Equitable access to advanced math

[Anonymous]

PP, I see the connection on the Texas post, the first post of the thread is about that law and how something like that should be used in FCPS. I had forgotten how this topic started, my apologies.

I have no idea what the STAAR test looks like but I would think that the score needed for Advanced Math is really low. How do the kids in the advanced math group perform? Are they moving on at the right level or are they struggling?

I have been reading in the Arlington forum that the SOL score needed for their intensified math is a 540 or higher. It is higher then what FCPS requires for Algebra 1 in 7th grade. It feels pretty restrictive. That said, the 3 of the 5 kids whose SOL scores I know from 6th grade would have qualified in Arlington. The two who didn't are kids who I question being in Algebra 1 in 7th grade, one of the 2 has decided to take Math 7 H anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I, for one, am very concerned about this new law and the concern is that most people don't really understand STAAR scores and how low Texas is setting the bar for students to be enrolled in the advanced math. The law calls for any student scoring in the 60th percentile on Grade 5 Math STAAR. Students in Texas are not doing well on their STAAR tests - that is the 1st problem. IN order to score in the 60th percentile students ONLY have to get 55% of the questions/material/skills correct on the STAAR. Does anyone on these posts think that learning and knowing only 55% of the grade level material means that you are ready to be in an accelerated program. More students will struggle and just get pushed along and these students will not go on to take advanced math - they will not even score "college ready". Texas is really good about not being clear on what the results on STAAR actually mean. There are so many scale scores it is confusing to most people.

That doesn't really pertain to 99% of the people on this board who are in the Washington DC/Maryland/Northern Virginia area. Most of the conversation in this topic has been focused on Fairfax County's math advancement path.

These sort of ideas get adopted to try and reach policy goals.
The current TJ 1.5% formula is loosely based on the texas college system.
That system passed constitutional muster and so should the TJ method unless they reverse Fisher.
There is no question that the university of texas system adopted its method to create racial diversity but adopting race neutral methods to adjust the racial composition of selected candidates may not be impermissible discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are mixing up cause and effect.

Kids who do higher level math are more likely to graduate from college because they are better at school. The math didn’t make them more likely to graduate.

We would better serve kids if we focused on what skills kids actually need to obtain jobs that provide a living wage.

Yes, nevermind that wealthy schools have far more opportunities for enrichment and acceleration.

Because they need it. Poor schools struggle to even have kids pass grade level math. Look up just about any high poverty middle school and the percentage of kids that are even grade level proficient is very very low, as in teens of lower. If there does happen to be a rock star math kid at such school, it’s because they have parents at home that care and are pushing them and they will find additional resources. It isn’t up to the school to give a specifically tailored unique work plan for each kid. Every school is trying their best to provide the resources at their school that will be best utilized by the greatest amount of children