Is FCPS ending advance math for students who are not in AAP?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
No one was. You ignored the prior question. Are you part of the FCPS E3 team that developed E3? If not, then you don't know what factors influenced E3's genesis. |
Anonymous
Links to these stated goals? |
Anonymous
Oh you didn’t know that E3 math was intended to increase 8th grade algebra? It was linked by PP earlier in the thread to FCPS math improvement plan. Someone else also stated that the non-FCPS e3 is also designed to increase 8th grade algebra. Is that not true? |
Anonymous
That PP should provide links to support their claim. |
Anonymous
The Texas-based E3 Alliance is focused on raising the share and diversity of students taking Algebra 1 in 8th grade. To do so, it recommends beginning acceleration in 6th grade based on 5th grade test scores. It partners with UT's Dana Center. https://e3alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/2021-PoP-Math-Policy-Brief.pdf https://e3alliance.org/2021/08/27/central-texas-math-summit-charles-a-dana-center-e3-alliance-november-5-2021/ FCPS also has the goal of increasing the share and diversity of students taking 8th grade Algebra 1. But, FCPS is in a different position from many other districts. Using a 5th or 6th grade jumping off spot for dedicated/accelerated math classes is a step backwards for FCPS kids who had been in dedicated advanced math classes from 3rd grade on, particularly for those tracking for 7th grade Algebra 1. Shifting to heterogenous E3 math classes in grades 3 & 4 (unclear what happens in grade 5 classes in all schools) waters down the current FCPS advanced math path. That is what creates the tension with FCPS's E3 pilot. |
Anonymous
Not every school had Advanced Math starting in 3rd grade, I get the feeling that it was a relatively small number of schools that had dedicated Advanced Math class/group starting in 3rd with more schools starting in 5th grade. I have heard of schools only having Advanced Math in 6th. FCPS does not do a good job of providing a uniform program across the county. |
Anonymous
Where do you see this? The links say that they promote an opt-out approach (not testing). And nothing about delaying acceleration. |
Anonymous
It’s unfortunate that they would remove compacted or advanced math in favor of the slower E3. I think the issue is that they could do both and chose to combine both tracks. Why not just leave compacted math and update gened math to E3? |
Anonymous
In the section you reference, it notes "accelerated math in 6th grade". This link also references it: https://e3alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Policy-Brief_Central-Texas-Math-Acceleration-Recommendations_012318.pdf "The Goal. Start in early grades (PK through 2nd grade) to implement strong mathematics teaching to equitably prepare as many students as possible to enter accelerated math pathway by 6th grade. ... Identify students by quintile on state math assessment in 4th and/or 5th grade to inform student placement into accelerated math pathway. ... Create multiple entry points to accelerated math coursework beyond 6th grade, including open enrollment policy." The more recent iterations use 5th grade test scores for placement. |
Anonymous
Agree. That would make most sense & would ensure that everyone is challenged. |
Anonymous
So ask them. I did and had a nice phone call with the person driving the push a couple years ago. |
Anonymous
If you have a pilot running for 3 years at 20+ schools that is potentially going to upend advanced math in FCPS grades 3 & 4, FCPS needs to post detailed information publicly. |
Anonymous
Sure, but we all know that is not their way. At all. The only way you'll get detailed information is to ask for it and get a news organization or popular figure to make it public. So I asked. |
Anonymous
If E3 was giving great results at the pilot schools it would be all over the FCPS homepage, on individual school websites, in the superintendent's weekly messages, and lauded at the school board meetings. The lack of information that's publicly available makes it sound like it's not going well except possibly at a few schools that were going to have good scores regardless of new programs. |
Anonymous
|
I teach compacted 5th grade math and my cohort went through the first E-math series, I believe.
In terms of my own experience, our school went from having a group of 10-20 kids qualify to having 40-50 kids on track to take the 6th grade SOL. In terms of data, the new cohort is tracking at a higher level in terms of i-ready performance than the prior cohorts in my advanced math section. What is interesting in the data is that the prior cohort had more "high" outliers -- 3-5 kids scoring off the chart and the remaining scoring well below not only those top kids, but also the fall and winter i-ready scores of 90 percent of the kids in my current cohort. If anything, these kids would have been in the bottom of this cohort. It was very bimodal. For the new cohort, I did notice that they did not score as high as the top top kids. So, basically, it looks like this. Two cohorts of kids -- Cohort 1 (the advanced math section of 15-20 kids) and Cohort 2 (E3 kids 1-60). Here is a rough estimate of what the rankings kind of look like (generalizing here) if I were to put all of the kids in a ranking in terms of their i-ready performance (amongst each other -- not the national norms -- since I am talking about comparing kid versus kid performance). Cohort 1 -- Kids 1-15 (bottom ten percentile of scores of the combined cohort of Cohort 1-2) Cohort 2 -- Kids 1-55 (tenth percentile to 80th percentile) Cohort 1 -- Kids 15-20 and Cohort 2 Kids 55-60 (80th to 100th percentile). What this tells me is the county's old system for identifying students who will do well in advanced math under identifies these kids. Now, looking at the data the cohorts are both tracking to have similar SOL performance. Now, I am generalizing heavily and trying to anonymize this as much as possible, but I hope this gives you a feel for what I am seeing. It seems consistent across the schools based on the feedback we received in training, FWIW. The county is being terrible in explaining this because they, quite frankly, don't fully know how the pilot is going. It's a work in progress. |