VADOE adjustments to advanced math track

[Anonymous]

VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

If McAuliffe had been elected, then VDOE would have moved forward with detracking. The shrieking was warranted.

Now they're going to shelve detracking until 4 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

[Anonymous]

NP to this thread.

O don't trust VMPI. The original presentations, briefings, and documents they had up alarmed me enough that I contacted my seated Delegates and anyone running for one of those seats as well as the Governors Candidates and let them know this was on my radar and I did not approve of the direction they were taking.

I suspect that they changed their documentation and wording after there was a large outcry at what they were discussing changing. I don't believe for a second that the people working for VMPI changed their objectives or their end goal.

So yeah, I remain concerned with VMPI and their goals and motives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

There was no “proposal”. It was very early stages and they were gathering feedback. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

There was no “proposal”. It was very early stages and they were gathering feedback. Done.

Nothing in their presentation said that they were in the early stages. They were 100% proposing significant changes and were very much on a specific track. You can try and soft sell it all you want but they were not gathering feedback, they were showing their planned changes. They email I got from them was disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

There was no “proposal”. It was very early stages and they were gathering feedback. Done.

Nothing in their presentation said that they were in the early stages. They were 100% proposing significant changes and were very much on a specific track. You can try and soft sell it all you want but they were not gathering feedback, they were showing their planned changes. They email I got from them was disturbing.

Tell me you haven’t watched any info sessions without telling me you haven’t watched any info sessions.

Nov 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20201105130242/https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml

The VMPI will develop an initial vision for mathematics education in K-12 that will require feedback from many different stakeholders across the Commonwealth. This feedback will be critical when the Mathematics Standards of Learning revisions in 2023 reflect the goals and recommendations of this Initiative. Possible piloting of high school level mathematics courses prior to full implementation is now being considered. This Initiative will establish an innovative direction for mathematics education in Virginia that will benefit all students.

What are the proposed changes to mathematics pathways on which the VMPI task force is seeking feedback?

Feedback
The Virginia Department of Education welcomes your feedback as the Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative moves forward. Please email [e-mail].

Additional opportunities for information and stakeholder feedback will be forthcoming. STAY TUNED!



Followed by several info sessions in which they clearly state in each that they are in early phases (“building phase”) and they are seeking feedback.

Notes from one of the info sessions:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/983455.page#20309939
“ They are still in “building” phase - proposal won’t be presented until 2022
First draft to BOE 2022 ”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought this was called acceleration, and tracking was putting some kids in an honors version of the same class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nothing in their presentation said that they were in the early stages. They were 100% proposing significant changes and were very much on a specific track. You can try and soft sell it all you want but they were not gathering feedback, they were showing their planned changes. They email I got from them was disturbing.

Is this the e-mail that the previous poster pretends to say he thinks it is not real?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

There was no “proposal”. It was very early stages and they were gathering feedback. Done.

In the politics forum, you said it was never suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VDOE “shut down” de-tracking over six months ago. Doesn’t stop the nutters from shrieking about it though…

Megan McLaughlin said we should keep watching VMPI because they were being incredibly cagey.

Do you consider her a nutter?

No. She is right about the VA DOE.

The DOE has shown they are cagey, duplicitous, and deceptive while trying to pursue their own agenda; specifically: implement VMPI as originally proposed, even over the objections of most parents.

There was no “proposal”. It was very early stages and they were gathering feedback. Done.

In the politics forum, you said it was never suggested.

What was never suggested?

Link to post? Perhaps you are confusing posters.

[Anonymous]

It appears that the VA DOE plans implement VMPI under a different name.

It is true there is a law requiring a review of the math SOL every 7 years; 2022 is the year.

Looks like DOE will try to disguise VMPI as the periodic math curriculum review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It appears that the VA DOE plans implement VMPI under a different name.

It is true there is a law requiring a review of the math SOL every 7 years; 2022 is the year.

Looks like DOE will try to disguise VMPI as the periodic math curriculum review.

They plan to have different “pathways” like data science (SOL standards already up for review) instead of calculus. Not sure if they also plan to push more project-based, student-led junk like the VMPI page had.

Don’t think removing math acceleration will be on the table officially. For that keep a hawk eye on E3 here in FCPS. Parents report this program at a few schools is everyone in a clustered local level IV getting “advanced” math, meaning no one is. E3 is FCPS’s plan for advanced math moving forward and parents should be aware of it.

[Anonymous]

No matter how many times you try to post it…

VMPI is dead.

Before that, detracking has been off the table since April 2021.

A very limited edit of math SOLs <> VMPI.

Stop trolling. There are already two other threads about the 2022 SOL update.