[APS] Who is funding newly-incorporated APE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted a link to the SB campaign donations.

Interesting…

https://cfreports.elections.virginia.gov/Committee/Index/6cfda7c5-b04d-4373-9c42-420a8fc7b594?CurrentTab=Large%20Contributions

Wow - her dad was her largest supporter?!? That's scandalous!

Must be nice to have a wealthy parent!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

[Anonymous]

"VMPI: A Primer

Many parents have asked us about VMPI. VMPI stands for Virginia Mathematics Pathway Initiative. In summary: under Governor Northam, the VA Department of Education (VDOE) has been completely redesigning the statewide math curriculum."


95% of it was about VMPI/VDOE. The three questions were specifically about VMPI. APS was only briefly mentioned.

Guess that's why they recently changed to a political lobbying organization...so they can do slimy stuff like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

It’s correct that there is one passing reference. If anything, that it was so easy to overlook tends to suggest it wasn’t the focus of the newsletter.

The obsessive paranoia about APE is getting very old. Now I’ll wait for you to blindly accuse me of being a member of APE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

It’s correct that there is one passing reference. If anything, that it was so easy to overlook tends to suggest it wasn’t the focus of the newsletter.

The obsessive paranoia about APE is getting very old. Now I’ll wait for you to blindly accuse me of being a member of APE.

Trust me, I’d wish they’d just go away but they keep putting themselves out there:

They newly reorganized as a political lobbying organization a couple of weeks ago.
They have been pushing their newsletters and speaking at SB meetings.
They are spreading misinformation that feeds GOP talking points.
There are parallels to astroturfing organizations.

You are free to skip over the topic if that’s not interesting to you.

[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:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

It’s correct that there is one passing reference. If anything, that it was so easy to overlook tends to suggest it wasn’t the focus of the newsletter.

The obsessive paranoia about APE is getting very old. Now I’ll wait for you to blindly accuse me of being a member of APE.

Trust me, I’d wish they’d just go away but they keep putting themselves out there:

They newly reorganized as a political lobbying organization a couple of weeks ago.
They have been pushing their newsletters and speaking at SB meetings.
They are spreading misinformation that feeds GOP talking points.
There are parallels to astroturfing organizations.

You are free to skip over the topic if that’s not interesting to you.

They have just as much of a right to organize and speak at school board meetings as anyone else. You sound very frustrated that you can’t control them and force hem to accept your views. I don’t agree with them on everything either, but neither of us has the right to restrict their first amendment rights.

[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:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

It’s correct that there is one passing reference. If anything, that it was so easy to overlook tends to suggest it wasn’t the focus of the newsletter.

The obsessive paranoia about APE is getting very old. Now I’ll wait for you to blindly accuse me of being a member of APE.

Trust me, I’d wish they’d just go away but they keep putting themselves out there:

They newly reorganized as a political lobbying organization a couple of weeks ago.
They have been pushing their newsletters and speaking at SB meetings.
They are spreading misinformation that feeds GOP talking points.
There are parallels to astroturfing organizations.

You are free to skip over the topic if that’s not interesting to you.

They have just as much of a right to organize and speak at school board meetings as anyone else. You sound very frustrated that you can’t control them and force hem to accept your views. I don’t agree with them on everything either, but neither of us has the right to restrict their first amendment rights.

What an odd comment. Or course they have that right.

Just like I have the right to call them out.

And you are free to ignore it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted a link to the SB campaign donations.

Interesting…

https://cfreports.elections.virginia.gov/Committee/Index/6cfda7c5-b04d-4373-9c42-420a8fc7b594?CurrentTab=Large%20Contributions

Wow - her dad was her largest supporter?!? That's scandalous!

Must be nice to have a wealthy parent!

All of that out of state money for Miranda Turner. At least most of Kadera's support was local... hmmmm

[Anonymous]

Oh, and you need to click this link and look at all of her donations, not the largest ones. https://cfreports.elections.virginia.gov/Committee/Index/6cfda7c5-b04d-4373-9c42-420a8fc7b594?CurrentTab=Scheduled%20Reports

[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:Looks like APE is showing us their hand...

Spreading blatant lies about VMPI now in their newsletter?

100% GOP astroturfing.

What parts exactly are lies?
Yes there are some very conservative people in APE. I’m a flaming liberal and I am there too. I originally joined to know what the right wing nut jobs were up to. A lot of the most vocal conservatives are gone or keeping quiet lately. In the last few months I have enjoyed the debate and discussion in APE.

From the newsletter:
"Here are three key questions we have about the VMPI initialtive:

Question 1: Will elementary and middle school kids still be allowed to be differentiated and accelerated in math? This is a key open question, and one that the VMPI does not adequately answer."


VMPI has very clearly answered this question. They didn't explicitly say that earlier this year, but after the question came up in info sessions they very clearly answered it months ago.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
"* VMPI maintains Virginia’s rigorous mathematics instruction for all students and strives to provide all students with opportunities to receive high quality, highly-relevant math instruction that is tailored to their specific post-secondary goals.
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.
* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
* Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses."


APE is now pushing the same.exact.misinformation that the GOP astroturfers were pushing earlier this year.

This is 100% a question for APS to answer - not VMPI. They are positioning it as a VDOE question right now because we have gubernatorial election happening right now. Early voting has already begun and <40 days until election.


And, while discussion and questions are certainly a great thing and should happen, it's the timing and lies that are totally slimy.

VMPI clearly stated it was up to the school districts to figure out acceleration/advanced paths.

And here is what APS has to say about it:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/C75RAA6CC6B8/$file/F1-%20Math%20Monitoring%20Report_Sept%2030%202021%20RE.pdf

• All students will engage in what is currently considered high school content beginning, at the latest, in grade 8
• More relevant high school course options and pathways for students
• Calculus AB & BC, and other IB, AP, DE courses will remain options for
students

None of that means the course offerings won't be scaled back. I have a kid who is currently on track to take calculus as a junior and then is interested in taking a higher-level AP class like differential equations as a senior. It's not clear whether that will still be an option when my current fourth grader gets there, or if the progression will top out with calculus. And if it is an option, will it be a live class taught in-person by APS staff, or will those kids who need more acceleration be shunted off into some kind virtual learning program? As those of us whose kids have tried to take German or Latin this year know, vague assurances from APS that course offerings will be available means absolutely nothing for whether they will be available and accessible in practice.

All great questions…for APS. APS decides course offerings.

Which presumably is why the newsletter encouraged people to reach out to APS Engage and the school board with questions and concerns about VMPI.

Oh no - looks like you "accidentally" left out a little something...

Who did they encourage to contact first ? Hint: it wasn't APS...
"In the meantime, you may wish to email VDOE and ask them for the evidence and justification they have for this initiative. "


It was clearly written by the RWNJs in APE - during a gubernatorial election. It's a shame they didn't talk to anyone from APE who is actually on the APS math committee. Assuming there have someone there who has a clue...

Your quote was immediately followed with "You may also wish to email APS and the School Board and let them know any concerns or questions you have about the VMPI."

If this were intended to be a political hit piece for the gubernatorial election, it would have made some reference to Terry McAuliffe, or at least to Ralph Northam. It did neither. The newsletter stayed strictly on topic with VMPI and made no reference to the election or to any ancillary issues related to the election. You are projecting all over this.

Uh. It **did** reference Northam in the very first paragraph.

It’s correct that there is one passing reference. If anything, that it was so easy to overlook tends to suggest it wasn’t the focus of the newsletter.

The obsessive paranoia about APE is getting very old. Now I’ll wait for you to blindly accuse me of being a member of APE.

Trust me, I’d wish they’d just go away but they keep putting themselves out there:

They newly reorganized as a political lobbying organization a couple of weeks ago.
They have been pushing their newsletters and speaking at SB meetings.
They are spreading misinformation that feeds GOP talking points.
There are parallels to astroturfing organizations.

You are free to skip over the topic if that’s not interesting to you.

They have just as much of a right to organize and speak at school board meetings as anyone else. You sound very frustrated that you can’t control them and force hem to accept your views. I don’t agree with them on everything either, but neither of us has the right to restrict their first amendment rights.

What an odd comment. Or course they have that right.

Just like I have the right to call them out.

And you are free to ignore it all.

Not APE either but the astroturf claims are absurd. They have answered these AstroTurf claims directly in AEM. They haven’t touched any of the “AstroTurfy” issues like CRT, transgender, book bans, school choice. I just don’t get it. And honestly the Arl Dems booster on AEM constantly trying to push the astroturf narrative about APE seems very desperate and is doing the very thing he seems to criticize….the spreading of misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and you need to click this link and look at all of her donations, not the largest ones. https://cfreports.elections.virginia.gov/Committee/Index/6cfda7c5-b04d-4373-9c42-420a8fc7b594?CurrentTab=Scheduled%20Reports

Lol at looking at just one candidate’s donations. I loved the comment in AEM that accused Miranda of getting most donations from the whitest, richest zip (22207) in the country. Newsflash: people with money donate to campaigns! And besides the same was true for Mary’s campaign! But let’s selectively just examine just one of those candidates…