics Education through the Lens of Social Justice: Acknowledgement, Actions, and Accountability a joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL, 2016 which states that:

"Mathematics teachers and leaders must self-reflect on privileges",
"a social justice stance interrogates and challenges the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in the current unjust system of mathematics education—and in society as a whole."
"some benefit by the current system and the differentiated status associated with it. Giving up privilege is difficult, even if it is the right thing to do."

That is gross indeed.

From other resources on the "additional resources" list:
The Case for Mathematics Pathways

There should be accelerated structures for all pathways including the algebraically intensive pathways leading to Calculus.

Launch Years – Reimagining Mathematics Education

Focusing on the critical junior to junior year timeframe, the Launch Years initiative puts forward a fundamentally new approach to mathematics. It maintains the rigor needed for postsecondary degrees and high-demand jobs, while also creating new pathways for significantly more students – including those traditionally underserved – to thrive in college and realize their dreams.

Advanced quantitative literacy skills are increasingly in demand.

Strategy 5a: States promote advanced mathematics course-taking

States and state agencies employ multiple levers to support students to enroll and succeed
in rigorous fourth-year high school mathematics courses. In particular, states ensure that
every high school has the resources to offer viable fourth-year mathematics course options.

They are encouraging MORE people to take "advanced math", looking for way for more students to be successful in college math - those crazy progressive states, Texas and Georgia, are example states.

[Anonymous]

That first link is about college courses and remedial math.
The second one says they are developing an algebra two class for students to take in junior/senior year to get them ready for college.
Sure doesn't look like they are planning to teach algebra 2 in 8-10th grade spiral as they've been claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That first link is about college courses and remedial math.
The second one says they are developing an algebra two class for students to take in junior/senior year to get them ready for college.
Sure doesn't look like they are planning to teach algebra 2 in 8-10th grade spiral as they've been claiming.

The overall goal and theme is supporting more kids on different, advanced math paths. From HS to college.

No need to fret - they talk about blending on the VMPI website:

The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That first link is about college courses and remedial math.
The second one says they are developing an algebra two class for students to take in junior/senior year to get them ready for college.
Sure doesn't look like they are planning to teach algebra 2 in 8-10th grade spiral as they've been claiming.

The overall goal and theme is supporting more kids on different, advanced math paths. From HS to college.

No need to fret - they talk about blending on the VMPI website:

The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

Yes they said that. And in one of their videos after that they said prealgebra will be in there, which makes sense since these are the classes for all students to take.
If their claim of algebra-geometry-algebra 2 is to be believed, it means they are telling all students they are going to be put on an accelerated pathway, and one that is harder than a year advanced accelerated pathway, because they are throwing in math modeling, statistics and probability too.

[Anonymous]

This is basically all BS. Our VMPI/VDOE apologist is back again.

But the links are from Texas, and even the material she quotes reads dubious and doesn't help her case.

"Fundamentally new approach to mathematics" - that's a good one. Remember these clowns wanted to send an aspiring cosmetologist to take Logic and Discrete Math because they thought it's job relevant.

Most importantly, let's remember that there's no actual problem to be solved other than the imagined "privilege" that those who excel in Math have to give up according to VMPI proponents like her.

We have a working tracked system - it needs to be stronger in its selection, and select and track more, rather than less, but overall it's ok.
What's not ok is the SJW rhetoric, and hopefully this will be toned down and turned down a bit for the next 4 years as FCPS will interact with a VDOE less friendly to its ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But I think the advance math tracks are safe. FCPS is planning on preserving them, and that was before the election.

There was a post in the FCPS forum that said they got an e-mail from their school that Fairfax was moving away from accelerated math and was inviting the parent to a pilot class of teaching multiple levels in the same class.

That’s not what that post said.

"We will hold a virtual meeting for our 3rd and 4th grade parents this evening at 6:00 PM to discuss the math program we are piloting this year. The county is moving away from Advanced Mathematics courses which are focused on acceleration of mathematics concepts and moving toward instruction that provides increased engagement, advanced rigor, and opportunities for ample extemsions. This program is intended to meet the needs of any learners ready for more depth and complexity of the mathematics curriculum. Incorporating math instruction that will help children increase their level of understanding of the math curriculum will help students become more successful as they progress through higher levels of mathematics in middle and high school."

Could you provide more context? Which year, which school?

Don't hold your breath. No details were given the last time someone made this claim. It was never confirmed.

I asked FCPS about it. It's a thing. It's called E3 (E cubed). There's more to it than that email says. They are doing extra on top of the VA SOLs in each grade. They are teaching the teachers as if they were gifted teachers on real differentiation - whether the teachers will be able to do it with 28 students remains to be seen. I can post the info I got from FCPS about it if people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is basically all BS. Our VMPI/VDOE apologist is back again.

But the links are from Texas, and even the material she quotes reads dubious and doesn't help her case.

"Fundamentally new approach to mathematics" - that's a good one. Remember these clowns wanted to send an aspiring cosmetologist to take Logic and Discrete Math because they thought it's job relevant.

Most importantly, let's remember that there's no actual problem to be solved other than the imagined "privilege" that those who excel in Math have to give up according to VMPI proponents like her.

We have a working tracked system - it needs to be stronger in its selection, and select and track more, rather than less, but overall it's ok.
What's not ok is the SJW rhetoric, and hopefully this will be toned down and turned down a bit for the next 4 years as FCPS will interact with a VDOE less friendly to its ideology.

Don’t get your panties in a bunch. Advanced math & acceleration aren’t going anywhere - even if VMPI is implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: But I think the advance math tracks are safe. FCPS is planning on preserving them, and that was before the election.

There was a post in the FCPS forum that said they got an e-mail from their school that Fairfax was moving away from accelerated math and was inviting the parent to a pilot class of teaching multiple levels in the same class.

That’s not what that post said.

"We will hold a virtual meeting for our 3rd and 4th grade parents this evening at 6:00 PM to discuss the math program we are piloting this year. The county is moving away from Advanced Mathematics courses which are focused on acceleration of mathematics concepts and moving toward instruction that provides increased engagement, advanced rigor, and opportunities for ample extemsions. This program is intended to meet the needs of any learners ready for more depth and complexity of the mathematics curriculum. Incorporating math instruction that will help children increase their level of understanding of the math curriculum will help students become more successful as they progress through higher levels of mathematics in middle and high school."

Could you provide more context? Which year, which school?

Don't hold your breath. No details were given the last time someone made this claim. It was never confirmed.

I asked FCPS about it. It's a thing. It's called E3 (E cubed). There's more to it than that email says. They are doing extra on top of the VA SOLs in each grade. They are teaching the teachers as if they were gifted teachers on real differentiation - whether the teachers will be able to do it with 28 students remains to be seen. I can post the info I got from FCPS about it if people want.

Yes, please share FCPS’ plans.

Is this it?
https://e3alliance.org/2020/01/30/math-matters-for-all-students/

Gee - they want to help *more* kids take and succeed in advanced math. What a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That first link is about college courses and remedial math.
The second one says they are developing an algebra two class for students to take in junior/senior year to get them ready for college.
Sure doesn't look like they are planning to teach algebra 2 in 8-10th grade spiral as they've been claiming.

The overall goal and theme is supporting more kids on different, advanced math paths. From HS to college.

No need to fret - they talk about blending on the VMPI website:

The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

Yes they said that. And in one of their videos after that they said prealgebra will be in there, which makes sense since these are the classes for all students to take.
If their claim of algebra-geometry-algebra 2 is to be believed, it means they are telling all students they are going to be put on an accelerated pathway, and one that is harder than a year advanced accelerated pathway, because they are throwing in math modeling, statistics and probability too.

This sounds much like the idea “EVERYBODY WINS 1ST PLACE, BECAUSE WE ARE ALL WINNERS!”

Sorry, but this program is more feel-good nonsense at our children’s expense. They appear to be replacing a full year of advanced math by offering all students a “sampling” of advanced math and “blending” it with the standard, non-advanced math curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a working tracked system - it needs to be stronger in its selection, and select and track more, rather than less, but overall it's ok.
What's not ok is the SJW rhetoric, and hopefully this will be toned down and turned down a bit for the next 4 years as FCPS will interact with a VDOE less friendly to its ideology.

I'd actually argue (and this is something I think VMPI gets totally wrong) is that we currently *have* differentiation, not tracking. Tracking is a practice from decades ago, where you'd be labelled as 'track 1/2/3' and then that would determine your fate for the rest of your K-12 career. No ability to move up or down. VMPI has stated that's what we have today, but I'd argue *they are wrong*.

If you are accelerated in the math curriculum today and do poorly, you can repeat the class to get more foundation. There's nothing preventing that. Likewise, if you suddenly start to 'get' math later than some others, summer school is available to get you caught up to the next level.

What VMPI was (at one point) saying was that we needed homogenous classrooms for equity purposes - everyone who's a grade behind to the kid 3 grade levels above in the same classroom. With 'flexible grouping' to deal with the differences in aptitude.

The problem with that model is, at some point the teacher still has to go over concepts with the whole class, and when one kid gets it on day one and another kid needs it repeated daily for three weeks, you have problems. The only way to avoid that I can see is basically almost always having the groups separate and working on different things... but then there's very little instructional time for each group. At that point, why not separate kids into different classes by ability so that every kid can have more focused, appropriate attention from the teacher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a working tracked system - it needs to be stronger in its selection, and select and track more, rather than less, but overall it's ok.
What's not ok is the SJW rhetoric, and hopefully this will be toned down and turned down a bit for the next 4 years as FCPS will interact with a VDOE less friendly to its ideology.

I'd actually argue (and this is something I think VMPI gets totally wrong) is that we currently *have* differentiation, not tracking. Tracking is a practice from decades ago, where you'd be labelled as 'track 1/2/3' and then that would determine your fate for the rest of your K-12 career. No ability to move up or down. VMPI has stated that's what we have today, but I'd argue *they are wrong*.

If you are accelerated in the math curriculum today and do poorly, you can repeat the class to get more foundation. There's nothing preventing that. Likewise, if you suddenly start to 'get' math later than some others, summer school is available to get you caught up to the next level.

What VMPI was (at one point) saying was that we needed homogenous classrooms for equity purposes - everyone who's a grade behind to the kid 3 grade levels above in the same classroom. With 'flexible grouping' to deal with the differences in aptitude.

The problem with that model is, at some point the teacher still has to go over concepts with the whole class, and when one kid gets it on day one and another kid needs it repeated daily for three weeks, you have problems. The only way to avoid that I can see is basically almost always having the groups separate and working on different things... but then there's very little instructional time for each group. At that point, why not separate kids into different classes by ability so that every kid can have more focused, appropriate attention from the teacher?

Wouldn’t AAP be considered tracking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a working tracked system - it needs to be stronger in its selection, and select and track more, rather than less, but overall it's ok.
What's not ok is the SJW rhetoric, and hopefully this will be toned down and turned down a bit for the next 4 years as FCPS will interact with a VDOE less friendly to its ideology.

I'd actually argue (and this is something I think VMPI gets totally wrong) is that we currently *have* differentiation, not tracking. Tracking is a practice from decades ago, where you'd be labelled as 'track 1/2/3' and then that would determine your fate for the rest of your K-12 career. No ability to move up or down. VMPI has stated that's what we have today, but I'd argue *they are wrong*.

I think the terms are loaded, so it's good to define them.

"tracking" here means to provide the opportunity to take advanced math classes when your child is ready - some children are ready for Algebra-type material in 6th, some in 7th, some in 8th, and a few in 4, 5, or 9th grade. Once your child takes Algebra, they are on a track to take the follow-up classes that build on it. Those children who are ready earlier will get farther, naturally.

This is a normal and equitable way of doing this. VDOE attacked this, but fortunately this will be shut down thanks to the democratic vote that let common sense and proven experience prevail.

I'm ok with calling it tracking because of its track-like nature. I wouldn't call it "differentiation" because this word has become synonymous to represent (usually failing) efforts to provide advanced children with appropriate material while maintaining a classroom that includes all children, at least in my experience.

We can quibble over details, but must agree that children differ and this difference must be respected so that everyone is challenged and served according to the abilities they have demonstrated. Teaching children in the same classroom whose skill level differs as widely as we observe in our student population is impossible and attempts at doing so are unethical.