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

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

No sorry, PP. it is you who is “sus.”

I agree with the person you responded to.

Ultimately though, VMPI is gone, along with its plan to eliminate higher math in VA high schools. You lost, and education won.

Detracking was off the table since April 2021.

Stop pushing GOP propaganda.

It should have never been on the table.

It took public outrage to take it off the table. Then they respond with an attempt at gas lighting us to say it was never on the table or districts could always do their own thing. That didn't work. Unless there was an unnounced change in the leadership of this project, it was still being run by people who had fully supported it being on the table. Parents understandably do not trust those people.

I can read all about how in theory differentiation in a classroom works great. I can understand the idea behind it. However I can also see how it is done in reality (advanced kids get ignored and often used as tutors), so no I don't trust it.

Separately I also think the plan for mixed topic classes is bad. The majority of curriculum materials separate these topics. What happens to kids who move into or out of VA during those years?

Agree with everything in PP, but especially the bold. Oh and by the way, I've voted Democrat for the last 20 years. Do other Democrats see what's happening? This post communicates a clear lack of trust/faith in our governmental institutions, which used to be a hallmark of liberal policy. And PP isn't alone. When Dems attempt at gas lighting (and there are plenty of other examples), it destroys the core of their base. Contrast that with Repubs, who gaslight all the time, but it doesn't damage their base because they never had faith in the power of government to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Oh, please. Laughable. Youngkin is already an abject joke.

[Anonymous]

I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

After “the video got out”? JFC.

VDOE was holding info sessions explicitly to involve the public and get feedback. They weren’t hiding anything.

Their big “crime” was that they poorly communicated the scope of their changes (not going to take away school systems ability to accelerate) or where they were in the process (early on & talking about concepts).

I think they underestimated what an uninformed mob could do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

After “the video got out”? JFC.

VDOE was holding info sessions explicitly to involve the public and get feedback. They weren’t hiding anything.

Their big “crime” was that they poorly communicated the scope of their changes (not going to take away school systems ability to accelerate) or where they were in the process (early on & talking about concepts).

I think they underestimated what an uninformed mob could do.

Yes, the video where the program was being pitched to math teachers who were rightfully very skeptical. If you pitch an idea to a group of people who are experts in the field, most of whom have multiple years of experience and most do not think it's a good idea, the reaction should not be "we have lots of work to do" to sell the plan. This is especially true because the plan in question didn't work well in other areas that tried to implement it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

You have a problem with VDOE making sure that Virginia's math curriculum isn't leaving certain students behind or unprepared to hold a job?

Of course not. But let’s not leave them behind by devoting resources to help them catch up and be their very best, not by holding advanced kids back.

VMPI would not do that. This was clarified a long time ago, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it guts your best argument against VMPI.

+1

People still “concerned” about advanced math are either not paying attention or have ulterior motives.

Yes, my ulterior motive was making sure my son could get into Algebra early before that opportunity was taken away from him.

LCPS changes weren’t driven by VMPI. You’re blaming VDOE for a decision LCPS made.

I’m the previous poster you are responding to. I don’t live in Loudoun County—I live in Arlington.

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

They didn’t take away the option, but they greatly (& quietly) increased the Math Inventory score needed in 6th grade (which was virtual & had asynchronous Mondays last year) to qualify for alegrara in 7th. At my kid’s APS middle school, there is no 7th grade alegra class this year. There are a few 7th graders taking algebra in an 8th grade class.

Wouldn’t raising expectations, such as entrance test scores, be increasing rigor? I thought the same people were having tantrums that not focusing on test scores was removing rigor at TJ?

Why would the 7th graders be in a separate class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

After “the video got out”? JFC.

VDOE was holding info sessions explicitly to involve the public and get feedback. They weren’t hiding anything.

Their big “crime” was that they poorly communicated the scope of their changes (not going to take away school systems ability to accelerate) or where they were in the process (early on & talking about concepts).

I think they underestimated what an uninformed mob could do.

Yes, the video where the program was being pitched to math teachers who were rightfully very skeptical. If you pitch an idea to a group of people who are experts in the field, most of whom have multiple years of experience and most do not think it's a good idea, the reaction should not be "we have lots of work to do" to sell the plan. This is especially true because the plan in question didn't work well in other areas that tried to implement it.

Do you mean the info session that invited teachers to provide feedback?

The video of the info session that was publicly linked right on the VMPI website?

There was no secret conspiracy.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

You have a problem with VDOE making sure that Virginia's math curriculum isn't leaving certain students behind or unprepared to hold a job?

Of course not. But let’s not leave them behind by devoting resources to help them catch up and be their very best, not by holding advanced kids back.

VMPI would not do that. This was clarified a long time ago, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it guts your best argument against VMPI.

+1

People still “concerned” about advanced math are either not paying attention or have ulterior motives.

Yes, my ulterior motive was making sure my son could get into Algebra early before that opportunity was taken away from him.

LCPS changes weren’t driven by VMPI. You’re blaming VDOE for a decision LCPS made.

I’m the previous poster you are responding to. I don’t live in Loudoun County—I live in Arlington.

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

They didn’t take away the option, but they greatly (& quietly) increased the Math Inventory score needed in 6th grade (which was virtual & had asynchronous Mondays last year) to qualify for alegrara in 7th. At my kid’s APS middle school, there is no 7th grade alegra class this year. There are a few 7th graders taking algebra in an 8th grade class.

Wouldn’t raising expectations, such as entrance test scores, be increasing rigor? I thought the same people were having tantrums that not focusing on test scores was removing rigor at TJ?

Why would the 7th graders be in a separate class?

Yes. Some may even say they are “raising the bar”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

After “the video got out”? JFC.

VDOE was holding info sessions explicitly to involve the public and get feedback. They weren’t hiding anything.

Their big “crime” was that they poorly communicated the scope of their changes (not going to take away school systems ability to accelerate) or where they were in the process (early on & talking about concepts).

I think they underestimated what an uninformed mob could do.

Yes, the video where the program was being pitched to math teachers who were rightfully very skeptical. If you pitch an idea to a group of people who are experts in the field, most of whom have multiple years of experience and most do not think it's a good idea, the reaction should not be "we have lots of work to do" to sell the plan. This is especially true because the plan in question didn't work well in other areas that tried to implement it.

Do you mean the info session that invited teachers to provide feedback?

The video of the info session that was publicly linked right on the VMPI website?

There was no secret conspiracy.

I never said there was a secret conspiracy. Ignoring the feedback they got was gearing up to be a huge mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect VMPI was going to be “killed” regardless of who won because most math teachers and parents of students who are on the advanced math track were not buying what Tina Mazzacone was selling after that video got out. Couple that with evasive answers from the VA DOE and it was a non-starter in this area. It was a very easy thing for Youngkin to take credit for, and appease people who otherwise thing his policies are terrible.

After “the video got out”? JFC.

VDOE was holding info sessions explicitly to involve the public and get feedback. They weren’t hiding anything.

Their big “crime” was that they poorly communicated the scope of their changes (not going to take away school systems ability to accelerate) or where they were in the process (early on & talking about concepts).

I think they underestimated what an uninformed mob could do.

Yes, the video where the program was being pitched to math teachers who were rightfully very skeptical. If you pitch an idea to a group of people who are experts in the field, most of whom have multiple years of experience and most do not think it's a good idea, the reaction should not be "we have lots of work to do" to sell the plan. This is especially true because the plan in question didn't work well in other areas that tried to implement it.

Do you mean the info session that invited teachers to provide feedback?

The video of the info session that was publicly linked right on the VMPI website?

There was no secret conspiracy.

I never said there was a secret conspiracy. Ignoring the feedback they got was gearing up to be a huge mistake.

How were they "ignoring the feedback"?

November 2020 - started holding regional webinars:
"The VMPI will develop an initial vision for mathematics education in K-12 that will require feedback from many different stakeholders across the Commonwealth."

March 2021 - scheduled info sessions from March - May to discuss various aspects & also set up a feedback form:
"A series of one-hour VMPI Community Informational Sessions will be held during the next several months to provide parents and community members an opportunity to learn more about the Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative."

April 2021 - added details to clarify that they aren't forcing de-tracking as well as the timeline:
"● The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
● The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
● Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses. "
"● VMPI is in the development stage, and the changes being proposed are under discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders, including the Board of Education. No final decisions have been made at this time."


For such a long-term project, it seems like they responded to feedback pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Public schools have many mission objectives they are asked to achieve. Those objectives might include:

1) Providing targeted academic instruction to the students with a goal of maximizing each student's educational attainment, and
2) Decreasing any differences in the educational attainment that exists between student groups when students are separately categorized on the basis of an immutable characteristic such as race, sex, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Parents that prioritize objective 1 may fear that schools have prioritized objective 2 and those parents may further be skeptical that objective 2 can be achieved concurrently with objective 1.

I think I'm hearing those parents ask that schools commit to objective 1 as the highest priority, and there is a perception that programs like VMPI do not commit to objective 1 as the highest priority (and, it is perceived, that the program either plainly states or suggests that it is not). Those parents may further perceive educators as dodging the question. People are angsty and its playing out here.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

You have a problem with VDOE making sure that Virginia's math curriculum isn't leaving certain students behind or unprepared to hold a job?

Of course not. But let’s not leave them behind by devoting resources to help them catch up and be their very best, not by holding advanced kids back.

VMPI would not do that. This was clarified a long time ago, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it guts your best argument against VMPI.

+1

People still “concerned” about advanced math are either not paying attention or have ulterior motives.

Yes, my ulterior motive was making sure my son could get into Algebra early before that opportunity was taken away from him.

LCPS changes weren’t driven by VMPI. You’re blaming VDOE for a decision LCPS made.

I’m the previous poster you are responding to. I don’t live in Loudoun County—I live in Arlington.

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

They didn’t take away the option, but they greatly (& quietly) increased the Math Inventory score needed in 6th grade (which was virtual & had asynchronous Mondays last year) to qualify for alegrara in 7th. At my kid’s APS middle school, there is no 7th grade alegra class this year. There are a few 7th graders taking algebra in an 8th grade class.

Wouldn’t raising expectations, such as entrance test scores, be increasing rigor? I thought the same people were having tantrums that not focusing on test scores was removing rigor at TJ?

Why would the 7th graders be in a separate class?

For Arlington parents, they mean the rigor their child receives. So Algebra in 6th grade is more rigorous than Algebra in 7th grade. Raising the bar for enrollment into the class does not increase the rigor of the class.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

You have a problem with VDOE making sure that Virginia's math curriculum isn't leaving certain students behind or unprepared to hold a job?

Of course not. But let’s not leave them behind by devoting resources to help them catch up and be their very best, not by holding advanced kids back.

VMPI would not do that. This was clarified a long time ago, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it guts your best argument against VMPI.

+1

People still “concerned” about advanced math are either not paying attention or have ulterior motives.

Yes, my ulterior motive was making sure my son could get into Algebra early before that opportunity was taken away from him.

LCPS changes weren’t driven by VMPI. You’re blaming VDOE for a decision LCPS made.

I’m the previous poster you are responding to. I don’t live in Loudoun County—I live in Arlington.

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

They didn’t take away the option, but they greatly (& quietly) increased the Math Inventory score needed in 6th grade (which was virtual & had asynchronous Mondays last year) to qualify for alegrara in 7th. At my kid’s APS middle school, there is no 7th grade alegra class this year. There are a few 7th graders taking algebra in an 8th grade class.

Wouldn’t raising expectations, such as entrance test scores, be increasing rigor? I thought the same people were having tantrums that not focusing on test scores was removing rigor at TJ?

Why would the 7th graders be in a separate class?

7th graders were always in their own class before because there were enough of them. It’s not “increasing rigor” to raise the scores needed to qualify the same year that you admittedly do not teach all of the advanced 6th grade math curriculum as usual because of virtual school/only 4 days of instruction per week. When you teach less AND raise the needed score without mentioning it I’m advance, that’s not raising the bar. It is quietly attempting to eliminate an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Public schools have many mission objectives they are asked to achieve. Those objectives might include:

1) Providing targeted academic instruction to the students with a goal of maximizing each student's educational attainment, and
2) Decreasing any differences in the educational attainment that exists between student groups when students are separately categorized on the basis of an immutable characteristic such as race, sex, ethnicity, gender, etc.

Parents that prioritize objective 1 may fear that schools have prioritized objective 2 and those parents may further be skeptical that objective 2 can be achieved concurrently with objective 1.

I think I'm hearing those parents ask that schools commit to objective 1 as the highest priority, and there is a perception that programs like VMPI do not commit to objective 1 as the highest priority (and, it is perceived, that the program either plainly states or suggests that it is not). Those parents may further perceive educators as dodging the question. People are angsty and its playing out here.

VMPI had multiple changes they were considering. Some aspects were focused on #1 and some were focused on #2.

Antsy parents got VDOE to stop considering the #2 aspects almost a year ago.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

You have a problem with VDOE making sure that Virginia's math curriculum isn't leaving certain students behind or unprepared to hold a job?

Of course not. But let’s not leave them behind by devoting resources to help them catch up and be their very best, not by holding advanced kids back.

VMPI would not do that. This was clarified a long time ago, you just don't want to acknowledge it because it guts your best argument against VMPI.

+1

People still “concerned” about advanced math are either not paying attention or have ulterior motives.

Yes, my ulterior motive was making sure my son could get into Algebra early before that opportunity was taken away from him.

LCPS changes weren’t driven by VMPI. You’re blaming VDOE for a decision LCPS made.

I’m the previous poster you are responding to. I don’t live in Loudoun County—I live in Arlington.

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

They didn’t take away the option, but they greatly (& quietly) increased the Math Inventory score needed in 6th grade (which was virtual & had asynchronous Mondays last year) to qualify for alegrara in 7th. At my kid’s APS middle school, there is no 7th grade alegra class this year. There are a few 7th graders taking algebra in an 8th grade class.

Wouldn’t raising expectations, such as entrance test scores, be increasing rigor? I thought the same people were having tantrums that not focusing on test scores was removing rigor at TJ?

Why would the 7th graders be in a separate class?

7th graders were always in their own class before because there were enough of them. It’s not “increasing rigor” to raise the scores needed to qualify the same year that you admittedly do not teach all of the advanced 6th grade math curriculum as usual because of virtual school/only 4 days of instruction per week. When you teach less AND raise the needed score without mentioning it I’m advance, that’s not raising the bar. It is quietly attempting to eliminate an option.

DP. It is, by definition, raising the bar of the students who are eligible.

The "rigor" would only change if they adjusted the class syllabus or grading scale.