APS Block Schedule - 90 minute core classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

I am sorry if I confused you. We are maintaining our pace vis a vis the curriculum. The intensity of the pace within the classroom has changed since we actually have more time in one 90-minute class than we did in two 50-minute classes because we are able to use the time more wisely. I only have to take attendance once, make assignments once, do a warm-up once, etc. All those things that are little time drags are done once, rather than twice. That means that we have more time for teaching and learning, and less time spent performing the "housekeeping" functions (if you ever go to conferences then you've heard this term before in the context of PD and it applies to classrooms as well) of a classroom.

What was the class duration & frequency before the shift and after? PP mentioned 5x per week for 50 minutes, moving to 2x per week for 90 minutes. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

I am sorry if I confused you. We are maintaining our pace vis a vis the curriculum. The intensity of the pace within the classroom has changed since we actually have more time in one 90-minute class than we did in two 50-minute classes because we are able to use the time more wisely. I only have to take attendance once, make assignments once, do a warm-up once, etc. All those things that are little time drags are done once, rather than twice. That means that we have more time for teaching and learning, and less time spent performing the "housekeeping" functions (if you ever go to conferences then you've heard this term before in the context of PD and it applies to classrooms as well) of a classroom.

What was the class duration & frequency before the shift and after? PP mentioned 5x per week for 50 minutes, moving to 2x per week for 90 minutes. Is that right?

Parent here: 90 min 2x/week is misleading. Block scheduling in APS is set-up as alternating days. So a class meets twice a week, then 3 times the next week, etc. Days off interrupt the pattern; but the classes continue to alternative every other day so you still get the same amount of instruction time throughout the year for all the classes.

I would also suggest in support of the comments from the teacher above, that part of the time being used more efficiently stems from being able to spend the time on a topic or in a discussion to the point that more/all of the students "get it" rather than being cut-off by the 45-minute bell and then having to resume the discussion the next day. Repeating and reviewing in order to continue eats up time at the beginning of the next 45-minute class period. Therefore, you (at least theoretically) can accomplish more (and accomplish it better) in fewer 90-minute segments than you can in more 45-minute segments.

[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:

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.

I didn’t say they were. They are filling up that time with various types of learning (half of which parents are denigrating as “study hall”) to create shorter chunks of tasks and to differentiate the learning going on. Some parents here seem to feel that doing that isn’t teaching. It is, and kids are learning, but if you define learning as “sitting and taking notes and tests,” no, no kid can do that for 88 minutes. It wouldn’t be learning. And it’s why we don’t structure block classes that way.

Stop repeating the lie that half of the class is used as study hall.

Please god read what people write. I said the kids have various LEARNING TASKS that HALF THE PARENTS HERE denigrate as “study hall.” In other words: I don’t consider it study hall. Other people do

You legitimize it every time you repeat it.

Nice try but just admit you misread it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

I am sorry if I confused you. We are maintaining our pace vis a vis the curriculum. The intensity of the pace within the classroom has changed since we actually have more time in one 90-minute class than we did in two 50-minute classes because we are able to use the time more wisely. I only have to take attendance once, make assignments once, do a warm-up once, etc. All those things that are little time drags are done once, rather than twice. That means that we have more time for teaching and learning, and less time spent performing the "housekeeping" functions (if you ever go to conferences then you've heard this term before in the context of PD and it applies to classrooms as well) of a classroom.

What was the class duration & frequency before the shift and after? PP mentioned 5x per week for 50 minutes, moving to 2x per week for 90 minutes. Is that right?

Parent here: 90 min 2x/week is misleading. Block scheduling in APS is set-up as alternating days. So a class meets twice a week, then 3 times the next week, etc. Days off interrupt the pattern; but the classes continue to alternative every other day so you still get the same amount of instruction time throughout the year for all the classes.

I would also suggest in support of the comments from the teacher above, that part of the time being used more efficiently stems from being able to spend the time on a topic or in a discussion to the point that more/all of the students "get it" rather than being cut-off by the 45-minute bell and then having to resume the discussion the next day. Repeating and reviewing in order to continue eats up time at the beginning of the next 45-minute class period. Therefore, you (at least theoretically) can accomplish more (and accomplish it better) in fewer 90-minute segments than you can in more 45-minute segments.

Thank you for stepping in! You have very accurately captured many of the things I was trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

I am sorry if I confused you. We are maintaining our pace vis a vis the curriculum. The intensity of the pace within the classroom has changed since we actually have more time in one 90-minute class than we did in two 50-minute classes because we are able to use the time more wisely. I only have to take attendance once, make assignments once, do a warm-up once, etc. All those things that are little time drags are done once, rather than twice. That means that we have more time for teaching and learning, and less time spent performing the "housekeeping" functions (if you ever go to conferences then you've heard this term before in the context of PD and it applies to classrooms as well) of a classroom.

What was the class duration & frequency before the shift and after? PP mentioned 5x per week for 50 minutes, moving to 2x per week for 90 minutes. Is that right?

Parent here: 90 min 2x/week is misleading. Block scheduling in APS is set-up as alternating days. So a class meets twice a week, then 3 times the next week, etc. Days off interrupt the pattern; but the classes continue to alternative every other day so you still get the same amount of instruction time throughout the year for all the classes.

I would also suggest in support of the comments from the teacher above, that part of the time being used more efficiently stems from being able to spend the time on a topic or in a discussion to the point that more/all of the students "get it" rather than being cut-off by the 45-minute bell and then having to resume the discussion the next day. Repeating and reviewing in order to continue eats up time at the beginning of the next 45-minute class period. Therefore, you (at least theoretically) can accomplish more (and accomplish it better) in fewer 90-minute segments than you can in more 45-minute segments.

It definitely seems much more efficient and allows for longer discussions, more involved labs. My DD is in a environmental science class and they are going outside every day working on investigations and projects. All that would be greatly curtailed if they didn't have the 90 min blocks (although this is a double-period class so they actually have 90 min every day).

[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:

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.

I didn’t say they were. They are filling up that time with various types of learning (half of which parents are denigrating as “study hall”) to create shorter chunks of tasks and to differentiate the learning going on. Some parents here seem to feel that doing that isn’t teaching. It is, and kids are learning, but if you define learning as “sitting and taking notes and tests,” no, no kid can do that for 88 minutes. It wouldn’t be learning. And it’s why we don’t structure block classes that way.

Stop repeating the lie that half of the class is used as study hall.

Please god read what people write. I said the kids have various LEARNING TASKS that HALF THE PARENTS HERE denigrate as “study hall.” In other words: I don’t consider it study hall. Other people do

You legitimize it every time you repeat it.

Nice try but just admit you misread it.

I didn’t misread anything. I said stop repeating the lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

I am sorry if I confused you. We are maintaining our pace vis a vis the curriculum. The intensity of the pace within the classroom has changed since we actually have more time in one 90-minute class than we did in two 50-minute classes because we are able to use the time more wisely. I only have to take attendance once, make assignments once, do a warm-up once, etc. All those things that are little time drags are done once, rather than twice. That means that we have more time for teaching and learning, and less time spent performing the "housekeeping" functions (if you ever go to conferences then you've heard this term before in the context of PD and it applies to classrooms as well) of a classroom.

What was the class duration & frequency before the shift and after? PP mentioned 5x per week for 50 minutes, moving to 2x per week for 90 minutes. Is that right?

Parent here: 90 min 2x/week is misleading. Block scheduling in APS is set-up as alternating days. So a class meets twice a week, then 3 times the next week, etc. Days off interrupt the pattern; but the classes continue to alternative every other day so you still get the same amount of instruction time throughout the year for all the classes.

I would also suggest in support of the comments from the teacher above, that part of the time being used more efficiently stems from being able to spend the time on a topic or in a discussion to the point that more/all of the students "get it" rather than being cut-off by the 45-minute bell and then having to resume the discussion the next day. Repeating and reviewing in order to continue eats up time at the beginning of the next 45-minute class period. Therefore, you (at least theoretically) can accomplish more (and accomplish it better) in fewer 90-minute segments than you can in more 45-minute segments.

Exactly.

[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: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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

[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: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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Kenmore and Gunston numbers are low, too.

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Looks like overall it is about half -- so it is definitely not remedial to take algebra in 8th as one of the PPs suggested

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Looks like overall it is about half -- so it is definitely not remedial to take algebra in 8th as one of the PPs suggested

Five or so years ago, 80% of kids took Algebra I by 8th grade, which may be what PP was referencing. The share has been coming down since.

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Looks like overall it is about half -- so it is definitely not remedial to take algebra in 8th as one of the PPs suggested

Five or so years ago, 80% of kids took Algebra I by 8th grade, which may be what PP was referencing. The share has been coming down since.

Such a large disparity between schools!

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Looks like overall it is about half -- so it is definitely not remedial to take algebra in 8th as one of the PPs suggested

Five or so years ago, 80% of kids took Algebra I by 8th grade, which may be what PP was referencing. The share has been coming down since.

Such a large disparity between schools!

Yes and COVID made this worse. Current 8th graders had to take 6th grade math online which was a nightmare.

[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.

Going back to this discussion, APS released the "equity dashboard" which lets you look at the data for students in 8th grade taking "Algebra 1 or higher." You can see variances in the percentages for 8th graders during the 2021-2022 SY, from 49% at Hamm, to 65% at TJ, to 85% at HBW. But it does look like Algebra 1 or higher tends to be the majority at most schools:

https://analytics.apsva.us/public/equity/aps_8math.html

Sorry, that's only 34% at TJ. 65% did not attempt.

Looks like overall it is about half -- so it is definitely not remedial to take algebra in 8th as one of the PPs suggested

Five or so years ago, 80% of kids took Algebra I by 8th grade, which may be what PP was referencing. The share has been coming down since.

Such a large disparity between schools!

Yes and COVID made this worse. Current 8th graders had to take 6th grade math online which was a nightmare.

Posters had foreshadowed the lower numbers earlier this year.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60/1029935.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1066008.page

One had noted that there was no longer a dedicated seventh grade Algebra I class in their MS last year, but only a couple 7th graders taking 8th grade Algebra 1. (Gunston?) They attributed that to the higher Math Inventory scores needed in 6th grade to qualify for 7th grade Algebra 1 even as 6th grade was virtual with asynchronous Mondays.