APS Block Schedule - 90 minute core classes

[Anonymous]

At least at Gunston kids have one period that meets for a shorter time each day. has APS done a study to see if kids who have math or English in that block see a larger increase in their DOL scores than the kids who take those classes in a longer block that meets 2-3 days a week? this seems like an easy thing to study!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

Your response gets to my point. The county does not give them adequate planning time or support, and thus are allocating class time for administrative tasks to save money. That’s why the county likes block scheduling.

Okay, so you prefer traditional scheduling where they have no time during the day at all to do those things and have to work all night at home? That's why we are losing teachers!

I support the model where we have regular periods so kids spend more of their time at school engaged and learning, and then hiring support staff and adequate teachers to allow teachers to be fully engaged in class time and not being work home. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Sure, but that isn't happening, so pick your poison.

My preference is to prioritize instruction time, and then teachers can advocate for more support. Rather than downshifting expectations for in class instruction to gain paid planning time.

So when are the teachers supposed to plan lessons for this instruction time

The way the did for last centure, in a planning period.

Read that FCPS thread about teachers quitting and how they talk about the increased demands from administration, more and more mandatory meetings and committees, not to mention IEP meetings and parents wanting to meet. It's changed a lot over the past century and now appears to be at a tipping point.

Can we not just be grateful that teachers are trying their best no matter what the schedule is? Why try to cut them down picking apart the 90 min. block as if they are wasting that time or getting away with something?

My point is that it is too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 minutes classes, it’s tiring for both teacher and student. I am only bashing the argument that they need the block for planning — that’s some administration should fix.

Why do you think it’s too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 min?

They are filling it! The teacher a couple pages back described exactly how - some presentation, some independent work. That is all part of teaching, it's just some people don't want to accept this for some strange reason.

DP. I think a question is why do independent reading in class when that can be done at home?

Not a teacher but my guess would be, what if some kids don't read it? Then it's hard to have a productive discussion. If you give everyone 20 min. to reach chapter 3 and then have a discussion, it might be more effective.

Makes sense, but then there's a lost opportunity for interactive learning that could have occurred with the teacher or peers during that time. Trade-offs, I guess. Still seems disappointing to have everyone lose the interactivity because some kids don't read it otherwise.

You don’t lose the interactivity. You actually get to have it because everyone for sure did the reading. We all read a chapter together - everyone has read it now. They even processed it together as they read! We have an activity or discussion or written response based on that reading. There is time for this in an 88 minute block.

But you don't seem to ever get through an entire book. I am waiting for one of my high schoolers to read a whole book for an English class. I'm sorry, one did read one full book. So, how about reading multiple books in their entirety? That enhances understanding and processing even more!

That is why we also build in independent reading time! Honestly fight your moms on this. Schools have been doing block since the 90s, fighting about it today like it’s APS trying to personally make your life miserable is stupid.

This is WITH independent reading time! You don't make the students read the full novels! My oldest only read part of the Odyssey. My second also only had to read partS of The Odyssey - but decided to read the whole thing on their own anyway. One of mine read all of "to Kill a Mockingbird" - the ONLY full book read that whole year - but the class took TWO MONTHS to get through it.

I Don't know what "fight your moms on this" is supposed to mean. I'm fine with block scheduling. It's the curriculum, or lack thereof, and not holding kids to higher expectations that I have issue with.

Sorry, I don’t know who “you” are. My 10th graders last year read ALL of Macbeth, Maus, Frankenstein, Monster, their independent reading books, and 8-10 short paired texts per quarter. I’m not unusual for this either.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

Your response gets to my point. The county does not give them adequate planning time or support, and thus are allocating class time for administrative tasks to save money. That’s why the county likes block scheduling.

Okay, so you prefer traditional scheduling where they have no time during the day at all to do those things and have to work all night at home? That's why we are losing teachers!

I support the model where we have regular periods so kids spend more of their time at school engaged and learning, and then hiring support staff and adequate teachers to allow teachers to be fully engaged in class time and not being work home. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Sure, but that isn't happening, so pick your poison.

My preference is to prioritize instruction time, and then teachers can advocate for more support. Rather than downshifting expectations for in class instruction to gain paid planning time.

So when are the teachers supposed to plan lessons for this instruction time

The way the did for last centure, in a planning period.

Read that FCPS thread about teachers quitting and how they talk about the increased demands from administration, more and more mandatory meetings and committees, not to mention IEP meetings and parents wanting to meet. It's changed a lot over the past century and now appears to be at a tipping point.

Can we not just be grateful that teachers are trying their best no matter what the schedule is? Why try to cut them down picking apart the 90 min. block as if they are wasting that time or getting away with something?

My point is that it is too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 minutes classes, it’s tiring for both teacher and student. I am only bashing the argument that they need the block for planning — that’s some administration should fix.

Why do you think it’s too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 min?

They are filling it! The teacher a couple pages back described exactly how - some presentation, some independent work. That is all part of teaching, it's just some people don't want to accept this for some strange reason.

Because in their 80s/90s childhoods, teachers stood at the blackboard and lectured for an hour a day and they demand that model come back (spoiler alert: it never will).

High school English for me was mostly discussion based with no long lectures and no independent reading time. It assumed kids had done the reading at home. Did everyone do this? No, but then they just didn't participate in the discussion. Maybe they learned about the book from the discussion, maybe they crammed it in before a test or paper, or maybe they never did. But the class moved on, without treading water while kids who didn’t do the homework read.

A high school teacher earlier said that kids who have recently learned English are motivated and are reading - it's the kids watching videos on their phones who are not. It's a shame to ask motivated, likely lower-income kids to accommodate less-motivated, middle class kids on phones by carving independent reading time out of active instruction and discussion time. It seems like we're bringing instruction down to the level of the least motivated student. This doesn't reflect on teachers, but rather the overall system that pressures schools to pass everyone and have everyone hit minimum SOL achievement levels even if it means using class time to do homework to ensure it gets done.

If kids playing video games never face any penalty from doing so and continue to pass their courses, why stop playing video games? Better to keep class moving without the fallback of independent reading/homework time in class. Maybe the video game kids get a bad grade or don't pass an SOL as a result. That might convince them to put the video games down.

It’s actually funny to me when parents on here freak out about there being EL students in their kids’ classes. Sure they need a little more scaffolding and assistance but that comes from the teacher’s time , not the other students’. The EL students are SO motivated to learn. They increase the engagement level in their classes because they want to participate and learn. School is not a “given” to them and learning how to read and write and speak and understand a speaker by listening are skills they see immense value in and want to build. Take a regular Gen Ed class and a class with EL students in it (and I would know because I teach both), and the one with EL students is a better environment overall. They add to their classes, not detract, but so many parents don’t see that and would never believe 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

Your response gets to my point. The county does not give them adequate planning time or support, and thus are allocating class time for administrative tasks to save money. That’s why the county likes block scheduling.

Okay, so you prefer traditional scheduling where they have no time during the day at all to do those things and have to work all night at home? That's why we are losing teachers!

I support the model where we have regular periods so kids spend more of their time at school engaged and learning, and then hiring support staff and adequate teachers to allow teachers to be fully engaged in class time and not being work home. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Sure, but that isn't happening, so pick your poison.

My preference is to prioritize instruction time, and then teachers can advocate for more support. Rather than downshifting expectations for in class instruction to gain paid planning time.

Why do you think kids get LESS instructional time with a block schedule?

With a mod schedule in MS, they spend less time changing classes (+4 minutes x 3 changes), less time getting settled & warming up in each classroom (+5 min x 3 classes), and less time reviewing at the end of a class (+2 x 3 classes).

So by only having 4 classes per day instead of seven, they are adding 33+ minutes of meaningful time in class.

Look at the compressed “anchor day” schedule - they have very little time in each class. 46 min.

And whether it’s mod or not, they still have in-class writing assignments, classwork, group work, etc.

How old are your kids? Have they actually been in an APS school with a mod schedule yet?

I think the impression is they get more actual instruction time because the teachers, on an every day schedule, would be "instructing" the whole time - or most of the time - 5 days a week (5 x 40 = 200 minutes of instruction); whereas with the 90 minute blocks, they may only lecture/instruct for half that time (45 x 2 = 90; or 45 x 3 = 135 minutes of actual instruction per week v. the 200 minutes a week from every day). The impression is that there is a lot of non-instruction time taking place that otherwise would not. Kids are doing "homework" in class instead of at home; so class time is being taken up by activity that used to be done after school or outside of class.

Why exactly do you think there is 45 minutes of “non-instruction” time x 4 classes every day? You think they really have three hours each day in the classroom with no instruction?

Where are you getting your info?

If you read carefully, you should note I was speculating an answer to the question as to why people think kids are getting less instructional time. I think people think they're getting less instructional time because they have the impression that half of every block period consists of non-instruction (or work that used to be done outside of class, therefore taking away instructional time that they otherwise would have with a daily schedule.

Who exactly has that “impression”?

Just because some rando person without a kid in MS said it doesn’t make it true.

Please just look up the word "speculation."

So your post, based on zero facts, is meaningless.

OK. Opinions are meaningless. So don't complain or ask again why people think kids are getting less instruction time. I personally like block scheduling.

My comments were intended for the PP who wrote this and continued with the false narrative of teachers using class time for planning:
“The county does not give them adequate planning time or support, and thus are allocating class time for administrative tasks”.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

Your response gets to my point. The county does not give them adequate planning time or support, and thus are allocating class time for administrative tasks to save money. That’s why the county likes block scheduling.

Okay, so you prefer traditional scheduling where they have no time during the day at all to do those things and have to work all night at home? That's why we are losing teachers!

I support the model where we have regular periods so kids spend more of their time at school engaged and learning, and then hiring support staff and adequate teachers to allow teachers to be fully engaged in class time and not being work home. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Sure, but that isn't happening, so pick your poison.

My preference is to prioritize instruction time, and then teachers can advocate for more support. Rather than downshifting expectations for in class instruction to gain paid planning time.

So when are the teachers supposed to plan lessons for this instruction time

The way the did for last centure, in a planning period.

Read that FCPS thread about teachers quitting and how they talk about the increased demands from administration, more and more mandatory meetings and committees, not to mention IEP meetings and parents wanting to meet. It's changed a lot over the past century and now appears to be at a tipping point.

Can we not just be grateful that teachers are trying their best no matter what the schedule is? Why try to cut them down picking apart the 90 min. block as if they are wasting that time or getting away with something?

My point is that it is too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 minutes classes, it’s tiring for both teacher and student. I am only bashing the argument that they need the block for planning — that’s some administration should fix.

Why do you think it’s too difficult for a teacher to fill 90 min?

They are filling it! The teacher a couple pages back described exactly how - some presentation, some independent work. That is all part of teaching, it's just some people don't want to accept this for some strange reason.

DP. I think a question is why do independent reading in class when that can be done at home?

Not a teacher but my guess would be, what if some kids don't read it? Then it's hard to have a productive discussion. If you give everyone 20 min. to reach chapter 3 and then have a discussion, it might be more effective.

Makes sense, but then there's a lost opportunity for interactive learning that could have occurred with the teacher or peers during that time. Trade-offs, I guess. Still seems disappointing to have everyone lose the interactivity because some kids don't read it otherwise.

You don’t lose the interactivity. You actually get to have it because everyone for sure did the reading. We all read a chapter together - everyone has read it now. They even processed it together as they read! We have an activity or discussion or written response based on that reading. There is time for this in an 88 minute block.

But you don't seem to ever get through an entire book. I am waiting for one of my high schoolers to read a whole book for an English class. I'm sorry, one did read one full book. So, how about reading multiple books in their entirety? That enhances understanding and processing even more!

That is why we also build in independent reading time! Honestly fight your moms on this. Schools have been doing block since the 90s, fighting about it today like it’s APS trying to personally make your life miserable is stupid.

This is WITH independent reading time! You don't make the students read the full novels! My oldest only read part of the Odyssey. My second also only had to read partS of The Odyssey - but decided to read the whole thing on their own anyway. One of mine read all of "to Kill a Mockingbird" - the ONLY full book read that whole year - but the class took TWO MONTHS to get through it.

I Don't know what "fight your moms on this" is supposed to mean. I'm fine with block scheduling. It's the curriculum, or lack thereof, and not holding kids to higher expectations that I have issue with.

Sorry, I don’t know who “you” are. My 10th graders last year read ALL of Macbeth, Maus, Frankenstein, Monster, their independent reading books, and 8-10 short paired texts per quarter. I’m not unusual for this either.

I'm a mom to 2 APS high schoolers - a senior and a sophomore. One general ed English, the other intensified English path. Clearly there is a problem with consistency across classes/schools in APS because neither have read that many novels in their entirety.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

Learning? Or being lectured to the entire time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

Thank you for posting (and for teaching). Very helpful. One question. My high school English class (45 minutes, each day) involved the teacher giving a mini-lesson and then leading a discussion of the themes/literary techniques for stories/books we read for homework for the rest of class. Sometimes, kids would keep a journal as they did their assigned reading at night, to document their thoughts to be better able to discuss in class. If a paper was due, the teacher might focus her mini-lesson on writing techniques, using anonymized prior student writing samples to show what worked and what didn't. Overall though, the focus in class was on analyzing the assigned reading we had done at home. I am sure you have rich class discussions as well but do you feel that the time spent in independent reading and work takes away time that could be spent in guided class analysis and discussion? Independent reading is surely important, but is there an advantage to doing it at school versus at home? Is the fear that not all kids read at home so this is a way to ensure that they do?

The short answer is we do a lot of the reading in class (sometimes individually, sometimes as a group) because unless it’s an AP class you can’t assume the kids will have read on their own or that they did and understood well enough to have a thoughtful discussion. We do a lot of it in class because with work and activities kids will not go home and read it. This is especially true in an academic level or inclusion class where the kids legitimately need reading support to access the texts meaningfully.

Thanks for this. If kids are struggling with reading and understanding the text, that's a significant challenge for them and you. Is it a language barrier for some? Are these kids that have graduated from EL but may still not have the reading skills needed for regular classes?

No. They’re actually really motivated to learn English and will read. It’s your basic Gen Ed kid who doesn’t like reading and would rather play video games or their phone than read a book at home. Very common.

I'm an ESOL teacher and while I love my students, not all of them are motivated and love to read. Same is true for gen-ed kids - some of them love to read and some don't. It's annoying to hear generalizations like that.

[Anonymous]

My kids love a block schedule. There are fewer transitions and they’re not trying to do homework in 7 classes each night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

This was PP who started the idea that the teachers are grading papers or planning, they framed it as a positive.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

Thank you for posting (and for teaching). Very helpful. One question. My high school English class (45 minutes, each day) involved the teacher giving a mini-lesson and then leading a discussion of the themes/literary techniques for stories/books we read for homework for the rest of class. Sometimes, kids would keep a journal as they did their assigned reading at night, to document their thoughts to be better able to discuss in class. If a paper was due, the teacher might focus her mini-lesson on writing techniques, using anonymized prior student writing samples to show what worked and what didn't. Overall though, the focus in class was on analyzing the assigned reading we had done at home. I am sure you have rich class discussions as well but do you feel that the time spent in independent reading and work takes away time that could be spent in guided class analysis and discussion? Independent reading is surely important, but is there an advantage to doing it at school versus at home? Is the fear that not all kids read at home so this is a way to ensure that they do?

The short answer is we do a lot of the reading in class (sometimes individually, sometimes as a group) because unless it’s an AP class you can’t assume the kids will have read on their own or that they did and understood well enough to have a thoughtful discussion. We do a lot of it in class because with work and activities kids will not go home and read it. This is especially true in an academic level or inclusion class where the kids legitimately need reading support to access the texts meaningfully.

Thanks for this. If kids are struggling with reading and understanding the text, that's a significant challenge for them and you. Is it a language barrier for some? Are these kids that have graduated from EL but may still not have the reading skills needed for regular classes?

No. They’re actually really motivated to learn English and will read. It’s your basic Gen Ed kid who doesn’t like reading and would rather play video games or their phone than read a book at home. Very common.

I'm an ESOL teacher and while I love my students, not all of them are motivated and love to read. Same is true for gen-ed kids - some of them love to read and some don't. It's annoying to hear generalizations like that.

Of course they’re generalizations. But the Pp immediately jumped to “you mean it’s the EL kids who don’t want to read” and no, that’s not always the case. Parents here love to act as if EL or SPED students ruin THEIR child’s class or take away teacher time THEIR kid should get.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

No one is lecturing middle school students for 88 minutes straight.

Heck, no one is lecturing middle school students for 44 minutes straight.