Equitable access to advanced math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They wanted to ADD options that are more relevant for non-STEM majors. They weren’t eliminating calculus.

Ah yes, 'Someone who wants to be a beautician can take logic and sets."

They were eliminating calculus for the vast majority of kids who would be taking calculus without any changes. All those kids who take honors classes with a handful of AP classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The post is about equitable access to advanced math. This is what VMPI and similar proposals around the country are aboiut. OP is going the other way and saying minorities need to be placed in even more advanced classes, while most equity proposals involve reducing access for everyone. One of the links on VMPI's website, ""Eliminate tracking systems that sort children based on perceived ability and demographic profile."
Therefore, the goal of detracking will not be realized without working to dismantle the various social, political, and cultural reasons tracking persists. Those that have been privileged by the current system must be willing to
give up that privilege for more equitable schooling."

See the chart at this link to see what VMPI was REALLY about, including:

“Not all college majors need calculus !” (direct quote).

Obviously, calculus can and should be de-emphasized or mostly eliminated, through VMPI.




Here is the source: WTOP:


https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/04/virginia-plans-to-improve-equity-and-learning-opportunities-through-high-school-mathematics/

They wanted to ADD options that are more relevant for non-STEM majors. They weren’t eliminating calculus.

I am pretty sure that most schools had the classes that were being added.

What they were doing was blending courses, so there wouldn't be Algebra and Geometry but whatever they were calling the class. I guess Essential Math 1 and 2.

Nothing in their graphic explained that Essential Math 1 and 2 where this blended Algebra Geometry concept, which was confusing. I remember watching a video where the students spent a good amount of time complaining about how hard Tri, Precalculus and Calculus were. Then they had FCPS Alumni who were in college talking about how they never used those classes and how those classes had been a waste of time. All to introduce these "new" math classes that were more practical. All of which ignored that there were already stats classes and classes that were meant to be more practical math usage.

They were also removing the Advanced Math option in ES and the ability to take the grade 9 and 10 math, traditionally Algebra and Geometry, in 7th and 8th grade.

Essentially, they did a crap job of explaining that Algebra and Geometry were still being taught, just in a different manner. The videos I saw sure made it sound like the approach was being taken because 1) math was hard 2) higher level math was useless. Finally, they were clearly eliminating the Advanced Math path in ES which meant that kids who were already bored in Advanced Math would be even more bored in the new program.

I remember looking over the material that they had on the website, watching the videos they posted, and being shocked enough at how it was being presented that I wrote to all the candidates and said that I would not vote for anyone supporting this change. They did a lousey job with their marketing.

Thanks, PP, for this summary, and it’s generally what I recall as well.

When the VMPI advocates were claiming nothing was being taken away, lots of things were being added, and it was only about access, it all sounded impossible.

And it was. Hidden in the details were clear plans to eliminate calculus for nearly all students, with a vague promise the might be a “potential pathway,” but no promises and not for most students.

I also recall VMPI would have delayed Algebra for nearly all student subjects until 9th grade, but when challenged, the VMPI advocates again made vague promises about “potential pathways could exist” or how “an individual school could be potentially be allowed the possibility of maintaining different classes.”

VMPI was presented in the most misleading and deceitful way possible at the time. Hope it never comes back, as it was clearly a deeply flawed plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The post is about equitable access to advanced math. This is what VMPI and similar proposals around the country are aboiut. OP is going the other way and saying minorities need to be placed in even more advanced classes, while most equity proposals involve reducing access for everyone. One of the links on VMPI's website, ""Eliminate tracking systems that sort children based on perceived ability and demographic profile."
Therefore, the goal of detracking will not be realized without working to dismantle the various social, political, and cultural reasons tracking persists. Those that have been privileged by the current system must be willing to
give up that privilege for more equitable schooling."

See the chart at this link to see what VMPI was REALLY about, including:

“Not all college majors need calculus !” (direct quote).

Obviously, calculus can and should be de-emphasized or mostly eliminated, through VMPI.




Here is the source: WTOP:


https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/04/virginia-plans-to-improve-equity-and-learning-opportunities-through-high-school-mathematics/

Wait - “citizenship” is a necessary math skill ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous to extrapolate out that the entire state of VA would follow in the path of a single school district in CA.

They weren't following the school district. Both were following from common sources pushing detracking. They even had some of these sources on their website. And of course you support the same detracking.

Which is why the comparison is so misleading.

Alabama also followed the same source but didn’t implement tracking. Taking some recommendations from a source doesn’t mean following every single recommendation. Or forcing it so widely across a large, diverse state.

It was a low-priority topic of conversation. 98% of the discussion and 100% of the infographic was around expanding offerings/additional pathways and integrated math.

Alabama is one of the lowest performing states in math. Adopting NCTM proposals that reduce math rigor would not be as controversial against that backdrop.

Space program in Huntsville should have generated pushback.

Why? Evidence that it "reduced rigor"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They wanted to ADD options that are more relevant for non-STEM majors. They weren’t eliminating calculus.

Ah yes, 'Someone who wants to be a beautician can take logic and sets."

They were eliminating calculus for the vast majority of kids who would be taking calculus without any changes. All those kids who take honors classes with a handful of AP classes.

They were not eliminating calculus.

They were giving alternatives for kids who do take calculus now, but only because that's the main path for college bound kids. If they had better options then they could take those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The post is about equitable access to advanced math. This is what VMPI and similar proposals around the country are aboiut. OP is going the other way and saying minorities need to be placed in even more advanced classes, while most equity proposals involve reducing access for everyone. One of the links on VMPI's website, ""Eliminate tracking systems that sort children based on perceived ability and demographic profile."
Therefore, the goal of detracking will not be realized without working to dismantle the various social, political, and cultural reasons tracking persists. Those that have been privileged by the current system must be willing to
give up that privilege for more equitable schooling."

See the chart at this link to see what VMPI was REALLY about, including:

“Not all college majors need calculus !” (direct quote).

Obviously, calculus can and should be de-emphasized or mostly eliminated, through VMPI.




Here is the source: WTOP:


https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/04/virginia-plans-to-improve-equity-and-learning-opportunities-through-high-school-mathematics/

Wait - “citizenship” is a necessary math skill ??

Seems like an important life skill that many people here need to work on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The post is about equitable access to advanced math. This is what VMPI and similar proposals around the country are aboiut. OP is going the other way and saying minorities need to be placed in even more advanced classes, while most equity proposals involve reducing access for everyone. One of the links on VMPI's website, ""Eliminate tracking systems that sort children based on perceived ability and demographic profile."
Therefore, the goal of detracking will not be realized without working to dismantle the various social, political, and cultural reasons tracking persists. Those that have been privileged by the current system must be willing to
give up that privilege for more equitable schooling."

See the chart at this link to see what VMPI was REALLY about, including:

“Not all college majors need calculus !” (direct quote).

Obviously, calculus can and should be de-emphasized or mostly eliminated, through VMPI.




Here is the source: WTOP:


https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/04/virginia-plans-to-improve-equity-and-learning-opportunities-through-high-school-mathematics/

They wanted to ADD options that are more relevant for non-STEM majors. They weren’t eliminating calculus.

I am pretty sure that most schools had the classes that were being added.

What they were doing was blending courses, so there wouldn't be Algebra and Geometry but whatever they were calling the class. I guess Essential Math 1 and 2.

Nothing in their graphic explained that Essential Math 1 and 2 where this blended Algebra Geometry concept, which was confusing. I remember watching a video where the students spent a good amount of time complaining about how hard Tri, Precalculus and Calculus were. Then they had FCPS Alumni who were in college talking about how they never used those classes and how those classes had been a waste of time. All to introduce these "new" math classes that were more practical. All of which ignored that there were already stats classes and classes that were meant to be more practical math usage.

They were also removing the Advanced Math option in ES and the ability to take the grade 9 and 10 math, traditionally Algebra and Geometry, in 7th and 8th grade.

Essentially, they did a crap job of explaining that Algebra and Geometry were still being taught, just in a different manner. The videos I saw sure made it sound like the approach was being taken because 1) math was hard 2) higher level math was useless. Finally, they were clearly eliminating the Advanced Math path in ES which meant that kids who were already bored in Advanced Math would be even more bored in the new program.

I remember looking over the material that they had on the website, watching the videos they posted, and being shocked enough at how it was being presented that I wrote to all the candidates and said that I would not vote for anyone supporting this change. They did a lousey job with their marketing.

Thanks, PP, for this summary, and it’s generally what I recall as well.

When the VMPI advocates were claiming nothing was being taken away, lots of things were being added, and it was only about access, it all sounded impossible.

And it was. Hidden in the details were clear plans to eliminate calculus for nearly all students, with a vague promise the might be a “potential pathway,” but no promises and not for most students.

I also recall VMPI would have delayed Algebra for nearly all student subjects until 9th grade, but when challenged, the VMPI advocates again made vague promises about “potential pathways could exist” or how “an individual school could be potentially be allowed the possibility of maintaining different classes.”

VMPI was presented in the most misleading and deceitful way possible at the time. Hope it never comes back, as it was clearly a deeply flawed plan.

All false. Stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
VMPI was presented in the most misleading and deceitful way possible at the time. Hope it never comes back, as it was clearly a deeply flawed plan.

They were pretty honest about it until the general public found out about it on Fox News.
The only initial dishonesty was saying it was algebra/geometry/algebra 2 classes being mixed for grades 8-10, when it was more like prealgebra/algebra/geometry.
I've seen in California, good student taking a typical advanced math class, in 9th grade they were teaching parentheses.

I wonder what the math looks like in North Carolina, which has implemented blended courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
VMPI was presented in the most misleading and deceitful way possible at the time. Hope it never comes back, as it was clearly a deeply flawed plan.

They were pretty honest about it until the general public found out about it on Fox News.
The only initial dishonesty was saying it was algebra/geometry/algebra 2 classes being mixed for grades 8-10, when it was more like prealgebra/algebra/geometry.
I've seen in California, good student taking a typical advanced math class, in 9th grade they were teaching parentheses.

I wonder what the math looks like in North Carolina, which has implemented blended courses.

It is deceitful to say that VMPI was going to do exactly what CA is doing or that you even know what content was going to be included in each course.

More misinformation. Stop using our kids as pawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Title 1 and near Title 1 schools have more money spent on each kid then the UMC schools do because they have smaller class sizes and more resource specialists who push intot he classrooms. Why? To try and counter the fact that the kids show up at school not knowing their letters, sounds, numbrs, colors, and shapes. Fewer will qualify for Algebra 1 in 7th grade because they are starting school a year to two years behind MC and UMC kids.

Title 1 school in Loudoun has a 6th grader taking algebra. Administration is not particularly supportive. One student wanted to run a math club, and they wouldn't identify this student or notify about the club, or send home flyers to all the students.

Normally there is a process for forming a club. I know that Loudoun treats 6th grade as MS, the student probably needs to figure out how to get a club started at the school and do that. I know kids who started clubs in MS in FCPS. I am sure that is a lot for a 6th grader to think about but it is probably possible.

Overall it sounds like the MS has made a path for the kid who needed Algebra 1 in 6th grade, even if they were not supportive. That is good. Only 30 6th graders were taking Algebra 1 in 6th grade in Loudoun so it is not a huge number. It sounds like the process is working better in Loudoun County then it does in FCPS.

It wasn't the 6th grader that wanted to start the club. The high school kid running the club wanted to get top students added to join the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
VMPI was presented in the most misleading and deceitful way possible at the time. Hope it never comes back, as it was clearly a deeply flawed plan.

They were pretty honest about it until the general public found out about it on Fox News.
The only initial dishonesty was saying it was algebra/geometry/algebra 2 classes being mixed for grades 8-10, when it was more like prealgebra/algebra/geometry.
I've seen in California, good student taking a typical advanced math class, in 9th grade they were teaching parentheses.

I wonder what the math looks like in North Carolina, which has implemented blended courses.

It is deceitful to say that VMPI was going to do exactly what CA is doing or that you even know what content was going to be included in each course.

More misinformation. Stop using our kids as pawns.

They went over content. One example was they would remove the part about intersecting chords in a circle. power of a point. They would remove things they deemed unnecessary and replace with more practical material for problem solving. Even without VMPI much of this has already happened with the previous revisions and ongoing work. Algebra 2 and SAT have sections on data analysis and math modeling. removing sections on hyperbolas and ellipses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Advanced math means Algebra 1 in 6th grades, and Algebra 2 in 8th grades, with very high success rate as statewide SOL data shows. For the very last time, URM kids are excluded from this advanced path.

Let's try this. If we look at data we see that in FCPS and LCPS, kids who take calculus in middle school do very well in their math classes, about 1 or 2 each year.
Does this mean that all students should be allowed to opt in to calculus in middle school, or perhaps automatically enrolled? Obviously all the black students are missing out on this opportunity right now.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They wanted to ADD options that are more relevant for non-STEM majors. They weren’t eliminating calculus.

Ah yes, 'Someone who wants to be a beautician can take logic and sets."

They were eliminating calculus for the vast majority of kids who would be taking calculus without any changes. All those kids who take honors classes with a handful of AP classes.

Where is "Logic and Sets" on that page?

What is wrong with letting kids take a more useful and interesting (form them) math class than calculus?

Why is the "liberty and freedom" crew so opposed to student/parent choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The post is about equitable access to advanced math. This is what VMPI and similar proposals around the country are aboiut. OP is going the other way and saying minorities need to be placed in even more advanced classes, while most equity proposals involve reducing access for everyone. One of the links on VMPI's website, ""Eliminate tracking systems that sort children based on perceived ability and demographic profile."
Therefore, the goal of detracking will not be realized without working to dismantle the various social, political, and cultural reasons tracking persists. Those that have been privileged by the current system must be willing to
give up that privilege for more equitable schooling."

See the chart at this link to see what VMPI was REALLY about, including:

“Not all college majors need calculus !” (direct quote).

Obviously, calculus can and should be de-emphasized or mostly eliminated, through VMPI.




Here is the source: WTOP:


https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/04/virginia-plans-to-improve-equity-and-learning-opportunities-through-high-school-mathematics/

Wait - “citizenship” is a necessary math skill ??

Sadly, Comprehension is not one of the 5 Cs, so you suffer.

That's more dispiriting than Calculus being missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Calculus could always be offered. You can offer any course. The key question is whether students are prepared to do well in a course. By watering down content to only big ideas in VMPI's Grade 8-10 courses, most Algebra 2 and Precalculus content would have been compacted into one year. This would have undermined students' preparation for calculus.

They have pre-calculus broken out as a separate class.

And these are just examples, each school district would continue to define their own course offerings as they do today.

Today, there isn’t even a VA standard for precalculus and yet many districts offer it. The standards are the minimum skills that should be taught; they aren’t limiting.

VMPI offered a one semester course on Trig and a one semester course Pre-Calculus: Focus on Functions that were to be taken the same year. That is where nearly all of Algebra 2 content (with its functions emphasis) would have been housed. In that regard, it would have been like San Francisco's compacted Algebra 2 and Precalculus course that failed so many kids.

In practice, VMPI's Grade 8-10 courses would have covered pared-down Prealgebra, Algebra 1, and Geometry content plus data analysis content, with just a pinch of Algebra 2 thrown in so they could claim Algebra 2 was included.

That all needed to be hashed out and reviewed. They never had the chance to put out a proposal so you’re speculating.

No, they had laid it out internally. Which is why they knew to specify in their Infographic that Grades 8-10 courses would only generate two high school credits, consistent with covering only Prealgebra, Algebra 1 and Geometry. If Algebra 2 had been included as well, Grades 8-10 courses would have generated three high school credits.

As an example. Pre-VMPI, a student taking 8th grade Algebra 1 would have earned three high school credits by 10th grade (Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2). But under VMPI, they would only have two high school credits by 10th grade. Thus, rigor and content was being reducing for advanced kids. And even the two high school credits earned in VMPI's Grades 8-10 was generous. VMPI was only going to include big ideas in Grades 8-10 that were relevant to all students; content only needed by some students was to be dropped, thus pushing the bar down to the lowest common denominator. Data literacy was to be added in Grades 8-10 courses but while learning how to use spreadsheets is useful, it's not mathematically rigorous.

Thus, advanced students would have gotten hit with a double whammy under VMPI - fewer high school credits by 10th grade and less rigorous content underpinning the two high school credits they would have earned by 10th grade. That is why public push-back was so strong from all parts of the political spectrum.