VMPI-ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Isn't this the planning stage? They are still discussing high-level concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Isn't this the planning stage? They are still discussing high-level concepts.

I would say this was supposed to be the “marketing/advertising” stage where they disseminated their ideas, assumed they would get buy-in, and then worked on how best to implement the changes. That seems like the trajectory they were planning on until people started realizing what was happening and started asking questions/pushing back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Isn't this the planning stage? They are still discussing high-level concepts.

I would say this was supposed to be the “marketing/advertising” stage where they disseminated their ideas, assumed they would get buy-in, and then worked on how best to implement the changes. That seems like the trajectory they were planning on until people started realizing what was happening and started asking questions/pushing back.

Seemed like they still were getting feedback from stakeholders on high-level ideas...which is what happened...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

Did you just say that most parents are irrational? Wow. You must fear for the future of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

Did you just say that most parents are irrational? Wow. You must fear for the future of our country.

I absolutely do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

Did you just say that most parents are irrational? Wow. You must fear for the future of our country.

Well, you are talking to the person who supports no advanced instruction or ability leveling in math, and general math classes through 10th grade. What more can you expect from someone who supports this plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

The "big picture" like "social justice and equity are more important than merit and learning"?

Of course, everyone here undoubtedly voted for "social justice" so you deserve to get it good and hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Isn't this the planning stage? They are still discussing high-level concepts.

I would say this was supposed to be the “marketing/advertising” stage where they disseminated their ideas, assumed they would get buy-in, and then worked on how best to implement the changes. That seems like the trajectory they were planning on until people started realizing what was happening and started asking questions/pushing back.

Seemed like they still were getting feedback from stakeholders on high-level ideas...which is what happened...

No - anytime parents or teachers are included in planning I do not think they are really representative of typical views. They could have had parents on this but it likely would have been ones that think all levels in one class is a hunky dory idea. I think it is good the started vetting to the public at large and am only frustrated that it took so long for the negative feedback on tracking to drive a shift. If you ask for input you have to be willing to course correct in response to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

Did you just say that most parents are irrational? Wow. You must fear for the future of our country.

Well, you are talking to the person who supports no advanced instruction or ability leveling in math, and general math classes through 10th grade. What more can you expect from someone who supports this plan?

Where did I say I *support* this plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Isn't this the planning stage? They are still discussing high-level concepts.

I would say this was supposed to be the “marketing/advertising” stage where they disseminated their ideas, assumed they would get buy-in, and then worked on how best to implement the changes. That seems like the trajectory they were planning on until people started realizing what was happening and started asking questions/pushing back.

Seemed like they still were getting feedback from stakeholders on high-level ideas...which is what happened...

No - anytime parents or teachers are included in planning I do not think they are really representative of typical views. They could have had parents on this but it likely would have been ones that think all levels in one class is a hunky dory idea. I think it is good the started vetting to the public at large and am only frustrated that it took so long for the negative feedback on tracking to drive a shift. If you ask for input you have to be willing to course correct in response to it.

They only started the public webinars in March so I wouldn’t say it took long......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think that the VMPI committee (apparently about 70 people?) should have included more “stakeholders” from the outset? They keep referring to how they want to meet the needs of various “stakeholders,” but I’m wondering why they weren’t in the planning stages? More math teachers and parents, perhaps?

Let's all pause and ask ourselves when FCPS or VDOE or any other educrats ever included parents in much of anything? Even when parents are surveyed, are their opinions really taken into account? I don't mean the boogeyman PTA moms who wrap principals around their pinkies, I mean at the division or state level making educational changes. Parents are never included in that stuff. Frankly I don't know if teachers are in a meaningful way either.

Maybe that's because they get hysterical over things they don't understand and won't take the time to understand.

Most are too irrational and unable to see the big picture.

The "big picture" like "social justice and equity are more important than merit and learning"?

Of course, everyone here undoubtedly voted for "social justice" so you deserve to get it good and hard.

I do like it good and hard. Not wrong there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe some dumba$$ in Loudoun misunderstood VMPI.

But VMPI is still early stages (clearly) and hasn't even provided a draft to the revised SOLs yet. Why on earth would LCPS make changes based on something that is still so early stages?

Go start a thread about LCPS - any changes are not coming from VDOE/VMPI.

Because the committee has been discussing these changes for over a year. They gave a heads up the county staff who you call Maybe some dumba$$ in Loudoun misunderstood VMPI.
They understood very clearly and implemented changes in anticipation. They didn't know VMPI would reverse course after the backlash once they informed the school board of the changes they implemented five months prior.
Their reason for implementing the changes- they 'knew' there would be new SOLs and new classes 2023, with no tracking. Current 5th graders they downgraded the advancement by one year, and current 4th graders they downgraded to the new standard path.
In 2025-2026, they would be taking Integrated Math 9, and in 2023-2024 they would be in Essential Concepts 7. They did not want to put them on a track to geometry because the plan was for integrated math and the geometry class and algebra class might disappear by then.

Yes, if they assumed they "knew" something before anything was ever published about it, then yeah....dumba$$.

They have had access to far more information than you or I, for more than a year.

Nothing published or certainly nothing approved.

There's a whole website for VMPI with presentations, at least 3 webinars. Check their site or the VA DOE youtube channel

Yes, and all very high-level / early stages. Nothing published or even "on paper" yet or certainly nothing approved.

Which makes it perfect timing for those with concerns to address it. After stuff is approved it's much harder to get changes.

This is a really ridiculous line of argument, FWIW. It's utterly pedantic.

Yes, but maybe not great timing for a school system to make significant changes to their math program?

(re-read above)

Wouldn't you agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I wonder if the fact that the Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services Department position (reports to Presidio, the Chief Academic Officier) is vacant has anything to do with the fact that FCPS hasn't done anything on this? Or maybe it's just that they really have been very focused on return-to-school?

I think instructional services might be different, like in charge of whiteboards and chromebooks. Does FCPS have a curriculum committee?