Equitable access to advanced math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Take a look at the E3 pilot. And Tina Mazzacane works for FCPS and was a major force for VMPI. 'Practice of putting kids in inferior classes must end'.

That doesn’t mean “reduce math for all”. That was an effort to expand options. Killed by Republican propaganda.

That is not true at all.

Parents across the political and racial spectrum opposed VMPI because it was terrible policy and would have severely damaged the quality of public education in Virginia.

Agreed. VMPI did have a component that was focused on potentially expanding math options at the 11th and 12th grade levels, but it was also stated that they wanted to deemphasize calculus in HS and up until 11th grade were going to have classes where everyone taking the same classes, no acceleration/different levels. When there was an outcry about that, they tried to backpedal and say they wouldn't prohibit districts from acceleration, but it couldn't recover and got killed with the Younkin administration.

Untrue. They always included AP/IB and never said districts couldn’t accelerate kids. Someone mentioned detracking was a trend in math and (politically motivated) people falsely claimed VADOE was going to “ban” acceleration. Even if that were true, they hadn’t even come up with a proposal yet for public review.

The “public outcry” was a political machination. Maybe some gullible people joined in but at the root it was a GOP attack on education.

This is always being claimed on here, but it ignores what Loudoun implemented after close discussion with Tina Mazzacane and the VMPI group. They published a new math pathways chart, with a video titled introducing VMPI. They eliminated 6th grade algebra, and county staff said their goal was to eliminate 6th grade prealgebra, and that they believed it was important to eliminate tracking for equity reasons. Somehow Tina Mazzacane didn't respond as you are doing that there is nothing here about eliminating acceleration.

Cutting 6th grade algebra isn’t eliminating acceleration. Kids could still accelerate by 2 grade levels.

It looks like the VMPI Lady is raising her hateful voice again.

But let me point out the lack of logic here: 6th grade algebra is accelerating by only 2 grade levels if the mantra is for everyone to take algebra in 8th.
So keeping the opportunity for students with demonstrated, not "perceived" abilities, to take it in 6th is something you support, correct? Could you confirm that?

DP. Algebra is a 9th grade class, not 8th grade. Algebra in 6th grade is accelerating by 3 years.

They teach beginning algebra throughout grade school but that is not demonstrated ability. Skipping years of math due to demonstrated ability leads to gaps. Those can be remediated on the fly - but for what purpose? If you're talking about a student who will dual enroll in high school and college classes and graduate simultaneously, those people exist - but there are not 100 or even 30 of them in Fairfax county, one of the largest school districts in the country. School is not a sprint. Algebra is not a single class but the first in a number of high school classes that have a traditional specified order. Starting that track in 6th grade is much more than "demonstrated ability".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe some gullible people got caught up in it but the falsehoods and outrageous speculation around it were definitely pushed hard by the RWNJs. Including Youngkin.

Gullible enough to listen to what they were saying and what they were pushing on their website. One person posted here an e-mail received from Tina Mazzacane explaining what they were doing.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated."
She put up a poll in one seminar and when teachers objected to detracking, she said 'We still have a lot of work to do."

They only backtracked after Ian Serotkin posted Loudoun's math pathways graphic to Facebook, and it appeared on Fox News. And the governor realized it could hurt McAuliffe's campaign.
They also canceled the planned video of math and equity.

Right. The RWNJs pushed falsehoods and wild speculation in an effort to garner votes.

Speaking of wild speculation…even if that email were true, that doesn’t mean VDOE would “ban” districts from offering advanced/acceleration options.

Instead of having a rational discussion about updating the math standards, the right made VMPI some kind of boogeyman that had to be destroyed. Even today people still think it’s a thing. Look at this thread.

Tina Mazzacane: "We intend to eliminate tracking"

You: "That doesn't mean they intended to eliminate tracking!"

She never said that.

Then which "practice" was she referring to in this quote? "the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated"

And how could she eliminate this practice while still allowing districts to implement it?

That doesn’t mean every kid must be in the same classroom learning the same content. It could be raising those kids up with better supports. Also, “should be” could be a recommendation, not a requirement.

She never said or even implied they were going to BAN advanced/accelerated options for every k-12 in VA. Even if that’s something she personally wanted to do there was a whole multi-year process to form the proposal, go through public review, and then get passed by the GA/governor.

It’s an irrational boogeyman.

It's not irrational. It happened in California/ SF.

When someone tells you who they are, it's not irrational to believe them. It's the VPMI people's responsibility to explain their radical overhaul plan and build confidence in their vision, not everyone else's responsibility to blindly trust them.

And it did NOT happen in Alabama when they adopted some of the NCTM recommendations. The comparisons to CA are meaningless.

Out of all of the recommendations that VDOE was considering, detracking got <5 min air time and wasn’t even on the infographic at all.

There isn’t some great conspiracy. Just because one person at VDOE thinks detracking was a good idea doesn’t mean they were going to:
(A) include it in the proposal
(B) it’d be an outright ban (vs recommendation)
(C) that it’d pass the public review process AND
(D) it’d be approved by the GA/governor.

The faux hysteria is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing kids to advance in math earlier and earlier is a race to nowhere. 6th grade algebra should be a very rare exception.

Everyone is thinking about their own kid. What about equity? Parents of fast learners should be a little patient and allow the class to sail together. If fast learners all move into Algebra 1 class in 6th grade, then that would leave the regular 6th grade math kids relatively behind. There is a lot of equity research that says fast learners are able to learn fast because of their affluent parents.

It's not just about learning the material, it's learning how to learn. By telling a set of students "nobody can learn new things until the very last person catches up" you're going to have some kids just sitting there all year learning nothing. If you put a kid in a multi-year educational time-out, what happens when it then becomes time for the kid to apply themselves? They've missed out on years of learning how to struggle through a problem and persevere. This happens to a lot of high-achieving children - when they finally find something they struggle with they flounder mightily, because they were never building up those skills.

Additionally, your post makes it sound like acceleration is a *reward*, which we shouldn't give to kids of affluent parents because it's not something they earned. You ignore the fact that it's what those kids *need*.

It's really sad, because there are structural barriers that an equity movement based on ensuring equal opportunity for all should really focus on (Like removing the fee to take the TJ test - that was a great move!) But the tactic of "all the kids need to slow down and wait for others to catch up" is a terrible way to address the issues. We should be focused on adding additional support to help kids who are behind catch up, not stopping high performers from reaching for their potential just because it widens the gap.

this is how equity is being implemented. but is it the only way? are there other cost effective ways to reach the equity goal? In all of this equity of advanced learning for URM kids is being ignored.

[Anonymous]

Even after the VA secretary of education clearly stated that school districts could continue to define their own classes (incl adv/accel) to meet the needs of their students, as they always have been able to do, RWNJs continued to push the boogeyman narrative.

VDOE told you they weren’t doing it. And it’s not something they could just sneak in there with such an open, public process that requires GA/gov approval.

Totally irrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushing kids to advance in math earlier and earlier is a race to nowhere. 6th grade algebra should be a very rare exception.

Everyone is thinking about their own kid. What about equity? Parents of fast learners should be a little patient and allow the class to sail together. If fast learners all move into Algebra 1 class in 6th grade, then that would leave the regular 6th grade math kids relatively behind. There is a lot of equity research that says fast learners are able to learn fast because of their affluent parents.

It's not just about learning the material, it's learning how to learn. By telling a set of students "nobody can learn new things until the very last person catches up" you're going to have some kids just sitting there all year learning nothing. If you put a kid in a multi-year educational time-out, what happens when it then becomes time for the kid to apply themselves? They've missed out on years of learning how to struggle through a problem and persevere. This happens to a lot of high-achieving children - when they finally find something they struggle with they flounder mightily, because they were never building up those skills.

Additionally, your post makes it sound like acceleration is a *reward*, which we shouldn't give to kids of affluent parents because it's not something they earned. You ignore the fact that it's what those kids *need*.

It's really sad, because there are structural barriers that an equity movement based on ensuring equal opportunity for all should really focus on (Like removing the fee to take the TJ test - that was a great move!) But the tactic of "all the kids need to slow down and wait for others to catch up" is a terrible way to address the issues. We should be focused on adding additional support to help kids who are behind catch up, not stopping high performers from reaching for their potential just because it widens the gap.

this is how equity is being implemented. but is it the only way? are there other cost effective ways to reach the equity goal? In all of this equity of advanced learning for URM kids is being ignored.

BS narrative.

FCPS is trying to lift students up and get more students into advanced/accelerated classes with various programs:
https://www.fcps.edu/equity

And looking for ways to break down barriers (Pg 45)
https://www.veanea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/navigating-equity-book.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe some gullible people got caught up in it but the falsehoods and outrageous speculation around it were definitely pushed hard by the RWNJs. Including Youngkin.

Gullible enough to listen to what they were saying and what they were pushing on their website. One person posted here an e-mail received from Tina Mazzacane explaining what they were doing.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated."
She put up a poll in one seminar and when teachers objected to detracking, she said 'We still have a lot of work to do."

They only backtracked after Ian Serotkin posted Loudoun's math pathways graphic to Facebook, and it appeared on Fox News. And the governor realized it could hurt McAuliffe's campaign.
They also canceled the planned video of math and equity.

Right. The RWNJs pushed falsehoods and wild speculation in an effort to garner votes.

Speaking of wild speculation…even if that email were true, that doesn’t mean VDOE would “ban” districts from offering advanced/acceleration options.

Instead of having a rational discussion about updating the math standards, the right made VMPI some kind of boogeyman that had to be destroyed. Even today people still think it’s a thing. Look at this thread.

Tina Mazzacane: "We intend to eliminate tracking"

You: "That doesn't mean they intended to eliminate tracking!"

She never said that.

Then which "practice" was she referring to in this quote? "the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated"

And how could she eliminate this practice while still allowing districts to implement it?

That doesn’t mean every kid must be in the same classroom learning the same content. It could be raising those kids up with better supports. Also, “should be” could be a recommendation, not a requirement.

She never said or even implied they were going to BAN advanced/accelerated options for every k-12 in VA. Even if that’s something she personally wanted to do there was a whole multi-year process to form the proposal, go through public review, and then get passed by the GA/governor.

It’s an irrational boogeyman.

It's not irrational. It happened in California/ SF.

When someone tells you who they are, it's not irrational to believe them. It's the VPMI people's responsibility to explain their radical overhaul plan and build confidence in their vision, not everyone else's responsibility to blindly trust them.

And it did NOT happen in Alabama when they adopted some of the NCTM recommendations. The comparisons to CA are meaningless.

Out of all of the recommendations that VDOE was considering, detracking got <5 min air time and wasn’t even on the infographic at all.

There isn’t some great conspiracy. Just because one person at VDOE thinks detracking was a good idea doesn’t mean they were going to:
(A) include it in the proposal
(B) it’d be an outright ban (vs recommendation)
(C) that it’d pass the public review process AND
(D) it’d be approved by the GA/governor.

The faux hysteria is ridiculous.

DP. I am glad that it was shut down. Progressivism in LA has been detrimental to our children and students in general. The same is true for math. Modern progressivism in education is not good for any students, ime, and until they come up with new, better ideas, should be avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even after the VA secretary of education clearly stated that school districts could continue to define their own classes (incl adv/accel) to meet the needs of their students, as they always have been able to do, RWNJs continued to push the boogeyman narrative.

VDOE told you they weren’t doing it. And it’s not something they could just sneak in there with such an open, public process that requires GA/gov approval.

Totally irrational.

getting tired of RWNJs, and LWNJs like yourself constantly yapping about each other. Why dont you all get in a cage and settle it with a spar?

[Anonymous]

FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even after the VA secretary of education clearly stated that school districts could continue to define their own classes (incl adv/accel) to meet the needs of their students, as they always have been able to do, RWNJs continued to push the boogeyman narrative.

VDOE told you they weren’t doing it. And it’s not something they could just sneak in there with such an open, public process that requires GA/gov approval.

Totally irrational.

getting tired of RWNJs, and LWNJs like yourself constantly yapping about each other. Why dont you all get in a cage and settle it with a spar?

As soon as Republicans stop using our students as pawns I’ll stop yapping about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

Now I'm curious.. where can I find which grade level a specific iReady math or reading score corresponds to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

No, that's not how iready works. It tests at a maximum of 3 grades ahead, which in 5th grade means that it can show a maximum placement of 8th grade (pre-algebra). And FCPS doesn't use it for that at all. They use it to detect dyslexia - which is much more valuable than positing potential math placement from one test score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

Now I'm curious.. where can I find which grade level a specific iReady math or reading score corresponds to?

https://www.rcboe.org/cms/lib/GA01903614/Centricity/Domain/20337/iReady%20Scale%20Score%20Placement%20Results.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

No, that's not how iready works. It tests at a maximum of 3 grades ahead, which in 5th grade means that it can show a maximum placement of 8th grade (pre-algebra). And FCPS doesn't use it for that at all. They use it to detect dyslexia - which is much more valuable than positing potential math placement from one test score.

It kind of does work that way, and it's much better designed than people credit on dcum. FCPS can set the testing grade level for any kid. My kid took the 3rd grade iready in 2nd, the 5th grade iready in 3rd, and then the 7th grade iready in 4th grade. Each test was taken in the fall, winter, and spring. The scores from all of these had fabulous continuity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

No, that's not how iready works. It tests at a maximum of 3 grades ahead, which in 5th grade means that it can show a maximum placement of 8th grade (pre-algebra). And FCPS doesn't use it for that at all. They use it to detect dyslexia - which is much more valuable than positing potential math placement from one test score.

It kind of does work that way, and it's much better designed than people credit on dcum. FCPS can set the testing grade level for any kid. My kid took the 3rd grade iready in 2nd, the 5th grade iready in 3rd, and then the 7th grade iready in 4th grade. Each test was taken in the fall, winter, and spring. The scores from all of these had fabulous continuity.

It may or may not have continuity - but it does not show a 5th grader with a placement in 9th grade. It doesn't go that high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS unnecessarily overcomplicates things. They already give iready, which is a high ceiling adaptive test that gives a grade level placement as well as quantile level for each kid. A math score of 586 indicates that the kid belongs in 9th grade math, which is algebra.

There probably aren't that many FCPS kids who score 586 or higher on the iready math at the end of 5th grade.

No, that's not how iready works. It tests at a maximum of 3 grades ahead, which in 5th grade means that it can show a maximum placement of 8th grade (pre-algebra). And FCPS doesn't use it for that at all. They use it to detect dyslexia - which is much more valuable than positing potential math placement from one test score.

It kind of does work that way, and it's much better designed than people credit on dcum. FCPS can set the testing grade level for any kid. My kid took the 3rd grade iready in 2nd, the 5th grade iready in 3rd, and then the 7th grade iready in 4th grade. Each test was taken in the fall, winter, and spring. The scores from all of these had fabulous continuity.

It may or may not have continuity - but it does not show a 5th grader with a placement in 9th grade. It doesn't go that high.

It does if they have the 5th grader take a higher grade level iready. They can set the level of the test, and they should do so for kids who test 3 grade levels above. For my kid, it was simple. All of the kids in 6th grade AAP math took the 7th grade iready, since they were doing 7th grade math. My kid was placed there in 4th grade and thus took the 7th grade iready. For those who are curious, he scored 604, which makes sense in that he was also taking the AoPS in person Algebra class at the time and getting perfect scores on all of the tests.