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

[Anonymous]

I never said it have would “no effects on school curricula”. ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to agree with Youngkin on much (and I didn’t vote for him), but I’m glad he’s doing this. Dumbing down math in the name of equity would have been a disaster, and while folks have been backpedaling on that, the entire process now seems tainted to me.

Stop peddling GOP propaganda.

They weren't dumbing down math.

Good argument. Made the point with precision, rigor, and most importantly, detail. Awesome points for a discussion on the importance of education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to agree with Youngkin on much (and I didn’t vote for him), but I’m glad he’s doing this. Dumbing down math in the name of equity would have been a disaster, and while folks have been backpedaling on that, the entire process now seems tainted to me.

Stop peddling GOP propaganda.

They weren't dumbing down math.

Good argument. Made the point with precision, rigor, and most importantly, detail. Awesome points for a discussion on the importance of education.

This has been covered 1 million times.

Sorry you can't seem to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Glenn Youngkin, making Virginia stupid again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to agree with Youngkin on much (and I didn’t vote for him), but I’m glad he’s doing this. Dumbing down math in the name of equity would have been a disaster, and while folks have been backpedaling on that, the entire process now seems tainted to me.

Stop peddling GOP propaganda.

They weren't dumbing down math.

Good argument. Made the point with precision, rigor, and most importantly, detail. Awesome points for a discussion on the importance of education.

This has been covered 1 million times.

Sorry you can't seem to keep up.

NP.

Still can’t muster a cogent counter argument?

Maybe the VADOE isn’t the best employer for you right now. May I suggest you move to California?

[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.

You constantly gaslight by saying this, totally ignoring the fact that the April 2021 statements (and the video you screenshotted from that meeting) were all done as a response to the public uproar over the previous material/town hall meetings where they were quite clear that the goal was all kids, in homogenous classrooms instead of acceleration, at the default pace (ie, Algebra 1 in 9th) until grade 10.

[Anonymous]

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?

OK? That’s not VMPI.

DP. I have come to the conclusion that most people complaining about VMPI do t actually know what it is. Kind of like people who hate Obamacare but are big fans of the Affordable Care Act.

I have difficulty believing that people cannot look at what VDOE is proposing and see how school districts could start to adjust their curriculum based on those proposals. Local school districts made similar moves to decrease advanced math tracking at the same time as the State posted presentations, videos, and proposals that laid out the States reasons for decreasing tracked math strikes me as more then coincidence. But of course the answer is that LCPS, FCPS, APS and other school districts randomly decided that programs they had used for a good period of time were no longer effective, independent of any State proposals, and that it would be a great idea to reduce advanced math options.

Totally organic. Not in any way tied back to what VDOE was posting on its website, nope. No connection there. Nope.

It would be foolish to change the curriculum based on a proposal that was likely to be significantly revised before it was finalized, because you might change it in a way that went directly against the final plan.

+1
Again, there was already a trend of students (1) falling off the advanced math track after alg2 in high school and (2) kids having to re-take calculus in college even after passing it in high school anyway.

I would have liked to see data on this, because in my FCPS experience, there were plenty of advanced kids doing perfectly well on the accelerated track. Sure, I'm sure some kids are accelerated too fast, but is that really the norm? I doubt it.

Also, I'll note that as a senior I was advised to flat out by advisors to retake calc in college, regardless of how well one had done, saying it was important to do it over. I got a 5 on the BC exam and I learned the material *way* better than anyone I know who took it when they got to college, and was very glad I ignored the advice to retake calc no matter what. I'd be curious how many kids retaking calc actually needed to.

[Anonymous]

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.

I did have advanced math 5th graders go to 6th -- and both chose to stay at grade level instead of pushing up.
Unfortunately, one was caught in the ridiculous interim changes of the past few years teaching 6-7-8 all together nonsense. Chose to stay grade level for 6th, continued to choose to stay at grade level despite teacher recommendations to jump up.
And yes, I'd be fine not taking the middle school SOLs. Only reason to do so would be to earn the high school verified credits needed for graduating high school - like for World Geography in 8th grade. But they still have plenty of time to earn the few required verified math credits during 4 years of high school.

Regardless, I'd be very happy for my child to have had the opportunity to be a peer tutor. Good experience, reinforce their own knowledge and understanding of the concepts (that would have been presented and pushed earlier than necessary) - and their ability to explain it comprehensively to others. It also shows them how difficult teaching can be and that not all people learn the same way or as easily. They may have had to look at the problems differently and figure out a different way to explain the concepts as they tutored peers.

This is a horribly misguided philosophy that's often pushed as an way to make people not feel bad about ignoring the gifted/advanced kids in a class. Sure, once-in-awhile peer tutoring, or peer tutoring as a specific elective/after school activity is fine and can build some skills, but having the advanced kids serve as tutors to their peers in lieu of actually getting appropriate instruction for their level long-term is not an acceptable solution.

Realize that it takes specific skills to be a teacher beyond just 'i know the material'. (Otherwise, why would we ask teachers to be certified? trained in teaching? Why not just hire a high-school dropout to teach the middle school kids?)

See this link for a decent article on the topic: https://www.giftedguru.com/why-you-should-not-use-gifted-students-as-tutors/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m doubtful the conspiracy commenter has a policy job. It’s 101 of the job that once something been proposed (especially formally!) that it’s supporters will keep trying to revive it until they publicly denounce it. The detracking issue is a zombie that will be pushed every time a D is in office. I also am liberal and don’t agree with youngkin on anything other than removing masks and killing VMPI and getting back to basics at school. I do NOT support the dumb anti CRT nonsense and think both sides of that debate are dominated by political opportunists unwilling to engage in good faith discussion.

[Anonymous]

Yes - absolutely.

It’s generally named “cooperative learning” (although it has been re-named numerous times).

In essence, the top learners in a cooperative learning classroom are forced into unpaid tutoring roles (there is a name for a system of forced labor without pay).

Proponents claim their own research shows cooperative learning can “raise the mean test scores of the group as a whole.” What they avoid disclosing is the devastating, stunting effect cooperative learning has on top learners. At best, it breeds uniform mediocrity.

It is so controversial, the info on it is muddled - I imagine that is intentional:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_learning

- and we have seen how evasive and duplicitous the one person VMPI has been in this thread.

[Anonymous]

“person defending VMPI”

[Anonymous]

Posting facts and calling out lies is “evasive and duplicitous”? Projecting a bit there?

[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.

You constantly gaslight by saying this, totally ignoring the fact that the April 2021 statements (and the video you screenshotted from that meeting) were all done as a response to the public uproar over the previous material/town hall meetings where they were quite clear that the goal was all kids, in homogenous classrooms instead of acceleration, at the default pace (ie, Algebra 1 in 9th) until grade 10.

That was one of multiple changes they were considering.

It was very clearly off the table in April 2021.

Anyone still shrieking or ”concerned” about it almost a year later is sus.

[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?

OK? That’s not VMPI.

DP. I have come to the conclusion that most people complaining about VMPI do t actually know what it is. Kind of like people who hate Obamacare but are big fans of the Affordable Care Act.

I have difficulty believing that people cannot look at what VDOE is proposing and see how school districts could start to adjust their curriculum based on those proposals. Local school districts made similar moves to decrease advanced math tracking at the same time as the State posted presentations, videos, and proposals that laid out the States reasons for decreasing tracked math strikes me as more then coincidence. But of course the answer is that LCPS, FCPS, APS and other school districts randomly decided that programs they had used for a good period of time were no longer effective, independent of any State proposals, and that it would be a great idea to reduce advanced math options.

Totally organic. Not in any way tied back to what VDOE was posting on its website, nope. No connection there. Nope.

It would be foolish to change the curriculum based on a proposal that was likely to be significantly revised before it was finalized, because you might change it in a way that went directly against the final plan.

+1
Again, there was already a trend of students (1) falling off the advanced math track after alg2 in high school and (2) kids having to re-take calculus in college even after passing it in high school anyway.

I would have liked to see data on this, because in my FCPS experience, there were plenty of advanced kids doing perfectly well on the accelerated track. Sure, I'm sure some kids are accelerated too fast, but is that really the norm? I doubt it.

Also, I'll note that as a senior I was advised to flat out by advisors to retake calc in college, regardless of how well one had done, saying it was important to do it over. I got a 5 on the BC exam and I learned the material *way* better than anyone I know who took it when they got to college, and was very glad I ignored the advice to retake calc no matter what. I'd be curious how many kids retaking calc actually needed to.

Your implicit belief that only “advanced” student matter is hateful and tedious, and makes anything else you have to say completely worthless.

[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.

You constantly gaslight by saying this, totally ignoring the fact that the April 2021 statements (and the video you screenshotted from that meeting) were all done as a response to the public uproar over the previous material/town hall meetings where they were quite clear that the goal was all kids, in homogenous classrooms instead of acceleration, at the default pace (ie, Algebra 1 in 9th) until grade 10.

That was one of multiple changes they were considering.

It was very clearly off the table in April 2021.

Anyone still shrieking or ”concerned” about it almost a year later is sus.

DP. The damage is done. That’s what you don’t get.

The people in charge were peddling changes to suit their agenda and got called out. They first tried to ignore and cast those calling them out as anti-equity. They got called out harder and went up the chain of command.

That’s the only reason VDOE backpedaled. They put out placating statements but still didn’t reveal their final plan.

I’m not sure why you think the people of Virginia should trust them? We expect more from those in charge. If that means a turnover is needed, so be it. We’re still watching either way.