NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[Anonymous]

December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

[Anonymous]

“Equity” programs are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

https://e3alliance.org/2022/08/29/call-for-advanced-math-policy-during-texas-88th-legislature/
"E3 Alliance research indicates that taking more advanced math courses in high school highly correlates with students enrolling in a higher education institution, persisting in their studies, and ultimately completing a postsecondary credential"

"we believe the time is now to amplify all students across the state, scaling these tested and refined practices into state policy during the upcoming Texas 88th Legislative Session."

"Our state-level policy priorities include:
*Opt-Out Policy for high-performing students enrolling in accelerated math starting in 6th grade.
*Math All Four Years for high school students."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

So now you’re mad about “citizenship”?

At least we can all agree they weren’t actually taking away advanced/accelerated classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

So now you’re mad about “citizenship”?

At least we can all agree they weren’t actually taking away advanced/accelerated classes.

The issue is not whether courses would be offered. You can offer topology if you want. The question is whether students would be prepared to thrive in the course. By watering down math preparation throughout the VMPI progression, students would have been less prepared to thrive in advanced math, hence undermining advanced math.

[Anonymous]

Let’s look at those “Virginia’s 5Cs”.

Where did they come from? Not NCTM.

They are included as part of the “Portrait of a VA Graduate”. It covers all subjects, not just math.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/parents-students/for-students/graduation/policy-initiatives/profile-of-a-virginia-graduate

They were originally proposed by a bipartisan DOE committee - incl R delegates & TJ parent - back in 2015:
https://www.education.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/secretary-of-education/pdf/2015-standards-of-learning-innovation-committee-full-report.pdf

And then pushed through GA by the Republican delegates:
https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?161+sum+HB895
“(i) develop and implement, in consultation with stakeholders representing elementary and secondary education, higher education, and business and industry in the Commonwealth and including parents, policymakers, and community leaders in the Commonwealth, a Profile of a Virginia Graduate that identifies the knowledge and skills that students should attain during high school in order to be successful contributors to the economy of the Commonwealth, giving due consideration to critical thinking, creative thinking, collaboration, communication, and citizenship;”


It does track though that Rs are anti-citizenship now in 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"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.
"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"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.
"

Let me check to see if I did email you. What’s your email address?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"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.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

43:42 "we're not taking away deep, rich STEM courses like AP Calc, IB, etc."
48:15 "schools would have a lot of flexibility to design courses"
58:15 "we have a lot of things to think about, give us your feedback, important to have people look at this from different directions, we know this will morph and change as we talk to more stakeholders"

In later meetings they more clearly spelled out options for acceleration.

Did you listen to the video you posted?
10:48
16:22
19:34
20:22
21:09
21:47
21:59
22:41
23:58
26:01
38:04
(I stopped hunting after that but I did listen to the full thing when it originally aired - I sat through it live).

The MAIN thrust of this effort was to uproot advanced classes and ability grouping for K-10. Yes they let you take different math in 11 and 12 but it is clear what they were shooting for is that all kids were in the exact same math classes for K-10. They were very much against letting kids advance if they learn math at a quicker pace.

[Anonymous]

Equity math means hold back advanced students, using all means possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But tracking has cast an uncomfortable spotlight on inequality. Around a quarter of all students in the United States take algebra in middle school. But only about 12 percent of Black and Latino eighth graders do, compared with roughly 24 percent of white pupils, a federal report found.
“That’s why middle school math is this flashpoint,” said Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University. “It’s the first moment where you potentially make it very obvious and explicit that there are knowledge gaps opening up.”

Not a problem in FCPS, we make the gap obvious in third grade

School districts around the country have GT programs that begin between 2nd-4th grade and are used to determine eligibility for advanced math placement. Parents in FCPS are so myopic.

Other districts have small GT programs, FCPS has a massive slightly advanced program

And that's a bad thing, how?

SMH

FCPS math curriculum overall is bad. We really need FCPS to get it together with math and math interventions.

[Anonymous]

jfc people we just had all the same posts, with the same comments, pictures, and video, in last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Equity math means hold back advanced students, using all means possible.

DP.

Agree completely. What the VMPI-supporters do not want you to know is they desperately want to:

- close the racial achievement gap from the top down.

It is that simple: the want to eliminate advanced and accelerated learning.

Examples include NYC eliminating the entire G&T program, Seattle following NYC, and the state of California banning Algebra prior to 9th grade. VMPI was based on the same principles, with an emphasis on eliminating any tracking in math.

It is just really sad to see someone here who simply cannot bring herself to be honest, and just say the truth about what she was trying to do to MATH education in VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But tracking has cast an uncomfortable spotlight on inequality. Around a quarter of all students in the United States take algebra in middle school. But only about 12 percent of Black and Latino eighth graders do, compared with roughly 24 percent of white pupils, a federal report found.
“That’s why middle school math is this flashpoint,” said Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University. “It’s the first moment where you potentially make it very obvious and explicit that there are knowledge gaps opening up.”

Not a problem in FCPS, we make the gap obvious in third grade

School districts around the country have GT programs that begin between 2nd-4th grade and are used to determine eligibility for advanced math placement. Parents in FCPS are so myopic.

Other districts have small GT programs, FCPS has a massive slightly advanced program

And that's a bad thing, how?

SMH

FCPS math curriculum overall is bad. We really need FCPS to get it together with math and math interventions.

For kids on the normal accelarated track (Algebra in 7th), FCPS is great. For kids on other tracks, the quality of instruction depends on what school they attend