VA math changes - ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

[Anonymous]

I have not read through all 400 posts but is there an organized effort to stop this? Any petitions go around or FB groups forming?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through all 400 posts but is there an organized effort to stop this? Any petitions go around or FB groups forming?

Stop what?

Do you even know what they are proposing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

The issue isn't offering additional pathways. The issue is whether pathways are being removed - or, perhaps more accurately, altered in ways that have a negative impact or render them impractical to pursue.

There is a need for DOE to spell out the pathways more precisely, as that may make the difference between something people can live with and something that will push families away. Their failure to do so, even at this early juncture, gives one the sense of either (a) incompetence or (b) obfuscation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

The issue isn't offering additional pathways. The issue is whether pathways are being removed - or, perhaps more accurately, altered in ways that have a negative impact or render them impractical to pursue.

There is a need for DOE to spell out the pathways more precisely, as that may make the difference between something people can live with and something that will push families away. Their failure to do so, even at this early juncture, gives one the sense of either (a) incompetence or (b) obfuscation.

Ok. Are they removing pathways?

I haven’t heard that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

I'm glad to see this. It is completely at odds with all the info initially put out about VMPI. So, hopefully, it means they are backing off of the no-ability-grouping-ever position described in their videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

The issue isn't offering additional pathways. The issue is whether pathways are being removed - or, perhaps more accurately, altered in ways that have a negative impact or render them impractical to pursue.

There is a need for DOE to spell out the pathways more precisely, as that may make the difference between something people can live with and something that will push families away. Their failure to do so, even at this early juncture, gives one the sense of either (a) incompetence or (b) obfuscation.

Chap Petersen sent Sec. Qarni a letter asking for clarification. I look forward to it, because all parents really want is a series of possible course progressions so we know what this plan really means.

Early evidence was not good and this document doesn’t 100% mean that an “advanced” section isn’t just one “going deeper” instead of accelerating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

The issue isn't offering additional pathways. The issue is whether pathways are being removed - or, perhaps more accurately, altered in ways that have a negative impact or render them impractical to pursue.

There is a need for DOE to spell out the pathways more precisely, as that may make the difference between something people can live with and something that will push families away. Their failure to do so, even at this early juncture, gives one the sense of either (a) incompetence or (b) obfuscation.

Chap Petersen sent Sec. Qarni a letter asking for clarification. I look forward to it, because all parents really want is a series of possible course progressions so we know what this plan really means.

Early evidence was not good and this document doesn’t 100% mean that an “advanced” section isn’t just one “going deeper” instead of accelerating.

Chap Petersen? Isn't he the crazy conservative one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

+1
If VDOE would say they have made a change in response to community feedback on this point I would feel more confident in it. Without that I worry there is a catch I am missing since the very very recent statements above are the direct opposite of what they have been saying multiple times over the last several months.
● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

[Anonymous]

^ oops
Comment embedded in wrong spot...

If VDOE would say they have made a change in response to community feedback on this point I would feel more confident in it. Without that I worry there is a catch I am missing since the very very recent statements above are the direct opposite of what they have been saying multiple times over the last several months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ oops
Comment embedded in wrong spot...

If VDOE would say they have made a change in response to community feedback on this point I would feel more confident in it. Without that I worry there is a catch I am missing since the very very recent statements above are the direct opposite of what they have been saying multiple times over the last several months.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

Seems like they are still hashing it out.

● VMPI is in the development stage, and the changes being proposed are under discussion with a wide variety of stakeholders, including the Board of Education. No final decisions have been made at this time.
● The changes being considered as a part of VMPI will ultimately be decided upon and put into effect with the regularly scheduled 2023 update to the Virginia Mathematics Standards of Learning. These standards cover grades K-12 and are updated once every 7 years by the Board of Education. As with all new mathematics standards, there will be many opportunities for public comment and revisions.
● Any changes made to the Mathematics Standards of Learning would be scheduled for classroom level implementation in the 2025-2026 school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

How is it overemphasized? Any kid taking taking algebra 1 in 9th only gets to pre-calculus (one could go even slower and graduate with just algebra 2). Any kid who could take calculus in 12th, can take statistics instead. Calculus is not a graduation requirement. Why would kids, who don’t need calculus, take it?
It is only emphasized when kids apply to engineering, in which case they absolutely need early exposure to calculus to survive the weed-out courses in their university programs. The only useful addition I see in VMPI is the availability of discrete math, so start offering it as an option in addition to calculus and stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● 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.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

How is it overemphasized? Any kid taking taking algebra 1 in 9th only gets to pre-calculus (one could go even slower and graduate with just algebra 2). Any kid who could take calculus in 12th, can take statistics instead. Calculus is not a graduation requirement. Why would kids, who don’t need calculus, take it?
It is only emphasized when kids apply to engineering, in which case they absolutely need early exposure to calculus to survive the weed-out courses in their university programs. The only useful addition I see in VMPI is the availability of discrete math, so start offering it as an option in addition to calculus and stats.

What % of students who aren’t going into STEM take AP Calc?

It’s currently expected for ALL students aiming for top schools. It is the de facto path for all top students.