VA math changes - ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm really hesitant to send an email to my delegate about anything, to be honest. A year or so ago I sent him an email about a bill I had reasonable reservations about and he sent me a long vitriolic reply calling me a right wing extremist. I'm a Democrat. I don't trust him to listen to my concerns. I'll look up who else I can email about it.

Not surprised. Most of the delegates representing Northern Virginia are to the left of Stalin

-Another Democrat

Really? They strike me as mainstream left wing Democracts of the sort one would find in the SAN Francisco area or parts of NY. The stat has moved left very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT going to be aSB decision of VDOE gets their way. SB is a waste of time. Effort needs focused at the state level.

Loudoun County has already changed its course pathways to match the new plans. They were not required to do this, as Fairfax has not done so I believe.
People can contact Loudoun County School Board and get them to overrule this. Specifically kids who would have been taking algebra in middle school will now be taking algebra in 9th grade, current fourth graders and below.
Current 5th graders have been denied 6th grade algebra, and most have been denied 7th grade algebra.

Loudoun County has gone from having advanced math programs to being way behind.

This doesn’t match with a Facebook post I saw from a lcps school board member. He said everyone would take algebra is eighth grade.

https://www.lcps.org/Page/212323

"These changes include the creation of Essential Concepts courses in Grades 8-10 to replace Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra II courses and increased options for higher level mathematics courses in Grades 11-12, including Advanced Placement courses."

[Anonymous]

It appears that the this proposed math revisions will put Virginia at the bottom of the bottom in the world of math on this planet. IB had revisions to its tracks but it seems more evolved than what Virginia proposes. https://www.revisionvillage.com/new-ib-maths-curriculum-information/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It appears that the this proposed math revisions will put Virginia at the bottom of the bottom in the world of math on this planet. IB had revisions to its tracks but it seems more evolved than what Virginia proposes. https://www.revisionvillage.com/new-ib-maths-curriculum-information/

thanks--very helpful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT going to be aSB decision of VDOE gets their way. SB is a waste of time. Effort needs focused at the state level.

Loudoun County has already changed its course pathways to match the new plans. They were not required to do this, as Fairfax has not done so I believe.
People can contact Loudoun County School Board and get them to overrule this. Specifically kids who would have been taking algebra in middle school will now be taking algebra in 9th grade, current fourth graders and below.
Current 5th graders have been denied 6th grade algebra, and most have been denied 7th grade algebra.

Loudoun County has gone from having advanced math programs to being way behind.

This doesn’t match with a Facebook post I saw from a lcps school board member. He said everyone would take algebra is eighth grade.

https://www.lcps.org/Page/212323

"These changes include the creation of Essential Concepts courses in Grades 8-10 to replace Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra II courses and increased options for higher level mathematics courses in Grades 11-12, including Advanced Placement courses."

Yes. I interpreted that to mean everyone comes out at the end of 10th grade being able to take pre-calc/trig, and has the option to take an ap calculus class as a senior. That seems reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Just posted in the AAP thread but adding here since this seems new:

What should we make of the latest VDOE statements on advancement? They are directly opposite what has been discussed in the webinars and in replies to questions before the last couple days. I would love it if this really means what it claims - AAP/Honors/advancement can stay. But it is so directly contrary to what they have been saying that I am worried they are playing games with wording here, maybe asserting that the in class differentiation is “advancement”?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/virginia-d...NJhrBHjHQGkC_susQ9tqQg8Y2pxEPg

The initiative as currently proposed allows for student acceleration before the 11th grade and for the traditional sequence of courses leading to calculus and other advanced courses," Pyle told the Washington Examiner. "And again, students would still be able to accelerate through the content based on their ability and achievement."

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathemati...PI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

“ 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.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just posted in the AAP thread but adding here since this seems new:

What should we make of the latest VDOE statements on advancement? They are directly opposite what has been discussed in the webinars and in replies to questions before the last couple days. I would love it if this really means what it claims - AAP/Honors/advancement can stay. But it is so directly contrary to what they have been saying that I am worried they are playing games with wording here, maybe asserting that the in class differentiation is “advancement”?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/virginia-d...NJhrBHjHQGkC_susQ9tqQg8Y2pxEPg

The initiative as currently proposed allows for student acceleration before the 11th grade and for the traditional sequence of courses leading to calculus and other advanced courses," Pyle told the Washington Examiner. "And again, students would still be able to accelerate through the content based on their ability and achievement."

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathemati...PI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

“ 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.”

I think the first webinars were early in the process before they hashed out details. That’s why there was so little in writing.

I’m sure the AAP nutters are happy.

[Anonymous]

“ think the first webinars were early in the process before they hashed out details. That’s why there was so little in writing. ”

No, I listened to the April webinar and they were still talking about heterogeneous classes and in class differentiation during that and pushing back hard against the questions posed that voiced concerns about impacts on the quicker kids. That was maybe a week or 1.5 weeks ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ think the first webinars were early in the process before they hashed out details. That’s why there was so little in writing. ”

No, I listened to the April webinar and they were still talking about heterogeneous classes and in class differentiation during that and pushing back hard against the questions posed that voiced concerns about impacts on the quicker kids. That was maybe a week or 1.5 weeks ago?

Pushing back because it wasn’t hashed out...I don’t think I ever saw it in writing. Did you? I know they referenced detracking/heterogeneous because that’s party of the reform movement, but I don’t think they committed to it then.

[Anonymous]

^ it all seemed like ideas, not an actual plan

[Anonymous]

When that main woman commented after the teacher poll “we will have work on this” maybe this is what she meant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is NOT going to be aSB decision of VDOE gets their way. SB is a waste of time. Effort needs focused at the state level.

Loudoun County has already changed its course pathways to match the new plans. They were not required to do this, as Fairfax has not done so I believe.
People can contact Loudoun County School Board and get them to overrule this. Specifically kids who would have been taking algebra in middle school will now be taking algebra in 9th grade, current fourth graders and below.
Current 5th graders have been denied 6th grade algebra, and most have been denied 7th grade algebra.

Loudoun County has gone from having advanced math programs to being way behind.

This doesn’t match with a Facebook post I saw from a lcps school board member. He said everyone would take algebra is eighth grade.

https://www.lcps.org/Page/212323

"These changes include the creation of Essential Concepts courses in Grades 8-10 to replace Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra II courses and increased options for higher level mathematics courses in Grades 11-12, including Advanced Placement courses."

Yes. I interpreted that to mean everyone comes out at the end of 10th grade being able to take pre-calc/trig, and has the option to take an ap calculus class as a senior. That seems reasonable.

That does seem reasonable and as long as my kids can do that I'll be happy. They don't explain, however, how they are going to make that possible while also serving the needs of students who need a slower pace and insisting that all students must be in heterogeneous classes with zero ability grouping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All kids having a "deeper learning experience" in math sounds good. Gut instinct - good idea! We all want kids to understand math -- hopefully like one stream of it (finance, statistics, etc) But a "deeper learning experience" is a term of art -- meaningless without specifics. And this plan is on track to start rolling our soon (test runs before full scale in 25-26).

I have reached out to elected officials and even a school principal. None of them seem to know anything about it beyond a bullet point or two provided by the VA DOE and it's all **abstract talking points.**

They call for detracking all the way through elementary school. In practical terms, that may mean:
--No AAP
--No honors/advanced math in elementary or middle school.
--This would be statewide, but the IB diploma is set by international standards. The switch to this pacing would make it difficult to get the IB diploma.
--Fewer chances for advanced math and science classes. Students interested in STEM would hit fewer higher level classes and thus be less competitive to certain colleges.
--This also translates into fewer opportunities for AP courses at the high school level. That is real money in at college level courses that will hit college students and their families' pocketbooks.
--For teachers, they talk about "heterogenous classrooms," which translates into them expecting miracles out of teachers so they they teach to all levels in one room. That won't happen.

On one of the webinars, a state employee who was a representative of the VMPI said well - college level courses should stay in college. No a fan of the AP level coursework. Again... that is a huge money saver for many families.

I think this program has some unintended consequences. I would love to be wrong, but I don't think people have any idea what is coming at them and it will change the system in some pretty profound ways.

I believe in public education and think they should look for more ways to help students get and stay interested in math. But that shouldn't start by eliminating advancement opportunities.

I encourage you to reach out to your school board members and your elected officials (more than once if you have to) to make sure they become educated beyond the abstract terms.

I spoke to my state Senator yesterday and he plans to reach out to the VMPI for clarity (practical implications -- not abstract jargon), but we need all of the state senators and delegates and school board members to AT LEAST UNDERSTAND the implications of what it will mean in practical terms.

You are speculating that it’d be harder for IB. They haven’t shared specifics yet.

I think it’s important to understand the impacts of these changes — that will be easier to do after they’ve shared specifics. We should hear more at the next info sessions.

Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - Essential Concepts in Grades 8 - 10
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 - Advanced Pathways in Grades 11 - 12

https://youtube.com/channel/UCrbxl9wHScrWKWIEoUWNIfQ

So I posted 6 reasons for concern and you mentioned I was speculating on the one that likely affects the least number of families. I encourage everyone to watch those webinars and submit questions, but know you are watching it on youtube and they pick the questions they want to answer. Also... Asking bureaucrats at VMPI, who support the plan and talk in abstract terms, will have less impact than reaching out to your Delegate and State Senator and school board. The superintendents will have to follow the programs. The others may have more room to shape it. Also - these last two webinars are directed towards kids in upper-grades, BUT the people most affected by this are in elementary school now. So... elementary school parents... I know it's for Grades 8-10, but you need to be watching.

I completely agree people should stay informed and provide constructive feedback to VDOE & representatives.

The doomsday scenarios being thrown around based on zero facts aren’t productive at all though.

It’ll be easier to give feedback after the next two sessions once they’ve (hopefully) provided some specifics.

Yet when I emailed the VMPI to specifically ask what they meant about detracking or if honors math in middle school would be stopped or what it would mean to Fairfax's Advanced Academics Programs, Tina Mazzacane (K-12 Mathematics Coordinator) would not answer in direct terms. She used abstract language and ducked a response. She gave me a reply similar to the one above so my guess is that the VA DOE is tracking this board. And she suggested I watch a youtube webinar that did not allow for live questions from the audience -- just ones that they were able to comb through and pick. Not exactly an open debate or opportunity for direct questions. When the VA DOE won't answer some of the points above, there is definite reason for concern given the materials they have put out thus far.

There are no doomsday scenarios on here based on zero facts. You just wish to repeat this to try and shut down discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just posted in the AAP thread but adding here since this seems new:

What should we make of the latest VDOE statements on advancement? They are directly opposite what has been discussed in the webinars and in replies to questions before the last couple days. I would love it if this really means what it claims - AAP/Honors/advancement can stay. But it is so directly contrary to what they have been saying that I am worried they are playing games with wording here, maybe asserting that the in class differentiation is “advancement”?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/virginia-d...NJhrBHjHQGkC_susQ9tqQg8Y2pxEPg

The initiative as currently proposed allows for student acceleration before the 11th grade and for the traditional sequence of courses leading to calculus and other advanced courses," Pyle told the Washington Examiner. "And again, students would still be able to accelerate through the content based on their ability and achievement."

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathemati...PI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

“ 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.”

This is directly contradicted by the previous post. Kids in LCPS were able to take algebra in 6th grade this year, if they passed a test. The test given to 5th graders now limited them to testing for pre-algebra.
Next year the kids will notbe able to advance to prealgebra but to foundations of algebra, and even then it won't matter they are all taking essential concepts 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ think the first webinars were early in the process before they hashed out details. That’s why there was so little in writing. ”

No, I listened to the April webinar and they were still talking about heterogeneous classes and in class differentiation during that and pushing back hard against the questions posed that voiced concerns about impacts on the quicker kids. That was maybe a week or 1.5 weeks ago?

Pushing back because it wasn’t hashed out...I don’t think I ever saw it in writing. Did you? I know they referenced detracking/heterogeneous because that’s party of the reform movement, but I don’t think they committed to it then.

It was in an e-mail from Tina to someone on here who asked about can you confirm detracking?