VA math changes - ways to speak out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, perhaps their video presentations were premature, then. Or they were testing the waters to see how much backlash they'd get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, perhaps their video presentations were premature, then. Or they were testing the waters to see how much backlash they'd get.

Seems like it.

Did they explicitly say “this is what VA will be doing...” or “current math reform measures include...”?

I watched them all but can’t remember how they framed it.

[Anonymous]

I do not recall the exact wording but it was repeated enough on the webinars that it was clear they were talking about all kids K-10 being in heterogeneous classes and the nod to the faster kids being in class differentiation to “go deeper”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not recall the exact wording but it was repeated enough on the webinars that it was clear they were talking about all kids K-10 being in heterogeneous classes and the nod to the faster kids being in class differentiation to “go deeper”.

Maybe they will treat it as a recommendation vs. requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not recall the exact wording but it was repeated enough on the webinars that it was clear they were talking about all kids K-10 being in heterogeneous classes and the nod to the faster kids being in class differentiation to “go deeper”.

Maybe they will treat it as a recommendation vs. requirement?

They seemed to consider it to be a plus that the curriculum would be more uniform across the state

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To oppose, it write to your state reps https://whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov/

Also write to or tweet the gubernatorial candidates. Terry McAuliffe's campaign email is [e-mail] and he is the frontrunner based on current polls.

You can also reach out to Gov Northam here: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/constituent-services/communicating-with-the-governors-office/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To oppose, it write to your state reps https://whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov/

Also write to or tweet the gubernatorial candidates. Terry McAuliffe's campaign email is [e-mail] and he is the frontrunner based on current polls.

You can also reach out to Gov Northam here: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/constituent-services/communicating-with-the-governors-office/

Oppose what exactly? Do you even know what is being proposed?

You didn't read the posts.

You sound clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, perhaps their video presentations were premature, then. Or they were testing the waters to see how much backlash they'd get.

That's exactly why, despite claims on this forum, these haven't been people freaking out prematurely. It's much better to get them to backtrack on the terrible parts of this plan, while preserving the good parts, early on, before it has so much momentum it's set in stone.

[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.

Honestly, even if the advanced section is only 'going deeper' into problems, the fact that the advanced kids will actually get attention and instruction in those classes is a plus over completely heterogeneous classrooms.

[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.

Ok. Are they removing pathways?

I haven’t heard that.

They seem to be removing anything beyond calculus, and it's unclear how straightforward it will be to take calc, or if it requires compression of current prereqs, or summer school, or what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

To oppose, it write to your state reps https://whosmy.virginiageneralassembly.gov/

Also write to or tweet the gubernatorial candidates. Terry McAuliffe's campaign email is [e-mail] and he is the frontrunner based on current polls.

You can also reach out to Gov Northam here: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/constituent-services/communicating-with-the-governors-office/

Oppose what exactly? Do you even know what is being proposed?

You didn't read the posts.

You sound clueless.

it’s far from clear what is being proposed.

[Anonymous]

“ That's exactly why, despite claims on this forum, these haven't been people freaking out prematurely. It's much better to get them to backtrack on the terrible parts of this plan, while preserving the good parts, early on, before it has so much momentum it's set in stone.”

IF we are out of the woods then it is really thanks to the Loudon SB member and - much as I HATE to admit it - Fox. VDOE statements on advanced kids took a very different turn late Friday than they have been on since Q4 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. Are they removing pathways?

I haven’t heard that.

They seem to be removing anything beyond calculus, and it's unclear how straightforward it will be to take calc, or if it requires compression of current prereqs, or summer school, or what.

Yup they are essentially saying that at the end of 10th grade, everyone would be one year away from being ready for calculus, which is equivalent to taking algebra in 8th grade now. It is not at all clear if all kids were be able to handle that or if effectively a lot of the tougher material will be simplified and teachers will focus on helping the weakest students instead of "going deeper" with the stronger students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My concern is that the way it’s currently set up - a decent amount of 7th graders take algebra in FCPS setting them up for Calc in 11th. Are they going to continue to have the option to take post-Calc. senior year in this new way?

Under the new system they will not be set up to take calculus in 11th, without outside classes, and likely not in 10th either. 7th graders will not be able to take algebra.
They do appear to be backtracking a little, or at least pretending to, so maybe they can take additional classes.

[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.

Unless LCPS revises their changes, it is a fact they have done this. Fact, not speculation, as you kept claiming. It is right there in the chart. There are about 100 5th graders this year that would have been taking algebra next year that will instead be taking pre-algebra. According to that chart above, many more 4th graders will not be taking algebra in 6th, 7th, or 8th, but instead will be in the new non accelerated curriculum.

The previous chart had algebra in 6th grade as an option, and foundations of algebra then algebra in 7th grade as an option.