VA math changes - ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I bet your school is in a higher SES area with smaller classes and more resources. What works there will not work in high FARMS, high ESOL schools with 28 kids/classroom and also with a significant number of kids below grade level. In a perfect world, the teachers can work with each group equally. In a less perfect one, the teachers are under enormous pressure to get kids who are below grade level up to grade level standards. If they're overwhelmed with struggling kids, they simply won't be allowed to give much of anything to the higher performers.

APS so smaller classes. Not high, but not insignificant:
20% economically disadvantaged
22% english learners


Schools with high-farms are title 1 with even smaller classes.

Our school is over 40% economically disadvantaged and almost half ESL. It's not Title I because the ceiling for that was raised to 55%. Once too many schools hit close to the threshold, they'll raise it again. Class sizes are in the high 20s. I'd love to believe teachers can give everyone equal attention, but that's not happening in schools with 28 students in a class and 20% of the class below grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I bet your school is in a higher SES area with smaller classes and more resources. What works there will not work in high FARMS, high ESOL schools with 28 kids/classroom and also with a significant number of kids below grade level. In a perfect world, the teachers can work with each group equally. In a less perfect one, the teachers are under enormous pressure to get kids who are below grade level up to grade level standards. If they're overwhelmed with struggling kids, they simply won't be allowed to give much of anything to the higher performers.

APS so smaller classes. Not high, but not insignificant:
20% economically disadvantaged
22% english learners


Schools with high-farms are title 1 with even smaller classes.

Our school is over 40% economically disadvantaged and almost half ESL. It's not Title I because the ceiling for that was raised to 55%. Once too many schools hit close to the threshold, they'll raise it again. Class sizes are in the high 20s. I'd love to believe teachers can give everyone equal attention, but that's not happening in schools with 28 students in a class and 20% of the class below grade level.

Which district?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Is Virginia prepared to make these same considerable investments?

This! If VDOE proposed having everyone take a rigorous curriculum like a less intense version of AoPS, but then offered real support for kids who needed it, no one would have a problem with this. If this proposal also included funding for many more math resource teachers and for smaller classes, everything would be fine.

Many of us are concerned because we've already seen what happens in heterogeneous classrooms with 28+ kids, high FARMS, and a very wide spread in abilities. It is highly likely in those cases that the instructional pace will slow down to the level of the below-average kids, the top kids will get absolutely nothing from the teacher, and the bottom most kids will be left behind. What is VDOE proposing to support teachers and make any of this feasible for the teachers?

I fully support making these investments, as well as advocating to reduce class size. That was a big factor for us when we were looking at school districts.

Yes we all may support those things but that is not what VDOE is talking about. Zero mention of extra money nor explicate resources for teachers to do any of this and make the mixed classes genuinely workable. Simply a bit of magic wand waving and assertion that the kids who do not want to sit bored out of their minds for half the day are simply exercising their privilege.

If VDOE took the concerns seriously and was talking about things like money for smaller classes, creating the differentiation for teachers for the different levels in the mixed class, providing supports so this is more of raising the floor rather than lowering the ceiling ..... then it would be a different story. But I have heard all the webinars and read all their stuff so far. There is none of that.

It's still high-level planning so definitely provide that feedback.

I think we should migrate to Common Core so we don't need to continually reinvent the wheel.

I sent essentially this feedback in to them prior to their last webinar; they chose not to address it during the 'town hall' meeting. But yes, if they would convince us that they are providing appropriate resources to teachers (curriculum resources to support multiple levels/styles of learner, for example) and that this was an increase of rigor instead of lowering the ceiling for everyone, I think you'd have a lot fewer upset parents.

I believe they touched on resources for teachers in this session - towards the end:
https://youtu.be/siS8jlTcUzo

(Sorry - linking from my phone - can try to get timestamp tomorrow).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Chill, people.

He NEVER saiid that there will still be algebra 2, he said REMOVING them(alg/geom/alg 2) and replacing with something totally different...I mean please--that has a totally different meaning....

The content will be covered. Kids can still do AP calculus.

Here is how some other school systems have done this. VDOE should more clearly map out the options for STEM pathways so parents don’t freak out.
https://justequations.org/wp-content/uploads/BRANCHING_OUT_PRESENTATION.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Research also suggests that mathematics tasks which
are group worthy and rich with detail are best suited for
engaging students of all ability levels9
and hence are well
suited for use in heterogeneous classrooms.

I would love to see examples of this being done effectively; I have yet to see group work assigned at the elementary level that doesn't essentially end up being 'the two top kids in the group have to do everything (and redo what the lower performers have done) in order to turn in a product that will get them a grade they are happy with.'

I know it's done to boost grades (and not to, you know, group off the lower achievement kids), and I don't begrudge them doing it occasionally. I am concerned with the idea if it becomes an everyday occurrence.

That Stanford professor shares some practices that were used in successful heterogeneous classes.
https://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TIP2006.pdf

More:
https://www.youcubed.org/resource/group-work/
https://www.youcubed.org/resources/introduction-complex-instruction/

[Anonymous]

Generally (not VDOE specific) the goal is to streamline AGA

https://www.salon.com/2020/09/26/teaching-data-science-instead-of-calculus-high-schools-math-debate/

“While it's not exactly as simple as "cutting two textbooks in half and gluing them together to make a new course," as Levitt says, there is something to that. It's the kind of thing that he and others could imagine organizing a group of mathematicians, and data scientists around to find a way to remove a year from the AGA sandwich.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Chill, people.

He NEVER saiid that there will still be algebra 2, he said REMOVING them(alg/geom/alg 2) and replacing with something totally different...I mean please--that has a totally different meaning....

The content will be covered. Kids can still do AP calculus.

Here is how some other school systems have done this. VDOE should more clearly map out the options for STEM pathways so parents don’t freak out.
https://justequations.org/wp-content/uploads/BRANCHING_OUT_PRESENTATION.pdf

There are three school system pathways presented in the link. The first Escondido has AP Calculus in 12th grade, with no description of what is in 9th and 10th beyond Math1 and Math 2.
The second is Oregon, and does not mention calculus at all.
The third is San Francisco, which removes acceleration but then provides options for 11th and 12th to take community college classes to get calculus, or to take an Algebra 2 and PreCalc compression class to get to AP Calculus the next year.
So kids are considered hurt by jumping ahead a grade, but now they are considered good enough to take two classes in a compressed class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Research also suggests that mathematics tasks which
are group worthy and rich with detail are best suited for
engaging students of all ability levels9
and hence are well
suited for use in heterogeneous classrooms.

I would love to see examples of this being done effectively; I have yet to see group work assigned at the elementary level that doesn't essentially end up being 'the two top kids in the group have to do everything (and redo what the lower performers have done) in order to turn in a product that will get them a grade they are happy with.'

I know it's done to boost grades (and not to, you know, group off the lower achievement kids), and I don't begrudge them doing it occasionally. I am concerned with the idea if it becomes an everyday occurrence.

That Stanford professor shares some practices that were used in successful heterogeneous classes.
https://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TIP2006.pdf

More:
https://www.youcubed.org/resource/group-work/
https://www.youcubed.org/resources/introduction-complex-instruction/

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

[Anonymous]

Someone who strongly believes these math changes is posting that a study done by Jo Boaler called the Railside Study proves detracking, using constructivist math programs and group work is superior. However, when actual mathematicians looked into get study they found the findings didn’t really support that. They cleverly figured out what three schools she studied (she changed the school names for privacy) and found she was comparing a school where all 9th graders took algebra to two schools where only the lowest kids took algebra in 9th because the highest ones took algebra in 7th or 8th grade. Then she concluded that detracking, constructivist math, and group work was superior because the algebra scores were higher in the high school where all the students took algebra in 9th compared to the two schools where only the lowest kids took algebra. Here is a much more detailed explanation and you can then find links that explain the issue better than I am.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/jo-boalers-railside-study-the-schools-identified-kind-of/amp/

[Anonymous]

Here is the paper that mathematicians critiquing Railside wrote:
https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone who strongly believes these math changes is posting that a study done by Jo Boaler called the Railside Study proves detracking, using constructivist math programs and group work is superior. However, when actual mathematicians looked into get study they found the findings didn’t really support that. They cleverly figured out what three schools she studied (she changed the school names for privacy) and found she was comparing a school where all 9th graders took algebra to two schools where only the lowest kids took algebra in 9th because the highest ones took algebra in 7th or 8th grade. Then she concluded that detracking, constructivist math, and group work was superior because the algebra scores were higher in the high school where all the students took algebra in 9th compared to the two schools where only the lowest kids took algebra. Here is a much more detailed explanation and you can then find links that explain the issue better than I am.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/educationrealist.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/jo-boalers-railside-study-the-schools-identified-kind-of/amp/

It is really scary that people would hold up one school - ONE - as evidence of some theory working, even if it turned out this academic hadn’t put a thumb on the scales by looking at mismatched sets of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

I bet your school is in a higher SES area with smaller classes and more resources. What works there will not work in high FARMS, high ESOL schools with 28 kids/classroom and also with a significant number of kids below grade level. In a perfect world, the teachers can work with each group equally. In a less perfect one, the teachers are under enormous pressure to get kids who are below grade level up to grade level standards. If they're overwhelmed with struggling kids, they simply won't be allowed to give much of anything to the higher performers.

APS so smaller classes. Not high, but not insignificant:
20% economically disadvantaged
22% english learners


Schools with high-farms are title 1 with even smaller classes.

Our school is over 40% economically disadvantaged and almost half ESL. It's not Title I because the ceiling for that was raised to 55%. Once too many schools hit close to the threshold, they'll raise it again. Class sizes are in the high 20s. I'd love to believe teachers can give everyone equal attention, but that's not happening in schools with 28 students in a class and 20% of the class below grade level.

Which district?

FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Research also suggests that mathematics tasks which
are group worthy and rich with detail are best suited for
engaging students of all ability levels9
and hence are well
suited for use in heterogeneous classrooms.

I would love to see examples of this being done effectively; I have yet to see group work assigned at the elementary level that doesn't essentially end up being 'the two top kids in the group have to do everything (and redo what the lower performers have done) in order to turn in a product that will get them a grade they are happy with.'

I know it's done to boost grades (and not to, you know, group off the lower achievement kids), and I don't begrudge them doing it occasionally. I am concerned with the idea if it becomes an everyday occurrence.

That Stanford professor shares some practices that were used in successful heterogeneous classes.
https://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TIP2006.pdf

More:
https://www.youcubed.org/resource/group-work/
https://www.youcubed.org/resources/introduction-complex-instruction/

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

The best way to master content is to be able to teach to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the paper that mathematicians critiquing Railside wrote:
https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf

That “paper” has never been substantiated or peer reviewed.
https://web.stanford.edu/~joboaler/

The particular area of my research that Milgram and Bishop have tried to discredit is focused upon equity and the ways that the mathematics achievement of all students in the US may be raised. Bishop has used explicitly racist language when discussing issues of equity, claiming that teachers and other ‘experts’ believe that “little pickaninnies just don't learn math like we do.” (http://old.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021021mathcity2p2.asp). His accusations towards educators are offensive and serve as important background to the attacks upon my research in which he and Milgram have engaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Research also suggests that mathematics tasks which
are group worthy and rich with detail are best suited for
engaging students of all ability levels9
and hence are well
suited for use in heterogeneous classrooms.

I would love to see examples of this being done effectively; I have yet to see group work assigned at the elementary level that doesn't essentially end up being 'the two top kids in the group have to do everything (and redo what the lower performers have done) in order to turn in a product that will get them a grade they are happy with.'

I know it's done to boost grades (and not to, you know, group off the lower achievement kids), and I don't begrudge them doing it occasionally. I am concerned with the idea if it becomes an everyday occurrence.

That Stanford professor shares some practices that were used in successful heterogeneous classes.
https://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TIP2006.pdf

More:
https://www.youcubed.org/resource/group-work/
https://www.youcubed.org/resources/introduction-complex-instruction/

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

The best way to master content is to be able to teach to someone else.

And some of the recommended approaches are exactly what my kids have done for reading groups. “Jobs”, etc. Being able to explain and discuss concepts is certainly a great way to go deeper.