Old VMPI plans & FCPS’s E3 Math Pilot

[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:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?

Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.

Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.

Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.

I had Algebra 1 in 7th grade 50 years ago in a small town in PA, so really FCPS hasn't advanced beyond that standard. Ended Senior year with MV Calc. The world is passing FCPS by, fortunately San Francisco and other backward moving systems will help keep FCPS on top.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

You have zero evidence for this--when people with direct experience with the pilot and working with advanced students are telling you different. Sounds like you're just trying to stir things up.

Tina Mazzacane works for FCPS, and is on record saying we need to eliminate the practice of putting kids in inferior classes- no tracking.
I read on here that LCPS is also implementing this, but have seen no evidence for it. LCPS's staff has a person who e-mailed Tina Mazzacane that she supported eliminating tracking for equity reasons.
I think they still have that goal, but with elimination of VMPI, it is harder to do. We will see what gets implemented. My prediction is the number of kids taking algebra in 7th will drop, perhaps with a higher benchmark for qualifying, or perhaps this E3 will reduce the number of kids capable of meeting the current benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You've made this argument before in other threads. Can you say what it is based on? At present, FCPS is trying to raise the share of underrepresented students taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade so they may be doing outreach and providing encouragement for these kids to consider taking Algebra 1. Are you in a school where this is occurring? But this effort is focused on the demographic shares of who takes Algebra 1 in 8th grade, not the overall share of students taking Algebra 1 itself. If anything, the theme in national math reform efforts (beginning with Common Core) is to encourage kids to delay Algebra 1 until 9th grade. There has been no signal that I can think of that indicates FCPS is advocating 8th grade Algebra 1 for all students. Can you elaborate on your thinking?

Just to correct this opinion, there is "no theme" - this is the power fantasy of a clique of "math ed" people like Jo Boaler. These are people who (a) have no clue of math, (b) have been deliberately misrepresenting research, and (c) are driven by personal gain (though like with all similar "leaders," the majority of their followers is driven by a combination of lack of knowledge and ideological beliefs.)

So-called "underrepresented students" have the same right as everyone else to do math and they are hurt by these "reform efforts" as much as everyone else. Actually, more so if you look at California's results:

O’Connell High School enrolled the highest percentage of Black students among the district’s comprehensive high schools in the 2018-19 school year. In the 2014-15 school year, based on standardized tests, a mere 6% of the school’s Black students met math standards. As bad as that sounds, it got worse after the district changed the way it taught math. In the 2018-19 school year, that number dropped to 0%.

Willie Brown Middle School had the highest percentage of Black enrollment that same year among middle schools. Since it opened in 2015, the percentage of students meeting math standards dropped from 14% to 7.8% in 2019. The percentage of Black students meeting standards remained below 4% during all four of those years in between. In the 2018-19 school year, only 1.5% of the school’s 84 Black students met math standards.

[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:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?

Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.

Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.

Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.

I had Algebra 1 in 7th grade 50 years ago in a small town in PA, so really FCPS hasn't advanced beyond that standard. Ended Senior year with MV Calc. The world is passing FCPS by, fortunately San Francisco and other backward moving systems will help keep FCPS on top.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

You have zero evidence for this--when people with direct experience with the pilot and working with advanced students are telling you different. Sounds like you're just trying to stir things up.

Tina Mazzacane works for FCPS, and is on record saying we need to eliminate the practice of putting kids in inferior classes- no tracking.
I read on here that LCPS is also implementing this, but have seen no evidence for it. LCPS's staff has a person who e-mailed Tina Mazzacane that she supported eliminating tracking for equity reasons.
I think they still have that goal, but with elimination of VMPI, it is harder to do. We will see what gets implemented. My prediction is the number of kids taking algebra in 7th will drop, perhaps with a higher benchmark for qualifying, or perhaps this E3 will reduce the number of kids capable of meeting the current benchmark.

One person with no power discussed the benefits of tracking once. Classic Republican fearmongering.

A higher benchmark? Great. Glad we are raising the bar.

[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:America is so far behind in math and FCPS isn’t doing its students any favors. Students who want to and are capable should be able to take Algebra 1 in 6th grade and allow students to take more advance math beyond AP Calc and AP Stat as seniors. Particularly those students that want to excel in STEM or other quantitative fields such as Economics.

Why? I took Calc BC as a senior in HS, Diff Eq as a freshman in college, and got a BSEE. I took every undergrad math classes available and ran out by my last year. What's the rush?

Ok, let's be serious for a minute.

What's really at stake is that different children have different abilities, particularly when it comes to mathematics. Because of that, they should be separated so that those who are better (from their aptitude) and engage better (from their passion) can be better challenged. This is an obligation we have as a society.

There is a problem here, which is that we do not have (nearly enough) math teachers in the US who can do that - because most teacher's math skills are rudimentary at best and/or because they are indoctrinated by the math ed folks like Boaler. The only solution we have is to have them cover later, and in general more challenging, topics earlier. This way, teachers can teach from given curricula and follow materials. This is far from ideal but it's the best we have at this point. Those of us whose children have gone through Algebra I/II, Geometry, and even Calculus see how watered down these programs are. My child did worksheet after worksheet in Algebra I, got a 100% as average score on quizzes and tests, but wasn't asked to solve a single interesting math problem the entire year. We needed to supplement a lot, but it still beat the alternative of having them sit in an "extension based" math class on time-wasting activities that for some count as math. (Can you say glue.)

Why do I say this? Because the people proposing "extension based activities" that "go deep" and other nonsense have no clue of mathematics. Read Boaler's emails (Quote: "we are wondering if “inequalities” are at all relevant in data science"). Or recall the total quackery they displayed in the VMPI Youtube broadcasts.

So as much as it's not ideal, asking teachers to teach traditional material to more capable children in a separate setting at a younger age is the best solution we have under the constraints we're under. Incidentally, this is the best solution for everyone regardless of their talent. The alternative is to kill everyone's love of and skills in math the way SFUSD did.

PP here. The San Francisco example is easy to understand and see why it's problematic.

But rather than push for Algebra to be earlier and earlier, why don't we push for a return to rigor that the US public school system used to have?

Exactly.

Rushing kids through the system doesn’t address the issue.

Math reformers like Boaler define rushing as taking Algebra 1 before 9th grade and many local school districts seem sympathetic to that. That might work for some kids, but for many, that is not a good fit. Look at San Francisco's math reform and how it has prompted a surge in workarounds as kids try to get around their 9th grade Algebra 1 policy. Reformers are concerned about rushing math in elementary and middle school but don't seem at all concerned with rushing high school kids who want calculus.

Developmentally, most kids aren't ready for abstract thinking until they are a little older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151197/

Even so, I think Algebra 1 should be available to 8th graders as a path to calculus. But acceleration beyond that is unnecessary in the grand scheme of things.

Some kids are fine with abstract thinking earlier. We shouldn't be forcing all kids to slow down until all are ready. Many education researchers focus a lot on process skills and less on content knowledge. The latter is important and the more you practice procedures, the better the student comes to understand the material. Cramming Algebra 2 and Precalculus into one year without giving time to spiral through that content over several years as Boaler and San Francisco recommend is not the way to learn the material well.

Again, I think offering Algebra 1 in 8th is reasonable and gives the option to do calculus in HS.

Do you agree with removing current offering of Algebra in 7th to the small group of kids who qualify?

I dont see why you anyone would support removing this option. The county's accelerated science and math offerings in high school are much more expansive than 25 years ago. This is built partly on this small group of accelerated kids who tend to be academically focused across the board. This has contributed to FCPS reputation as an elite school system. TJ is also built on this reputation and its exceptional students.

I had Algebra 1 in 7th grade 50 years ago in a small town in PA, so really FCPS hasn't advanced beyond that standard. Ended Senior year with MV Calc. The world is passing FCPS by, fortunately San Francisco and other backward moving systems will help keep FCPS on top.

They are trying to get to being behind that standard, and have algebra for 8th grade at best, with a later goal of algebra in 9th grade for maximum equity.

You have zero evidence for this--when people with direct experience with the pilot and working with advanced students are telling you different. Sounds like you're just trying to stir things up.

Tina Mazzacane works for FCPS, and is on record saying we need to eliminate the practice of putting kids in inferior classes- no tracking.
I read on here that LCPS is also implementing this, but have seen no evidence for it. LCPS's staff has a person who e-mailed Tina Mazzacane that she supported eliminating tracking for equity reasons.
I think they still have that goal, but with elimination of VMPI, it is harder to do. We will see what gets implemented. My prediction is the number of kids taking algebra in 7th will drop, perhaps with a higher benchmark for qualifying, or perhaps this E3 will reduce the number of kids capable of meeting the current benchmark.

This may be true. Current e3 4th grade math does not include much of the concepts presented here:
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/elementary/fourth-grade/year-at-a-glance/advanced-math

These are identical to regular 5th grade math here:
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/elementary/fifth-grade/year-at-a-glance/math

The extensions aren’t accelerated but instead “deeper.”

So if you are in e3 and moving to advanced math in 5th (actually 6th), you need to supplement and talk to your kid and ensure they are prepared on these topics to avoid having to play catch up. Some kids will absorb these uncovered topics better than others. But just be aware that there is a gap in the topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One year of Calculus for STEM kids is not fine, especially the watered down version in FCPS.

Not everyone needs higher level math but some professions do. Kids coming out of FCPS are behind their peers from outside the US and most likely from quality schools in the US.

Don’t hold back the kids who have an affinity for math.

How is it watered down?

The usual, group assignments, test retakes, not covering all the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You've made this argument before in other threads. Can you say what it is based on? At present, FCPS is trying to raise the share of underrepresented students taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade so they may be doing outreach and providing encouragement for these kids to consider taking Algebra 1. Are you in a school where this is occurring? But this effort is focused on the demographic shares of who takes Algebra 1 in 8th grade, not the overall share of students taking Algebra 1 itself. If anything, the theme in national math reform efforts (beginning with Common Core) is to encourage kids to delay Algebra 1 until 9th grade. There has been no signal that I can think of that indicates FCPS is advocating 8th grade Algebra 1 for all students. Can you elaborate on your thinking?

Just to correct this opinion, there is "no theme" - this is the power fantasy of a clique of "math ed" people like Jo Boaler. These are people who (a) have no clue of math, (b) have been deliberately misrepresenting research, and (c) are driven by personal gain (though like with all similar "leaders," the majority of their followers is driven by a combination of lack of knowledge and ideological beliefs.)

So-called "underrepresented students" have the same right as everyone else to do math and they are hurt by these "reform efforts" as much as everyone else. Actually, more so if you look at California's results:

O’Connell High School enrolled the highest percentage of Black students among the district’s comprehensive high schools in the 2018-19 school year. In the 2014-15 school year, based on standardized tests, a mere 6% of the school’s Black students met math standards. As bad as that sounds, it got worse after the district changed the way it taught math. In the 2018-19 school year, that number dropped to 0%.

Willie Brown Middle School had the highest percentage of Black enrollment that same year among middle schools. Since it opened in 2015, the percentage of students meeting math standards dropped from 14% to 7.8% in 2019. The percentage of Black students meeting standards remained below 4% during all four of those years in between. In the 2018-19 school year, only 1.5% of the school’s 84 Black students met math standards.

From the very same article:
At Presidio and Roosevelt Middle Schools, the two middle schools with the highest percentages of white students, test scores saw significant improvement. The percentage of Black and Latino students meeting standards increased by double digits at both schools.

More evidence that socioeconomic and racial integration of kids leads to improved results for everyone. FCPS needs to address the fact that we have created a significant fracture between the high-FARMs and low-FARMs schools. Otherwise we'll never move past having a sizable fraction of failing schools that will continually suck away attention from the other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You've made this argument before in other threads. Can you say what it is based on? At present, FCPS is trying to raise the share of underrepresented students taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade so they may be doing outreach and providing encouragement for these kids to consider taking Algebra 1. Are you in a school where this is occurring? But this effort is focused on the demographic shares of who takes Algebra 1 in 8th grade, not the overall share of students taking Algebra 1 itself. If anything, the theme in national math reform efforts (beginning with Common Core) is to encourage kids to delay Algebra 1 until 9th grade. There has been no signal that I can think of that indicates FCPS is advocating 8th grade Algebra 1 for all students. Can you elaborate on your thinking?

Just to correct this opinion, there is "no theme" - this is the power fantasy of a clique of "math ed" people like Jo Boaler. These are people who (a) have no clue of math, (b) have been deliberately misrepresenting research, and (c) are driven by personal gain (though like with all similar "leaders," the majority of their followers is driven by a combination of lack of knowledge and ideological beliefs.)

So-called "underrepresented students" have the same right as everyone else to do math and they are hurt by these "reform efforts" as much as everyone else. Actually, more so if you look at California's results:

O’Connell High School enrolled the highest percentage of Black students among the district’s comprehensive high schools in the 2018-19 school year. In the 2014-15 school year, based on standardized tests, a mere 6% of the school’s Black students met math standards. As bad as that sounds, it got worse after the district changed the way it taught math. In the 2018-19 school year, that number dropped to 0%.

Willie Brown Middle School had the highest percentage of Black enrollment that same year among middle schools. Since it opened in 2015, the percentage of students meeting math standards dropped from 14% to 7.8% in 2019. The percentage of Black students meeting standards remained below 4% during all four of those years in between. In the 2018-19 school year, only 1.5% of the school’s 84 Black students met math standards.

From the very same article:
At Presidio and Roosevelt Middle Schools, the two middle schools with the highest percentages of white students, test scores saw significant improvement. The percentage of Black and Latino students meeting standards increased by double digits at both schools.

More evidence that socioeconomic and racial integration of kids leads to improved results for everyone. FCPS needs to address the fact that we have created a significant fracture between the high-FARMs and low-FARMs schools. Otherwise we'll never move past having a sizable fraction of failing schools that will continually suck away attention from the other schools.

That quote doesn't say anything about "everyone". It only says "the percentage of Black and Latino students meeting standards increased" (which is good) and avoids saying anything about "White" or Asian outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Posting this here since it is popping up a bit in the AAP thread but it would impact all types of students…

Some here may that last year VDOE proposed in its VMPI (VA math pathways initiative) to do away with any type of math grouping of kids before 11th grade so that the only potential differentiation for math that would be delivered would be in-class (as in what happens in K-2 now, not what happens in 3-12 now). VDOE then stepped away from that idea after backlash.

Apparently FCPS is piloting this idea now though at the ES level and intends to expand it over the next few years. This is part of their published improvement plan. My youngest is in 5th so I don’t have a direct dog in this fight but thought others with younger kids may want to be aware and on the lookout for when the proposal gets drafted for expanding this program. Link and details below:

https://www.fcps.edu/node/44416

“Partner with the Advanced Academic Office to launch the Engaging, Enhanced, and Extended Mathematics (E3) Network, a group of 10 schools from across the division that will implement E3. The purpose of E3 is to broaden the access for all third and fourth graders to a more rigorous curriculum in elementary mathematics. E3 raises the rigor for all students through an enhanced program of studies that layers more opportunities for depth and complexity through flexible delivery of Advanced Academic extensions.
…
Write and obtain feedback on a five-year strategic plan to implement…the expansion of E3 in elementary schools.

I tried to access the link above. It still leads to an FCPS page, but now says

“You are not authorized . . . “


Seems they made that public-school page secret.