NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The racial math gap comes from bright but working class black and latino kids being stuck in regular classes with no way to get tracked up. Working class parents don't tend to be as pushy with the schools, and teachers are too harried to stop and advocate for moving a kid up track. The way to fix this is to give multiple testing opportunities throughout the schoolyear for a kid to demonstrate their knowledge to move up gifted programming. There's also sadly some teachers with internal biases that may not believe a poor kid with a single mom that doesn't speak english is 'gifted material'. That can be corrected with professional development training.

Maybe a bit of it. Most of it comes from MC and up kids being more likely to have a parent supplementation in one form or another at home. And starting in preschool. That slight gaps grows over time.

So the schools should provide afterschool math enrichment as part of free aftercare or means-tested aftercare. That would solve it better than detracking in my opinion. In my district we have had some summer school programs for this purpose. School year programs are needed too.

I am not in DMV but I had to spend thousands in private math enrichment classes to make up for the deficiencies caused by how detracked/small group but same classroom math was taught in 3rd-8th grade in my district. I feel fortunate to be able to afford tutoring but angry that my district couldn't reliably ensure my A students internalized basic math and algebra. I'm sure it's part of the reason why our state test results are middling for math but o.k. to good for language arts.

The pandemic exposed and amplified the weaknesses of the detracked elementary curriculum in my district. I am actually a politically liberal person. Nevertheless, I think detracking is ideologically appealing but cannot be expected to have the desired results in person. It's an impossible task for teachers to spend equal time with each ability group and the low-scoring and disruptive students hold everybody back. Seems like a fiasco on the order of guided reading. That's why parents are so mad. It doesn't fit with the reality of the educational world around us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

The kids with the highest aptitude were supposed to gain a deeper and richer understanding of math by helping their classmates.

One can only hope this is a joke.

In my state they for a while put 1st, 2nd, 3rd graders in the same classroom with the same idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

The kids with the highest aptitude were supposed to gain a deeper and richer understanding of math by helping their classmates.

One can only hope this is a joke.

In my state they for a while put 1st, 2nd, 3rd graders in the same classroom with the same idea.

Yes, I saw some hangovers of that failed idea 10 years ago. It was ended at my elementary school because they went IB and the IB accreditation doesn't approve of that multi-grade in one class approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Relitigating dead proposals is so fun.

Republicans have been recycling their hysterics about this since April 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

You can thank McAuliffe for saying parents don't have rights to their kids at school.

“Don’t have rights to their kids”? Huh?

He didn’t want every wackadoodle parent heading over to their local school and pulling books from the library or changing the curriculum.

"I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision"

"I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."

You think I should be able to go tell my kid’s school that they should teach the kids that all Rs are total POSs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

You can thank McAuliffe for saying parents don't have rights to their kids at school.

“Don’t have rights to their kids”? Huh?

He didn’t want every wackadoodle parent heading over to their local school and pulling books from the library or changing the curriculum.

"I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision"

"I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."

You think I should be able to go tell my kid’s school that they should teach the kids that all Rs are total POSs?

I (and the 20% of people who voted for Biden but not McAuliffe) think schools should stick to the 3 Rs and not anti-science hokum like gender ideology or C R T.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

You can thank McAuliffe for saying parents don't have rights to their kids at school.

“Don’t have rights to their kids”? Huh?

He didn’t want every wackadoodle parent heading over to their local school and pulling books from the library or changing the curriculum.

"I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decision"

"I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach."

You think I should be able to go tell my kid’s school that they should teach the kids that all Rs are total POSs?

I (and the 20% of people who voted for Biden but not McAuliffe) think schools should stick to the 3 Rs and not anti-science hokum like gender ideology or C R T.

Ohhhhhhh ok. This explains a lot. So you were one of those who were really "concerned" about "CRT". And there is nothing "anti-science" about transgender people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

🙄
I don’t mean I dialed up Fox or some R superPAC. I mean I - as an individual constituent - contacted McCauliff’s team, my school board members, and my local Senate and House Reps for the Virginia legislature.

McC has VDOE to blame for why so many Biden voters switched parties for the governors race. In the end I voted D for that race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

🙄
I don’t mean I dialed up Fox or some R superPAC. I mean I - as an individual constituent - contacted McCauliff’s team, my school board members, and my local Senate and House Reps for the Virginia legislature.

McC has VDOE to blame for why so many Biden voters switched parties for the governors race. In the end I voted D for that race.

Narrator: this is about to happen on a much larger scale in Nov when a lot of people in the middle have to decide between the party that wants to take away abortion rights for women and the party who say they don't even know what a woman is because they're not biologists.

I’m the PP just before this and view post-Dobbs votes for state level offices as a totally different landscape than pre-Dobbs. Almost nothing could make me vote R now for federal or state level positions given the abortion policy risk.

Everyone except you knew RvW was at risk.

[Anonymous]

Yes let’s hold back kids from reaching their full potential because some other kids feeling might be hurt. Great way to ensure your country is competitive in technology driven world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent/teacher engagement and discussion would have been great. There were some good and not-so-good topics introduced. They were very open to feedback and we could have ended up with some positive changes.

As someone who tuned in to most of the town halls and submitted questions during them, I will say my questions, and most of the other questions that were being asked were being ignored because they didn't want to answer them. Things like "the studies you are citing saying that detracking works required extra teachers and supports for some students, what kind of extra support will DOE propose for teachers?"

It certainly didn't strike many of us that they were open to feedback of any kind - they just kept saying what they wanted to happen and that the people who disagreed were going to have to be educated better. It was appalling.

“Appalling” that they didn’t immediately respond with a staffing/funding plan?

Like I said, hysterics.

I was on that webinar too with those questions asked. No it is appalling because the clear impression was they planned to just toss the kids all in together in basically the same system (no direct lesson plans for teachers on how to teach 6 levels at once in ways that didn’t just leave the top ones sitting on a computer, no plans for more teachers etc).

They discussed detracking during webinars. It wasn’t on the website or in the infographic. They always included AP and IB though which does require Algebra 1 in 8th.

It was also very early in the progress. People were making way too many assumptions. And the hysteria was unwarranted.

Stop using kids as pawns in your political games.

I had no political agenda with it. I’m a Democrat and thought it was a ridiculously stupid thing for a D administration to put forward during a governor election year.

Heterogeneous classes K-10 was a core element of the plan. People specifically asked about how it would still allow for advanced classes before 11th and were told that isn’t part of the plan.

I specifically asked how this squared with IB and with Calc in 12th. Below was the reply.

“The VMPI proposal includes ensuring that the content in the Essential Courses 8-10 will prepare students for the path they choose for grades 11-12, including those that will be entering the IB program. Additionally, the VMPI proposed course options for 11-12 will include the opportunity for a student to take Calculus senior year without having to take additional coursework over the summer.”

They planned to shift around what was covered in the classes to allow IB and Calc in 12th still supposedly. But heterogeneous classes up thru 10th were a core component of what they were talking about not just as a one off but threaded through the whole webinar. They only backed off that after the public blow back - and NOT when many concerned parents were posting questions/comments in the webinar chat discussion or emailing them afterward.

They weren’t “told” that in any verifiable way. And it wasn’t “core” enough to make the infographic.

The Republicans started wildly speculating and screaming about it pretty early on.

Whatever. Again I’m not an R.

But I was in the webinars and I emailed with the person leading the effort after them and it was clear to me the intent was heterogeneous classes K-10. That’s why I called or emailed anyone in any even slightly relevant political position to reach out about it. Plenty of others did the same and also are not all republicans.

So we can thank you and your ridiculous hysterics for that POS Youngkin. Brava.

🙄
I don’t mean I dialed up Fox or some R superPAC. I mean I - as an individual constituent - contacted McCauliff’s team, my school board members, and my local Senate and House Reps for the Virginia legislature.

McC has VDOE to blame for why so many Biden voters switched parties for the governors race. In the end I voted D for that race.

Narrator: this is about to happen on a much larger scale in Nov when a lot of people in the middle have to decide between the party that wants to take away abortion rights for women and the party who say they don't even know what a woman is because they're not biologists.

I’m the PP just before this and view post-Dobbs votes for state level offices as a totally different landscape than pre-Dobbs. Almost nothing could make me vote R now for federal or state level positions given the abortion policy risk.

Everyone except you knew RvW was at risk.

Everyone knew - or should have known - this re: POTUS and Sen votes. And I did too - key part of what I have long voted D at the federal level.

But until Dobbs happened there was not a huge risk to voting R at the state level. And I imagine some other normally-D-voters also held that view at the time we held the Governor’s election. Post Dobbs the risk is now ALSO at the state level so being furious over education policy now would still leave me stuck with only one option to pick from since the other is unacceptable.

[jsteele]

This thread is supposed to be about algebra but it is going to require calculus to explain how it got to be about abortion.