Is FCPS ending advance math for students who are not in AAP?

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

Speculation seemed to work for Youngkin.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

be

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

Speculation seemed to work for Youngkin.

The problem is that FCPS is not providing information about E3: no information on what content E3 covers, what schools are using E3, how long the pilot will go on for, whether they will expand the program to all elementary schools and/or additional grades, provide data on E3 student performance. If the program is good, they should be willing to share this information. They are fueling public skepticism by keeping details under wraps.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

Exactly. They are doing this while simultaneously pushing to have LESS kids take Alg 1 in 7th. Equity.

While I agree equity drives almost every decision in FCPS today the issue is not whether kids take Algebra 1 in 7th or 8th grade. They should be learning basic algebraic concepts in 4th, 5th and 6th grade. Integrated math is what countries that teach math well in other parts of the world do. Not the chapter book method, Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Trig/PreCalc, Calculus that we teach in the US.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

Exactly. They are doing this while simultaneously pushing to have LESS kids take Alg 1 in 7th. Equity.

While I agree equity drives almost every decision in FCPS today the issue is not whether kids take Algebra 1 in 7th or 8th grade. They should be learning basic algebraic concepts in 4th, 5th and 6th grade. Integrated math is what countries that teach math well in other parts of the world do. Not the chapter book method, Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, Trig/PreCalc, Calculus that we teach in the US.

Teaching Alg Geo Alg Trig Calc is fine. It has produced excellent scientists and engineers for decades. Complaining about math teaching in the US is trendy but the problem is not in high school math. It's earlier.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Classes that bore my kid to tears in the name of equity programs that are failing make it hard to sleep at night. The baseball game analogy doesn’t work because this isn’t viewing a field and we are not changing people’s visibility. We are telling kids who can do more that they have to wait for the kids who are behind. The kids who are behind are not less capable intellectually but most of them have not been exposed to academic concepts from an early age. And there is not a thing that we can do to fix that.

My kid had parents reading to him, playing math games with him, coloring, naming shapes, and talking to him since he was born. We had/have lots of books in the house. We have an independent reading time before he goes to bed. We can help with homework. Most of the kids who are behind have had 0 to limited exposure to academics at home. Their parents didn’t read to them or play math games or color with them naming colors and shapes. There are no books in the house and the parents can’t help them with homework. We, as a society, cannot send adults into their house to do those things from birth or even now in school.

Holding back other kids to try and “level the playing field” is not working. The education gap is growing, not shrinking. Programs like E3 are denying kids who have the ability to do more the chance to work to their potential in the name of helping kids who started behind and are falling farther behind. Those kids would end up in non-college prep programs in every other country in the world but we are sacrificing the kids who can do more in the name of equity.

Provide classes for the kids who are behind. Provide tutoring. Do all of those things. Help where we can. Find the outliers who have the drive to push forward without help at home and work with them. But stop screwing over kids whose parents were able to do more.

As it is, not only could I afford books and games and do things with my kid to help him be ready for school, I can afford enrichment. So he is going to RSM and working to his potential in math. He does STEM activities outside of school that introduces him to concepts in a fun but challenging way. He reads. He is going to summer camps that introduce chemistry and coding and robotics. So he is bored at school, but he already was bored at school, but he is enjoying learning in other places. And he is looking forward to honors classes and AP as he gets older because school will be more engaging.

But sure, let’s keep wasting ES for 75% of the kids in the name of leveling a playing field that we have no chance of actually leveling.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

E3 leaves the kids who will proceed to advanced math less prepared than the kids who have been taking advanced math since third. Currently advanced math students push a little a head every year so that 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade math are all compressed between 3rd and 5th followed by 7th grade math in 6th. The program works well for those who are in it (as reflected by SOL scores) and prepares them to either take Algebra or 8th grade math (confusingly named honors math 7) in 7th grade. E3 means that the kids moving to advanced math in 5th now have to do all of 5th, 6th, and 7th grade in two years. I'd guess that they know students will do worse (which will be reflected in SOL scores) and it will be used as an excuse to curtail advanced math in general in favor of preparing all kids for Algebra in 8th.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

E3 leaves the kids who will proceed to advanced math less prepared than the kids who have been taking advanced math since third. Currently advanced math students push a little a head every year so that 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade math are all compressed between 3rd and 5th followed by 7th grade math in 6th. The program works well for those who are in it (as reflected by SOL scores) and prepares them to either take Algebra or 8th grade math (confusingly named honors math 7) in 7th grade. E3 means that the kids moving to advanced math in 5th now have to do all of 5th, 6th, and 7th grade in two years. I'd guess that they know students will do worse (which will be reflected in SOL scores) and it will be used as an excuse to curtail advanced math in general in favor of preparing all kids for Algebra in 8th.

Correct. We were able to spot the gaps in E3 and have been supplementing at home. It really doesnt take much time to cover the gaps since it’s just elementary math concepts. But if you don’t know that they’ve slowed down the curriculum your bright math DC could be left behind.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

E3 leaves the kids who will proceed to advanced math less prepared than the kids who have been taking advanced math since third. Currently advanced math students push a little a head every year so that 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade math are all compressed between 3rd and 5th followed by 7th grade math in 6th. The program works well for those who are in it (as reflected by SOL scores) and prepares them to either take Algebra or 8th grade math (confusingly named honors math 7) in 7th grade. E3 means that the kids moving to advanced math in 5th now have to do all of 5th, 6th, and 7th grade in two years. I'd guess that they know students will do worse (which will be reflected in SOL scores) and it will be used as an excuse to curtail advanced math in general in favor of preparing all kids for Algebra in 8th.

Advanced Math did not start in 3rd at every school before E3 existed. DS’s school said they had Advanced Math starting in third but the Teachers explained that the class was one large class with the Advanced Math skills taught to everyone. The only kids who were technically graded on the Advanced Math concepts were the kids identified for Advanced Math, There was not a separate group math group or class. They said this would allow more kids to move into the Advanced Math class in 5th grade, which was it’s own group of kids.

DS is in 6th grade this year. I believe 4 kids in the Advanced Math group passed Advanced on the SOL last year. I have no clue if there will be a higher number this year. Parents at the school have said tha most of the kids in Advanced Math ended up taking Algebra 1 honors in 7th grade but I am doubting that will be the case next year because I have a hard time believing that they will jump from 4 to 12 or more passing Advanced on the SOL, and that is ignoring the IAAT.

No clue if this is COVID hangover, his group had online learning in 3rd grade and the math instruction was horrible. It is why we started RSM because there was no math learning going on in 3rd. It was embarrassingly bad. Oh so bad. I don’t blame the Teacher, teaching online when you have never done so before is hard and teaching math to 5 different math levels online at one time has to be horrible. We supplemented and are happy that we did so.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Classes that bore my kid to tears in the name of equity programs that are failing make it hard to sleep at night. The baseball game analogy doesn’t work because this isn’t viewing a field and we are not changing people’s visibility. We are telling kids who can do more that they have to wait for the kids who are behind. The kids who are behind are not less capable intellectually but most of them have not been exposed to academic concepts from an early age. And there is not a thing that we can do to fix that.

My kid had parents reading to him, playing math games with him, coloring, naming shapes, and talking to him since he was born. We had/have lots of books in the house. We have an independent reading time before he goes to bed. We can help with homework. Most of the kids who are behind have had 0 to limited exposure to academics at home. Their parents didn’t read to them or play math games or color with them naming colors and shapes. There are no books in the house and the parents can’t help them with homework. We, as a society, cannot send adults into their house to do those things from birth or even now in school.

Holding back other kids to try and “level the playing field” is not working. The education gap is growing, not shrinking. Programs like E3 are denying kids who have the ability to do more the chance to work to their potential in the name of helping kids who started behind and are falling farther behind. Those kids would end up in non-college prep programs in every other country in the world but we are sacrificing the kids who can do more in the name of equity.

Provide classes for the kids who are behind. Provide tutoring. Do all of those things. Help where we can. Find the outliers who have the drive to push forward without help at home and work with them. But stop screwing over kids whose parents were able to do more.

As it is, not only could I afford books and games and do things with my kid to help him be ready for school, I can afford enrichment. So he is going to RSM and working to his potential in math. He does STEM activities outside of school that introduces him to concepts in a fun but challenging way. He reads. He is going to summer camps that introduce chemistry and coding and robotics. So he is bored at school, but he already was bored at school, but he is enjoying learning in other places. And he is looking forward to honors classes and AP as he gets older because school will be more engaging.

But sure, let’s keep wasting ES for 75% of the kids in the name of leveling a playing field that we have no chance of actually leveling.

If he’s so bored at school, then why don’t you pull him out?

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

E3 leaves the kids who will proceed to advanced math less prepared than the kids who have been taking advanced math since third. Currently advanced math students push a little a head every year so that 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade math are all compressed between 3rd and 5th followed by 7th grade math in 6th. The program works well for those who are in it (as reflected by SOL scores) and prepares them to either take Algebra or 8th grade math (confusingly named honors math 7) in 7th grade. E3 means that the kids moving to advanced math in 5th now have to do all of 5th, 6th, and 7th grade in two years. I'd guess that they know students will do worse (which will be reflected in SOL scores) and it will be used as an excuse to curtail advanced math in general in favor of preparing all kids for Algebra in 8th.

Correct. We were able to spot the gaps in E3 and have been supplementing at home. It really doesnt take much time to cover the gaps since it’s just elementary math concepts. But if you don’t know that they’ve slowed down the curriculum your bright math DC could be left behind.

And the problem is that I don't know the math curriculum well enough to know what the gaps are. We are at a pilot E3 school and it is abundantly clear that the "advanced math" kids that got E3 curriculum are behind where 5th graders in advanced math used to be. So now the 5th grade teacher is trying to catch them up to the 6th grade curriculum and SOL. This is the problem with these pilots. There isn't any follow through or plan after 4th grade. So they just dumped all these kids on the 5th grade teacher without changing the 6th grade advanced math approach at all. It's really frustrating. If they want to use E3, they have to also have a plan for 5th and 6th grade. I honestly don't care about 7th grade Algebra - I would just like my "advanced math" kid to be prepared for Math 7 Honors (which as a PP said is actually 8th grade math) and at this point half way through grade 5, I'm not convinced he'll be ready.

[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:It was the year 2000. But that just proves my point. Many ideas and reforms aren't novel new ideas, they are updates/reboots/refined versions of older ideas. So flexible groupings were the status quo in the 80's to 90's, the pendulum moved away from that. We then saw things like balanced literacy and "new" math. Things seem to move further left with the equity focus, etc. Are we starting to go back towards the center?

So last century.

Flexible groupings are far more equitable than AAP.

PP. Yes, I agree with you. It worked when I was a kid, things started to change when I was in college and hopefully things will swing back that direction. I like the very small GT for those who really need it.

DP. Agreed. I'm the poster who grew up in FCPS when there was a tiny GT program. No one resented those students because it was clear they were ACTUALLY gifted and needed a separate program. Everyone else was put into flexible groups depending on their level, and no one was locked into any one group. Students can improve and move up, or receive remediation, depending on their abilities in each core subject. That was the way to go.

I was also in that tiny GT program and I teach for FCPS right now. The dynamics of the current classroom wouldn’t support that type of program anymore. There are kids, in one classroom, at seven different math and reading levels. To be able to put students in the groups that they “should” be in is essentially illegal nowadays.

Have you read the entire thread? This isn't at all what is being discussed here. It's been repeated, over and over, that what FCPS needs are flexible groupings *among the entire grade level team*. So Teacher A would take all the advanced math kids, Teacher B would take the grade-level kids, Teacher C would take the remedial group. And so on for all four core subjects. No one is talking about dividing up each individual classroom into multiple levels.

And if flexible grouping is "essentially illegal" nowadays (??), then assigning 7 yr. olds to either AAP or GE should absolutely be illegal.

This is clearly written by someone who knows nothing about teaching/education. Why don’t you go to the national Department of Education website and do a little research on ability tracking. Once you’ve read up on that, then you’ll realize why FCPS specifically pushes more minorities into AAP.

Doesn't work though

I am new to the forum. Why does FCPS specifically push more minorities into AAP? Thanks.

FCPS is an academic system; ie - a school system.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed academics are not their first priority.

Equity is the FCPS school board and superintendent’s first priority. They stress this over and over.

Citation?

https://wpde.com/amp/news/nation-world/marginalization-is-driving-force-for-resource-allocation-in-virginia-school-district-fairfax-county-public-schools-equity-policy-thomas-jefferson-high-school-national-merit-recognition


Google the rest yourself.

They are pushing for MORE kids to finish Alg 1 by 8th. They are promoting acceleration.

And also removing acceleration for others aiming for Algebra in 7th. Equity.

California attempted a similar approach to “equity math.” It was a monumental disaster, both in failing to achieve equity but also in failing to educate the most capable students:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Fairfax county’s school board and the superintendent are leading FCPS down a path to disaster.

They were also pushing more kids to take Alg 1 in 8th?

DP Heterogenous classes

How is that relevant to what FCPS is doing? FCPS is pushing to have MORE kids take Alg 1 in 8th, not eliminating it.

With E3, FCPS is making Grade 3 and Grade 4 math classes heterogenous; they are no longer offering separate advanced and regular math classes. CA also emphasized heterogenous classes. When you put a wide range of kids in one class, it makes it hard for teachers. They are not going to be able to successfully differentiate for everyone's needs, meaning they'll target instruction to the middle, shortchanging kids at either end. When they tried this in San Francisco, it widened the achievement gap, with kids at the lowest end of the spectrum hit the hardest. That is why some posters are questioning whether kids will be prepared for 8th grade Algebra in practice, if the method used to get there is E3's heterogenous math class approach.

They did many other changes in SF. Not comparable.

But heterogenous classes were one of biggest changes in San Francisco. And now FCPS is beginning down that path as well.

Big scary heterogenous classes in early elementary! How will you sleep at night?

Presently, FCPS is implementing heterogenous classes in third and fourth grade. The question remains as to whether FCPS will ultimately extend E3 (& its heterogenous classes) to 5th & 6th grade as well.

E3 leaves the kids who will proceed to advanced math less prepared than the kids who have been taking advanced math since third. Currently advanced math students push a little a head every year so that 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade math are all compressed between 3rd and 5th followed by 7th grade math in 6th. The program works well for those who are in it (as reflected by SOL scores) and prepares them to either take Algebra or 8th grade math (confusingly named honors math 7) in 7th grade. E3 means that the kids moving to advanced math in 5th now have to do all of 5th, 6th, and 7th grade in two years. I'd guess that they know students will do worse (which will be reflected in SOL scores) and it will be used as an excuse to curtail advanced math in general in favor of preparing all kids for Algebra in 8th.

Correct. We were able to spot the gaps in E3 and have been supplementing at home. It really doesnt take much time to cover the gaps since it’s just elementary math concepts. But if you don’t know that they’ve slowed down the curriculum your bright math DC could be left behind.

And the problem is that I don't know the math curriculum well enough to know what the gaps are. We are at a pilot E3 school and it is abundantly clear that the "advanced math" kids that got E3 curriculum are behind where 5th graders in advanced math used to be. So now the 5th grade teacher is trying to catch them up to the 6th grade curriculum and SOL. This is the problem with these pilots. There isn't any follow through or plan after 4th grade. So they just dumped all these kids on the 5th grade teacher without changing the 6th grade advanced math approach at all. It's really frustrating. If they want to use E3, they have to also have a plan for 5th and 6th grade. I honestly don't care about 7th grade Algebra - I would just like my "advanced math" kid to be prepared for Math 7 Honors (which as a PP said is actually 8th grade math) and at this point half way through grade 5, I'm not convinced he'll be ready.

You just need to follow the FCPS standards per grade and discuss with your DC what they are doing in class today, then devise a curriculum that allows them to understand everything in 5th and 6th grade standards per FCPS guidance. Use Kahn Academy and FCPS website resources per grade and you should have your DC ready for the 6th grade SOL. It's not hard but it does require some work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a drama llama.

I work in a E3 school. The kids who need it will get advanced math in 5th and take the 6th grade SOL like normal.

If anything, according to our Math Coach, we are on track for MORE kids to take advanced math based on last year's SOL performance and i-ready performance.

I teach 5th grade (and also teach advanced math).

So they aren’t taking acceleration away. 👍

We're at an E3 pilot (our student is in 5th this year) and the sad truth is that E3 did not prepare him or his fellow students for 5th grade accelerated math. They are having a lot of trouble getting them up to speed for the 6th grade SOL. So while I'm not opposed at all to doing away with tracking in 3rd and 4th (which E3 does), then they need to have a better plan for these E3 kids in 5th grade, because right now none of them are where they should be to take Algebra in 8th. They have to skip ahead somewhere or else they have to continue the compacted/accelerated E3 curriculum for all through 5th-7th too. Right now, this pilot just takes away the skills they would have learned in advanced math in 3rd and 4th and assumes the "advance math" kids will be fine to do 6th grade math as 5th graders. It's not working.

Well there is a good graphic that describes this. See there are some people watching a baseball game and they all have boxes but one guy doesn't have sufficient boxes to see over the fence, so they take one box from the tall guy who can already see over the fence and give it to this other guy so he can see the baseball game too.

This right here is when the teacher takes away acceleration and gives more attention to another group of students, so they can see the baseball game. Now everyone can see the Algebra 1 in 8th grade. If you want to sit closer, your privilege can be used but it will not be supported by the school. I think there is picture for this somewhere.

But my point was that E3 math is NOT preparing kids for Algebra 1 in 8th grade. The current FCPS standard track is Math 8, which is pre-algebra, and Algebra 1 in 9th grade. If they want to have Algebra 1 honors in 8th grade then they have to skip somewhere. E3 takes the skip away from 3rd and 4th grade. So where will the jump happen?

There is SO much repetition in math from 3rd - pre Algebra. The smart kids don't need all that repetition. If a kid is struggling with the 6th grade SOL in 5th, they aren't really an advanced math kid. The standards really aren't that different between the two grades, and the "mathy" kids will easily do fine on the standard 6th grade material.

[Anonymous]

For the OP, the answer appears to be "Yes" and "No."

The traditional advanced math that results in a skipped Math grade appears to be going away, so "Yes," but FCPS can call E3 Math or any other curriculum "advanced" and the answer is "No."

It's clear they are getting rid of compacted math though which is one of the previous advanced math tracks. They say it on their website:

"The mathematics curriculum is being enriched and expanded to include extensions that allow students to develop critical thinking skills and develop a deeper understanding of mathematics that will better prepare them for upper level mathematics in high school and beyond. The current learning gaps that exist in compacted mathematics, created by selecting only certain standards, are being closed allowing students access to all standards. Compacted mathematics will become advanced mathematics to be more representative of the rigor in the program. The advanced mathematics curriculum will be available in all elementary schools including Advanced Academic center schools."
https://www.fcps.edu/academics/academic-overview/mathematics

If you are interested in acceleration that allows higher level Math earlier in high school by starting Alebgra in 7th, you will probably have to supplement.