VMPI is not dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VMPI troll is back to her usual childish name-calling.

But that really shows she has no cogent argument to make.

How many times do you need me to debunk your lies? If you can substantiate any of your claims, go nuts. But we can all see that you’re lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

I understand that the state has done away with it. I’m telling you, as a parent of a rising 6th grader and rising 9th grader in Loudoun, that LCPS already took the equity framework and ran with it. And they are not backpedaling or changing course because Youngkin got rid of it. It just had to do course selection for my child entering middle school. The curriculum is unrecognizable from 3 years ago.

They have backpedaled slightly, and you can request your elementary principal contact Wendy King for testing to go into algebra.
However, it appears results are way down for admission even into pre-algebra.

I guess that’s what happens when they raise the bar.

Is this raising of the bar justified? If they're seeing that too many kids are over accelerated but faltering later, surely they have some sort of data indicating as much. I'm all for restricting acceleration when the data supports it. I'm guessing, though, that there's nothing at all in the data to suggest that accelerated kids are struggling, but instead it's being used as an excuse for social engineering. The optics are bad when the highest math tracks have entirely too few URMs and entirely "too many" Asian kids. The easiest fix is to restrict qualified (largely Asian) kids from accessing the top math tracks, so the demographics look better.

They did this in APS several years ago because the math teachers said they weren’t seeing great outcomes in higher level math. You should ask LCPS for their reasons & supporting data, but it’s likely skewed by the pandemic.

If they reduce the # of kids doing advanced math the % of Asian in upper levels will probably *increase*.

I have no doubt that they claimed this. The question is whether the claim is backed up by any real evidence. Lower grades in pre-calc, poorer performance on the AP calc, etc. relative to the kids who waited a year would count as evidence. Nebulous claims that teachers were saying something doesn't. Anecdotally, my experience is the opposite of what the teachers are supposedly claiming. The youngest kids generally have been the strongest ones in each class.

The reason it's likely social engineering is that it looks bad when you have a decent sized contingency of almost entirely Asian 6th graders taking Algebra, and then another group of disproportionally white and Asian kids taking it in 7th. The schools don't have enough URMs who are ready for Algebra by 7th. If they largely eliminate 6th grade Algebra and significantly decrease 7th grade Algebra, then the URMs are for the most part in the same high track as the white and Asian kids. The optics are much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

I understand that the state has done away with it. I’m telling you, as a parent of a rising 6th grader and rising 9th grader in Loudoun, that LCPS already took the equity framework and ran with it. And they are not backpedaling or changing course because Youngkin got rid of it. It just had to do course selection for my child entering middle school. The curriculum is unrecognizable from 3 years ago.

They have backpedaled slightly, and you can request your elementary principal contact Wendy King for testing to go into algebra.
However, it appears results are way down for admission even into pre-algebra.

I guess that’s what happens when they raise the bar.

Is this raising of the bar justified? If they're seeing that too many kids are over accelerated but faltering later, surely they have some sort of data indicating as much. I'm all for restricting acceleration when the data supports it. I'm guessing, though, that there's nothing at all in the data to suggest that accelerated kids are struggling, but instead it's being used as an excuse for social engineering. The optics are bad when the highest math tracks have entirely too few URMs and entirely "too many" Asian kids. The easiest fix is to restrict qualified (largely Asian) kids from accessing the top math tracks, so the demographics look better.

They did this in APS several years ago because the math teachers said they weren’t seeing great outcomes in higher level math. You should ask LCPS for their reasons & supporting data, but it’s likely skewed by the pandemic.

If they reduce the # of kids doing advanced math the % of Asian in upper levels will probably *increase*.

I have no doubt that they claimed this. The question is whether the claim is backed up by any real evidence. Lower grades in pre-calc, poorer performance on the AP calc, etc. relative to the kids who waited a year would count as evidence. Nebulous claims that teachers were saying something doesn't. Anecdotally, my experience is the opposite of what the teachers are supposedly claiming. The youngest kids generally have been the strongest ones in each class.

The reason it's likely social engineering is that it looks bad when you have a decent sized contingency of almost entirely Asian 6th graders taking Algebra, and then another group of disproportionally white and Asian kids taking it in 7th. The schools don't have enough URMs who are ready for Algebra by 7th. If they largely eliminate 6th grade Algebra and significantly decrease 7th grade Algebra, then the URMs are for the most part in the same high track as the white and Asian kids. The optics are much better.

That is sadly what’s behind much of our local administration’s DIE efforts.

They do not sincerely care about anyone’s children (save, maybe their own), nor outcomes or anything else - they just waste all the resources and money on appearances or “optics,” so they can pat themselves on the back and assuage their guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI troll is back to her usual childish name-calling.

But that really shows she has no cogent argument to make.

How many times do you need me to debunk your lies? If you can substantiate any of your claims, go nuts. But we can all see that you’re lying.

DP here and there are at least 2 of us living the reality of "equity in Math" in our repsective counties. You calling it lies doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess that’s what happens when they raise the bar.

Is this raising of the bar justified? If they're seeing that too many kids are over accelerated but faltering later, surely they have some sort of data indicating as much. I'm all for restricting acceleration when the data supports it. I'm guessing, though, that there's nothing at all in the data to suggest that accelerated kids are struggling, but instead it's being used as an excuse for social engineering.

It's not clear that they raised the bar. It could be a temporary dip caused by the pandemic.
They have raised the bar in that it used to be you get into prealgebra with teacher recommendation, and now it requires passing SOL 7 33 questions with 82%.
Before you needed 82% on SOL 8 to get into algebra, and teachers recommended who takes the test.
Now to get into algebra, you need to apply to get into testing(I think it is IAAT), filling out a personal statement of child's math ability.

The data for restricting acceleration does not exist. What they are using is instead that these kids in high school after exhausting the high school offerings are not signing up for dual enrollment college classes, and even that they skew the results by not counting AoS/AET/TJ students who take different classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If they reduce the # of kids doing advanced math the % of Asian in upper levels will probably *increase*.

The reason it's likely social engineering is that it looks bad when you have a decent sized contingency of almost entirely Asian 6th graders taking Algebra, and then another group of disproportionally white and Asian kids taking it in 7th. The schools don't have enough URMs who are ready for Algebra by 7th. If they largely eliminate 6th grade Algebra and significantly decrease 7th grade Algebra, then the URMs are for the most part in the same high track as the white and Asian kids. The optics are much better.

It doesn't help when Loudoun takes a black 8th grader enrolling from out of state a little late who took geometry in 7th grade and places him in prealgebra.

[Anonymous]

OMG, if it’s an Eastern Loudoun MS, we left that MS in 2020 and ran to private. That school will only get worse with more overcrowding from new housing coming! It’s very interesting how the adjacent pyramid has never gotten overcrowded to this degree…