VA math changes - ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Those of us with well behaved daughters on grade level know exactly how this will play out because we've seen it already in general education. They'll be used to "help" their lower performing peers rather than get any actual enrichment. No thank you.

This x1000. My quiet, well-behaved daughter spent several years stuck in a corner doing math worksheets. Once in AAP, she was always placed at the table with the misbehaving boys to "help" them behave. I am sick of teachers using girls to help maintain classroom order. What kind of message does this send about gender stereotypes? It is not my daughter's job to correct boys' misbehavior or help her peers learn math.

Teachers have to separate their rambunctious kids and seat them next to someone they won’t talk to. What other choice do we have? It’s always been this way and it always will. If you had to teach an 8th grade class, you’d end up putting the kids that won’t shut up next to the quiet ones as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

That still doesn't explain how the teacher is going to engage all levels of learners and ensure that both the top kids are engaged with the material and the bottom kids aren't being left behind. Many of the VMPI cheerleaders are acting as if all of the concerned parents are people clutching their pearls that their kids won't be allowed to take post-AP classes. Many of the concerned parents are also those with below-average or struggling students who are worried that their kids will no longer receive the support they need to be successful.

I’m a MS Math teacher and I can tell you we won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It actually doesn't work. The top groups only meet with the teacher like 15 minutes/week or even less, and then get warehoused on computers for the rest of class time. The lowest groups get all of the teacher's time and attention. For this program, since the kids who normally would take Algebra in 9th are going to start doing it in 8th, they'll need even more of the teacher's time and support in the early grades. Ignoring the top kids does not equal differentiating for them.

15 min per week? Not true at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Teachers have to separate their rambunctious kids and seat them next to someone they won’t talk to. What other choice do we have? It’s always been this way and it always will. If you had to teach an 8th grade class, you’d end up putting the kids that won’t shut up next to the quiet ones as well.

It's a shame that you're no longer allowed to punish the misbehaving kids. After a few detentions, they might try to be quiet and behave in class. I'd rather put the onus on them to behave than put it on the quiet, well behaved girls in the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

That still doesn't explain how the teacher is going to engage all levels of learners and ensure that both the top kids are engaged with the material and the bottom kids aren't being left behind. Many of the VMPI cheerleaders are acting as if all of the concerned parents are people clutching their pearls that their kids won't be allowed to take post-AP classes. Many of the concerned parents are also those with below-average or struggling students who are worried that their kids will no longer receive the support they need to be successful.

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

?
No it does not. The quicker kids mostly get ignored or sent to the computer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It actually doesn't work. The top groups only meet with the teacher like 15 minutes/week or even less, and then get warehoused on computers for the rest of class time. The lowest groups get all of the teacher's time and attention. For this program, since the kids who normally would take Algebra in 9th are going to start doing it in 8th, they'll need even more of the teacher's time and support in the early grades. Ignoring the top kids does not equal differentiating for them.

15 min per week? Not true at all.

Very true. My DD's classes usually have had 5 reading groups. The below grade level groups meet with the teacher every single day for 20-30 minutes each. The on-grade level groups meet with the teacher 3 times per week. My DD's above grade level group met with the teacher once/week for 15 minutes, and their slot was often canceled if there was a school holiday, assembly, or anything else happening.

Teachers advertise that they're differentiating for all ability levels. They don't tell you that they're only meeting with the above grade level kids once in a blue moon, and they're giving the bulk of their time to the struggling kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
32:20
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

Great. As long as they are actually covering Alg 1 / Geo / Alg 2 in 8-10 and at the right pace so that strong students are ready to cover all necessary pre-calc in 11th, calc in 12th, I'm good.

Sounds like they seem to think that all children will now magically be able to handle algebra 1 in 8th grade when they weren't before which seems like a huge stretch. Especially if the teachers in K-7 aren't supposed to be providing separate instruction for students who are struggling (that whole no ability grouping). Maybe you might want to test out how this is going to work before rolling it out to the whole state? (not that it matters to me personally -- my freshman may benefit from the new electives in 11th-12th but regardless will take calculus and not be part of their K-10 experiment)

Sounds like VA should adopt Common Core while we are at it...

With the introduction of the Common Core State Standards, most states spread traditional Algebra 1 content across grades eight and nine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It actually doesn't work. The top groups only meet with the teacher like 15 minutes/week or even less, and then get warehoused on computers for the rest of class time. The lowest groups get all of the teacher's time and attention. For this program, since the kids who normally would take Algebra in 9th are going to start doing it in 8th, they'll need even more of the teacher's time and support in the early grades. Ignoring the top kids does not equal differentiating for them.

15 min per week? Not true at all.

Very true. My DD's classes usually have had 5 reading groups. The below grade level groups meet with the teacher every single day for 20-30 minutes each. The on-grade level groups meet with the teacher 3 times per week. My DD's above grade level group met with the teacher once/week for 15 minutes, and their slot was often canceled if there was a school holiday, assembly, or anything else happening.

Teachers advertise that they're differentiating for all ability levels. They don't tell you that they're only meeting with the above grade level kids once in a blue moon, and they're giving the bulk of their time to the struggling kids.

My kids have 4 reading groups in their class and a reading assistant that pops in. 15 min per day with the teacher or assistant.

Clustering CAN work. Just because your school sucks doesn't mean we shouldn't change our approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

That still doesn't explain how the teacher is going to engage all levels of learners and ensure that both the top kids are engaged with the material and the bottom kids aren't being left behind. Many of the VMPI cheerleaders are acting as if all of the concerned parents are people clutching their pearls that their kids won't be allowed to take post-AP classes. Many of the concerned parents are also those with below-average or struggling students who are worried that their kids will no longer receive the support they need to be successful.

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It doesn’t work in other subjects either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It actually doesn't work. The top groups only meet with the teacher like 15 minutes/week or even less, and then get warehoused on computers for the rest of class time. The lowest groups get all of the teacher's time and attention. For this program, since the kids who normally would take Algebra in 9th are going to start doing it in 8th, they'll need even more of the teacher's time and support in the early grades. Ignoring the top kids does not equal differentiating for them.

15 min per week? Not true at all.

Very true. My DD's classes usually have had 5 reading groups. The below grade level groups meet with the teacher every single day for 20-30 minutes each. The on-grade level groups meet with the teacher 3 times per week. My DD's above grade level group met with the teacher once/week for 15 minutes, and their slot was often canceled if there was a school holiday, assembly, or anything else happening.

This matches my kids’ experience too and is why I am so against this proposal.
Teachers advertise that they're differentiating for all ability levels. They don't tell you that they're only meeting with the above grade level kids once in a blue moon, and they're giving the bulk of their time to the struggling kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's a Virginia-wide thing. The posters on here who are against this change are just making things up at this point, making huge assumptions, and just being ignorant. They have no trust in educators and think they no better than everyone else.

I take it you didn't watch the meeting when Tina Mazzacone tried unsuccessfully to sell this plan to a bunch of math teachers.

Did it show the teachers’ reactions? Where can you see the video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Teachers have to separate their rambunctious kids and seat them next to someone they won’t talk to. What other choice do we have? It’s always been this way and it always will. If you had to teach an 8th grade class, you’d end up putting the kids that won’t shut up next to the quiet ones as well.

It's a shame that you're no longer allowed to punish the misbehaving kids. After a few detentions, they might try to be quiet and behave in class. I'd rather put the onus on them to behave than put it on the quiet, well behaved girls in the class.

No, we can’t discipline kids. It’s not “equitable”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

That still doesn't explain how the teacher is going to engage all levels of learners and ensure that both the top kids are engaged with the material and the bottom kids aren't being left behind. Many of the VMPI cheerleaders are acting as if all of the concerned parents are people clutching their pearls that their kids won't be allowed to take post-AP classes. Many of the concerned parents are also those with below-average or struggling students who are worried that their kids will no longer receive the support they need to be successful.

Clustering works today to differentiate and provide additional challenge/supports for ELA, ES math, etc. Not sure why you think that won't work.

It doesn’t work in other subjects either.

Sounds like your school is understaffed and/or the classes are too large:
http://www.sfusdmath.org/uploads/2/4/0/9/24098802/boaler_de-tracking.pdf
When heterogeneous teaching is done well, students also come to appreciate working with students from different levels, as one of the students at Railside reflected:
Everybody in there is at a different level. But what makes the class good is that everybody‘s at different levels so everybody‘s constantly teaching each other and helping each other out. (Zane, Railside, Year 2)

The best way for anyone to deeply understand a concept is to have to explain it to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Tracking is harmful. We can do better.

https://www.smartbrief.com/s/2019/11/does-tracking-harm-students-math-performance
When students are tracked into either advanced or non-advanced classes, especially in math, their performance may suffer because of a belief that they are not smart enough, writes Stanford University professor Jo Boaler. She cites efforts by the San Francisco Unified School District, where the number of students failing algebra dropped from 40% to 8% after students no longer were tracked.

[Anonymous]

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-dont-track-algebra/2018/07

As the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, I applaud the de-tracking efforts of San Francisco Unified School District in middle school math, which creates pathways for all students to have access to continued studies in the subject (“In San Francisco, A Bold Effort to De-Track Algebra,” June 13, 2018). The article indicates that students who are traditionally underserved in math are showing improvement in achievement and increased enrollment in advanced studies in the subject without negative impacts on other students.

It’s important to note that SFUSD made considerable investments in supporting teachers in refining their teaching practices and that the district provided math coaches for teachers. The district is also making curricula changes. As the story states, de-tracking requires far more than simply rearranging students into heterogeneous mathematics classrooms.

It requires supporting the mindset that all students are capable of doing rigorous math; it requires supporting educators who teach students with diverse needs and diverse ways of learning; it requires making sure that the curriculum is rigorous; and it requires building classroom communities that support all learners.

NCTM’s recently published book Catalyzing Change in High School Mathematics: Initiating Critical Conversations recommends the elimination of tracking students. Other school districts should look at SFUSD as an example. It is time to identify tracking practices and stop them. Tracking can lead to the distribution of students in high- and low-ability classrooms in ways that are correlated with the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities found in the broader society.

It’s time to begin the courageous work needed to intentionally and systematically remove tracking’s barriers and the associated instructional practices. Instead, we must move toward creating pathways for success in mathematics for each and every student.

Robert Q. Berry, III
President
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Charlottesville, Va.

(UVA professor)