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
Yep… top performers brought down and the middle brought up. This is not a surprise. Curious how you determine which kids are eligible for math 6 SOL. |
Anonymous
Thank you. Appreciate hearing your experience. Curious on a couple points. You said you teach compacted 5th grade math. What years are compacted -- 5th & 6th? At your school, what math content do the 3rd and 4th grade E3 students cover; are they doing grade level content each year or is there some compaction occurring there as well? Has your compaction schedule changed with E3; e.g. have you always taught compacted math in 5th grade or did you used to teach only 6th grade content to 5th graders pre-E3? Also, how much would covid learning loss affect the score comparison between current and prior cohorts? Generally, SOL scores in 2021-22 were notably lower and have been improving moderately since. Could what you observe be partly a reflection of continued bounce-back from covid learning loss? The bimodal distribution might result if those who had outside supplementation during covid remained strong while their peers were much weaker. As instruction returns more to normal, those gaps might ease somewhat. |
Anonymous
|
Teacher here. I'll try to explain this briefly.
When I am talking about cohorts, the first cohort are kids I taught last year. I am looking at their data against this year's kids' data. So, there is no way to tell based on what I shared how the prior year advanced kids are doing compared to the E3 group I am teaching now (well, I and another teacher). What the data did show is that the E3 group scored higher on the i-ready assessments and VGA compared to the prior year's small cohort of advanced kids. If anything, what I found troubling for the now 6th graders was the clustering below this larger cohort. I don't know how they are doing now, but admin is following these kids. For the larger cohort, they are performing better than nearly 80-90 percent of the kids who were in the advanced cohort the year before. There is no way to tell how E3 impacts high performers beyond noting that they don't score as highly as the top handful of kids in the prior year cohort, but greatly exceed pretty much all of the other kids in the prior year cohort. One theory is covid, but these kids were part of that shitshow, so we don't think it's necessarily that. Some people think it's E3, but my working theory is that we probably could push more kids than we were previously. My guess is that is why the large cohort this year is outperforming the smaller cohort. More kids being exposed to advanced content means more kids who were missed before. What is very interesting is the data does suggest there is a tiny cohort of kids who would benefit from further acceleration beyond one grade but the overwhelming bulk of kids are doing incredibly well with just one year of acceleration, placing them on the path for Alg. 1 in 8th grade. |
Anonymous
Kind of confirms that less kids may end up in 7th grade Algebra and more in 8th. |
Anonymous
The Dana Center was a huge proponent of VMPI and the California Math Framework. You can put them as the institutional infrastructure on the state policy front for pushing Jo Boaler's ideas.
|
Anonymous
| It’s crazy that a teacher posted and provided helpful insight and someone decided to post more political talking points. Ugh. Don’t even pretend this thread isn’t just a political bashing. |
Anonymous
Thanks. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are teaching compacted 5th grade math, so it sounds like your students took grade level math classes in 3rd and 4th grade. Thus, your data would show how well E3 compares to regular, grade level math as preparation for compacted Grade 5/6 math content in 5th grade. Is that right? |
Anonymous
Thanks, very interesting information. My takeaway is that it is neither the children or teachers, but rather the instructional framework for math in the US that is the problem. The US should look to how math is taught in Europe and Asia and introduce more advance math concepts such as simple algebra in late elementary school. Allowing for math and its use to make sense to kids at an earlier age. Unlikely to happen anytime soon if at all. |
Anonymous
|
This is actually wrong, PP.
My children get advanced math in 5th grade and they absolutely get pre-algebra integrated into their work. I think they did during 3rd and 4th as well, FWIW. We are at an E3 school. My kids have always passed advanced on the SOL and scored highly on the i-ready. So, while I have concerns about FCPS (class sizes) -- math isn't something that I find problematic at all. |
Anonymous
| It’s going to be pretty funny to see these SOL scores. Pass advanced numbers go down and many may not be able to meet the PA plus IAAT requirement for Algebra I the following year. |
Anonymous
Based on what the teacher said, these students in grade 5 E3 math are tracking to do even better as a whole than the prior years. So probably more people are going to pass advance. They really need to teach reading skills to posters. |
Anonymous
what was stated was that the new group was overall higher performing but lacked a core group of highest performers. Those are likely the kids who meet the benchmarks in 6th in the previous system. Whats also interesting is that the teachers experience doesn’t square with anything in this thread shared by multiple posters. But like most academic efforts, SOLs will tell the story. |
Anonymous
There are two categories of advanced kids who are now taking E3. Category (1) -- Pre-E3, kids who took grade level math in Grades 3 & 4 and then took compacted Math 5/6 in 5th grade and Category (2) -- Pre-E3, kids who took advanced, compacted math in 3rd and 4th grade which covered Math 3-5 content and then took Math 6 in 5th grade. In category (1), kids were in heterogenous classes in grades 3 & 4 both before and after E3. Thus, for them, E3 is a just a curriculum change. In category (2), pre-E3, these kids were in dedicated advanced classes in grades 3 & 4 covering Math 3-5 content. Post-E3, they are now in heterogenous classes in Grades 3 & 4 with potentially less accelerated content based on what some posters have reported. Thus, E3 is a much bigger shift for Category 2 kids and may result in fewer of them qualifying for 7th grade Algebra 1. While the teacher did not say, it appears that their students are in Category (1). If E3 is a better curriculum than current grade level 3 & 4 math, then it could make sense that Category (1) kids would have more favorable results post-E3 since E3 would be a step forward for them. However, those results do not shed light on how kids in Category (2) are doing. They are the ones who are at greatest risk of under-performing relative to prior years since E3 is a step backwards for them. |
Anonymous
| Hey teacher PP, thanks for sharing your insights. They are helpful. |
Anonymous
There's no Democratic or Republican way to do math. As the Stanford and Berkeley STEM professors who led the push against the CMF have repeatedly pointed out, Boaler and the folks who push math reform want to try to wrap their ideology in some sort of political veneer and brand the other side as Trumpers (they don't want to talk about evidence because then you'll see the lack of any). But it's BS and folks tons of progressives oppose this non-evidenced based ideology too, like Ro Khanna. And a teacher's stories are nice to hear, but let's see the actual data. San Francisco's most ideological math teachers were proclaiming how great of a success that their Algebra for None policy was, and their math faculty head toured the country, touting its success. Lo and behold, they were lying and pushing false data. Political pressure caused SFUSD to have a Stanford ed professor do research on it, exposing it for the fraud it is. SF's school board will vote in February to bring back Algebra for 8th graders. Here's that Stanford study: https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai23-734.pdf And groups like NCTM (and their allies at E3 and the Dana Center) are generally silent even though they pushed that false data for years - you can still watch this PD webinar from December 2022 on the "Success Story" of San Francisco's Algebra for None policy (SF parents raised issues in the press about that data in May 2021). The Stanford study came out in March 2023, but NCTM is still going with it. NCTM was a huge pusher of VMPI - the SOLE CITE for VMPI was NCTM's Catalyzing Change, which is full of misleading cites similar to the CMF. In the first video, the Virginia Math head solely cited a Tweet of Jo Boaler for why heterogenous classes are supposedly better (a 100% misleading statement) - then proceeded to do an online poll of the teachers on the video conference, who overwhelmingly voted that heterogenous classes aren't better. NCTM then had executive appear in the 2nd video conference for VMPI. https://www.nctm.org/online-learning/Webinars/Details/629 |