Math equity nonsense LCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted VMPI before the rest of the state.

One of their LCPS math staff sent an e-mail 'I support eliminating tracking for equity reasons.' They eliminated algebra in 6th grade, and she said she wanted to eliminate prealgebra in 6th grade as well.

There was parent pressure to reverse this, and they yielded a little bit after VMPI was eliminated by Youngkin(at least in name).
The numbers accepted to 6th and 7th grade algebra are down, but this could be due to COVID based learning declines.

Fairfax has been piloting E3 to cut back on advanced math, and Loudoun may adopt this as well with this board.

So much misinformation. Stop pushing lies to try to win a few votes.

From LCPS staff to Tina Mazzacane"
"My goal is to eliminate the choices to take PreAlgebra and Algebra in 6th grade."
"I am very passionate about this change and truly believe the only way to stop inequities in mathematics education is to stop the tracking of students."

Go on talking about how the proposed changes are to blend together algebra and geometry like they do in Europe.

Was that an actual email conversation?

Both sentences were from the same e-mail, one side of the conversation while the others said things like thanks for your help.

Wow. That's interesting.

[Anonymous]

I was also worried about this and essentially they have the kids take a different grade level of math. I still don't think it's fair that they they take SOLs for the grade level (as that can lower the scores for their actual grade class).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be able to factor basic quadratic equations where "a" = 1, but have no idea how to do it when the factoring gets a lot more complicated, and have very little idea of the mathematical concepts behind factoring in general, so that they can apply those concepts to solve the more complicated factoring problems.

Do you think those watered down 6th and 7th grade algebra classes are teaching how to factor quadratic equations with a =/= 1? Is this skill part of the algebra 1 standards? Why do you think algebra 1 SOL performance decreases with the age at which algebra 1 is taken?

The factoring example was just that - an example. Of course factoring, no matter what "a" is, is part of the Algebra 1 standards. You can look it up. I'm saying that it's frequently not taught or not taught to the necessary depth in 6th and 7th grade Algebra 1 courses because most kids aren't ready to learn those concepts. Or they can learn it, but it takes way too long to teach it, going over and over it, lots of practice, taking up a lot of time, so we can't get to some of the rest of the concepts in a full Algebra 1 course. That leaves the kid missing concepts they need for upper level math courses.

Algebra is the basic stepping stone of upper level math - the kids need to be fluent in it. If they aren't, and/or if they were never exposed to concepts because we didn't have time because we were reviewing concepts that should have been covered in the previous course, I'll have to re-teach the missing concepts in Trig/PreCal or Cal, using up time we need to cover all the concepts in those classes...it's a "snowball effect."

I'm sure some 6th/7th grade classes provide a full breadth and depth Algebra 1 course and that some 6th/7th kids who take it do well. I'm just telling you that in my experience, from many years of teaching high school math, that most kids I have in my advanced classes who had Algebra in 6th, 7th, and even 8th grade do not have the depth and breadth and application of Algebra 1 course knowledge that most kids who took Algebra 1 in 9th grade have. There's something about the time in which the course was take, that the brain seems to be more ready to learn and apply the Algebra skills and concepts when the kid is older.

This is my experience, and it's based on many years of teaching. I know there are exceptions to this because I've seen it myself, but in general, taking Algebra 1 when the kid is older usually means the kid has more algebra skills, knowledge and application ability, and makes the next courses in the math sequence much more accessible to them because they have that in-depth Algebra knowledge.

I'd like to respond to the anecdotal observation that kids who took Algebra 1 in 9th grade have somehow more ready brains that may set them up for longterm success at a later age. I'm working a lot with students at the college level. Sometimes with very smart and motivated young adults, and sometimes with not so smart ones. Because I have children that age now, I tend to ask students I work with when they took Algebra 1. For the smart ones, the answer is always 7th grade (I haven't met a 6th algebra person.) On the other hand, I'm seeing lots of college students lacking basic prealgebra/algebra knowledge, such as not being able to turn a periodic decimal into a fraction. Very often, they talk about taking calculus tests (in college!). I have not seen those late-blooming students whom you seem to encounter. Indeed, those students who are taking Algebra 1 in 9th grade often do not make it to Calculus in 12th. Simultaneously, the number of students who need remedial precalculus (not calculus!) in college has reached record highs, even in otherwise competitive engineering departments (these numbers are not usually publicly shared, but they incur a very real risk of diminishing 4-year graduation rates and are of great concern to certain university administrators).

So we both may have selection bias in our observations, that's all I'm saying. Further study to remove those is needed.

DP. The teacher PP has extreme selection bias, because their school system makes no sense and is not even remotely close to how almost all other schools operate. Apparently, at their school system, anyone who wants 6th grade Algebra can put their kids in, and then the classes are watered down to accommodate the kids who aren't ready. Of course the kids who weren't ready for Algebra in the first place and then took watered down Algebra I and Geometry aren't going to be ready for Algebra II. It has nothing whatsoever to do with age or maturity, and everything to do with absurd policies and poor instruction.

In almost every single other school system, kids can only take Algebra in 6th or 7th if they pass some sort of placement test. Then, the Algebra class is not watered down. In that case, the younger kids generally do fine in Algebra II and generally outperform the older kids in the same class.

I’m LCPS there is a low-bar placement test to take Foundations of Algebra in 6th grade, and then from there anyone who demands it can take Algebra in 7th. And so on. I’ve never heard of a kid refused a math class.

I’m in APS and parents can request placement into 6th grade pre-algebra. There are definitely kids who are in the current class who scored below the cutoff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted VMPI before the rest of the state.

One of their LCPS math staff sent an e-mail 'I support eliminating tracking for equity reasons.' They eliminated algebra in 6th grade, and she said she wanted to eliminate prealgebra in 6th grade as well.

There was parent pressure to reverse this, and they yielded a little bit after VMPI was eliminated by Youngkin(at least in name).
The numbers accepted to 6th and 7th grade algebra are down, but this could be due to COVID based learning declines.

Fairfax has been piloting E3 to cut back on advanced math, and Loudoun may adopt this as well with this board.

So much misinformation. Stop pushing lies to try to win a few votes.

From LCPS staff to Tina Mazzacane"
"My goal is to eliminate the choices to take PreAlgebra and Algebra in 6th grade."
"I am very passionate about this change and truly believe the only way to stop inequities in mathematics education is to stop the tracking of students."

Go on talking about how the proposed changes are to blend together algebra and geometry like they do in Europe.

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

This is about LCPS, which did eliminate acceleration, and according to the e-mail had a goal of eliminating more acceleration-lesser acceleration to prealgebra. Algebra in 8th grade can put you on a path to calculus in high school but the current state is more acceleration than that is available and Loudoun got rid of it based on VMPI recommendations. There is more e-mails showing this, but you keep repeating the lies about they were not doing these things, things which you want adopted.

LCPS did not “eliminate acceleration”. Kids can take accelerate at least two years ahead in math.

Speaking of lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted VMPI before the rest of the state.

One of their LCPS math staff sent an e-mail 'I support eliminating tracking for equity reasons.' They eliminated algebra in 6th grade, and she said she wanted to eliminate prealgebra in 6th grade as well.

There was parent pressure to reverse this, and they yielded a little bit after VMPI was eliminated by Youngkin(at least in name).
The numbers accepted to 6th and 7th grade algebra are down, but this could be due to COVID based learning declines.

Fairfax has been piloting E3 to cut back on advanced math, and Loudoun may adopt this as well with this board.

So much misinformation. Stop pushing lies to try to win a few votes.

From LCPS staff to Tina Mazzacane"
"My goal is to eliminate the choices to take PreAlgebra and Algebra in 6th grade."
"I am very passionate about this change and truly believe the only way to stop inequities in mathematics education is to stop the tracking of students."

Go on talking about how the proposed changes are to blend together algebra and geometry like they do in Europe.

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

This is about LCPS, which did eliminate acceleration, and according to the e-mail had a goal of eliminating more acceleration-lesser acceleration to prealgebra. Algebra in 8th grade can put you on a path to calculus in high school but the current state is more acceleration than that is available and Loudoun got rid of it based on VMPI recommendations. There is more e-mails showing this, but you keep repeating the lies about they were not doing these things, things which you want adopted.

LCPS did not “eliminate acceleration”. Kids can take accelerate at least two years ahead in math.

Speaking of lies.

They eliminated 6th grade algebra, at least for the one year. And the goal was(and is) to eliminate the two years ahead acceleration you speak of. Thus the original post of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LCPS adopted VMPI before the rest of the state.

One of their LCPS math staff sent an e-mail 'I support eliminating tracking for equity reasons.' They eliminated algebra in 6th grade, and she said she wanted to eliminate prealgebra in 6th grade as well.

There was parent pressure to reverse this, and they yielded a little bit after VMPI was eliminated by Youngkin(at least in name).
The numbers accepted to 6th and 7th grade algebra are down, but this could be due to COVID based learning declines.

Fairfax has been piloting E3 to cut back on advanced math, and Loudoun may adopt this as well with this board.

So much misinformation. Stop pushing lies to try to win a few votes.

From LCPS staff to Tina Mazzacane"
"My goal is to eliminate the choices to take PreAlgebra and Algebra in 6th grade."
"I am very passionate about this change and truly believe the only way to stop inequities in mathematics education is to stop the tracking of students."

Go on talking about how the proposed changes are to blend together algebra and geometry like they do in Europe.

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

This is about LCPS, which did eliminate acceleration, and according to the e-mail had a goal of eliminating more acceleration-lesser acceleration to prealgebra. Algebra in 8th grade can put you on a path to calculus in high school but the current state is more acceleration than that is available and Loudoun got rid of it based on VMPI recommendations. There is more e-mails showing this, but you keep repeating the lies about they were not doing these things, things which you want adopted.

LCPS did not “eliminate acceleration”. Kids can accelerate at least two years ahead in math.

Speaking of lies.

They eliminated 6th grade algebra, at least for the one year. And the goal was (and is) to eliminate the two years ahead acceleration you speak of. Thus the original post of this thread.

The original post is an article about California schools.

Please share any evidence that LCPS is currently planning to eliminate all acceleration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

I do not believe that because there is a list Grade 1, Grade 2, ..., Grade 8, Algebra I on the SOL website that this makes this a "baseline," but perhaps this depends on how much one knows about mathematics and its applications in scientific and engineering disciplines. To me, students who finish calculus I in HS are on a normal path, those who are beyond calc I are accelerated, and those who didn't take it need remedial work if they even attend a university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

The reason there's no calculus is that for Calculus we fortunately have national standards provided by the College Board, so we don't need our state government to come up with one to provide guidance for schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

The reason there's no calculus is that for Calculus we fortunately have national standards provided by the College Board, so we don't need our state government to come up with one to provide guidance for schools.

Because it's a college-level course. Kids who take it in high school are accelerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

I do not believe that because there is a list Grade 1, Grade 2, ..., Grade 8, Algebra I on the SOL website that this makes this a "baseline," but perhaps this depends on how much one knows about mathematics and its applications in scientific and engineering disciplines. To me, students who finish calculus I in HS are on a normal path, those who are beyond calc I are accelerated, and those who didn't take it need remedial work if they even attend a university.

I know plenty about math/engineering, thanks.

In Northern VA, taking calculus in HS is certainly a common path for many college-bound students, particularly those interested in STEM. But it still is an accelerated path -- calculus is a college-level class.

General info about accelerated math:
https://resources.njgifted.org/accelerated-math-what-every-parent-should-know/

The traditional math sequence in the US is Alg 1 in 9th, Geometry in 10th, Algebra 2 in 11th, and then Pre-Calc in 12th. Any earlier is acceleration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

I do not believe that because there is a list Grade 1, Grade 2, ..., Grade 8, Algebra I on the SOL website that this makes this a "baseline," but perhaps this depends on how much one knows about mathematics and its applications in scientific and engineering disciplines. To me, students who finish calculus I in HS are on a normal path, those who are beyond calc I are accelerated, and those who didn't take it need remedial work if they even attend a university.

I know plenty about math/engineering, thanks.

In Northern VA, taking calculus in HS is certainly a common path for many college-bound students, particularly those interested in STEM. But it still is an accelerated path -- calculus is a college-level class.

General info about accelerated math:
https://resources.njgifted.org/accelerated-math-what-every-parent-should-know/

The traditional math sequence in the US is Alg 1 in 9th, Geometry in 10th, Algebra 2 in 11th, and then Pre-Calc in 12th. Any earlier is acceleration.

If that's your point of view, then "acceleration" has the same meaning as in "Accelerated Weight Loss" programs, or as in the "Accelerated Growth" label on the pack of fertilizer you just bought, or the "Accelerated Financial Growth" program your financial advisor is trying to sell you. Most people would assume it's standard. I suggest we adopt a more realistic definition that reflects reality, and under this definition, true acceleration goes beyond calculus in HS.

But even under your definition, it is a very weak argument to say that VMPI still left open a path to calculus in HS. What are you trying to say or imply?
Taking Calculus in HS is what many students strive for, independent of whether you call it accelerated or not, and we should start from there as a base, and see how we increase their number, not deemphasize it and merely tolerate those students. How stupid would it be to do so. (And talking about stupid: do you all recall the VMPI propaganda video where they tried to pooh-pooh calculus, all the while showing in the background technologies enabled by calculus, such as robotics. These novel VMPI robots apparently worked without PID controllers.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

At no point were they eliminating acceleration - they always included calculus & IB as possible paths. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they completely clarified shortly after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading. (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math?
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM.

I do not believe that because there is a list Grade 1, Grade 2, ..., Grade 8, Algebra I on the SOL website that this makes this a "baseline," but perhaps this depends on how much one knows about mathematics and its applications in scientific and engineering disciplines. To me, students who finish calculus I in HS are on a normal path, those who are beyond calc I are accelerated, and those who didn't take it need remedial work if they even attend a university.

I know plenty about math/engineering, thanks.

In Northern VA, taking calculus in HS is certainly a common path for many college-bound students, particularly those interested in STEM. But it still is an accelerated path -- calculus is a college-level class.

General info about accelerated math:
https://resources.njgifted.org/accelerated-math-what-every-parent-should-know/

The traditional math sequence in the US is Alg 1 in 9th, Geometry in 10th, Algebra 2 in 11th, and then Pre-Calc in 12th. Any earlier is acceleration.

If that's your point of view, then "acceleration" has the same meaning as in "Accelerated Weight Loss" programs, or as in the "Accelerated Growth" label on the pack of fertilizer you just bought, or the "Accelerated Financial Growth" program your financial advisor is trying to sell you. Most people would assume it's standard. I suggest we adopt a more realistic definition that reflects reality, and under this definition, true acceleration goes beyond calculus in HS.

But even under your definition, it is a very weak argument to say that VMPI still left open a path to calculus in HS. What are you trying to say or imply?
Taking Calculus in HS is what many students strive for, independent of whether you call it accelerated or not, and we should start from there as a base, and see how we increase their number, not deemphasize it and merely tolerate those students. How stupid would it be to do so. (And talking about stupid: do you all recall the VMPI propaganda video where they tried to pooh-pooh calculus, all the while showing in the background technologies enabled by calculus, such as robotics. These novel VMPI robots apparently worked without PID controllers.)

It's not my definition. This is standard terminology in the US. Since you seem unfamiliar, you should educate yourself on the topic. Here is an example of various math pathways at a highly-rated HS in Georgia (#2 HS in a red state). It's the same in just about every HS/state in the US.
http://www.columbushighga.org/mathematics-department/

From the very early VMPI presentations, they always included calculus and IB (also accelerated) as possible paths. At no point, did they actually propose banning advanced/accelerated paths or stopping school districts from defining their own courses/paths. Someone made some assumptions and then it morphed into inaccurate conservative talking points.

One of the main concepts tossed around by VMPI is that students who are not interested in STEM should have alternative paths. There should be other high-level math options in addition to calculus. My kids and I love math/STEM. I fully support having calculus in HS. It would be great if other paths were more clearly defined and available to kids who aren't going into STEM.

I thought it was going to be great to rethink math options to make it more accessible/interesting/relevant to more people. Too bad it got politicized and squashed.

[Anonymous]

Yes, calculus in HS is technically accelerated. But that’s beside the point. The original VMPI plan was to allow NO acceleration/differentiation through 10th grade. So offering calculus, without offering the classes needed to be ready for it, was dumb and basically sabotage. When people pushed back, they reversed course and changed this. I attended online meetings & read about it at the time. We are not making this up, no matter how many times you say it. In one of the online meetings, they clarified that they had changed things so acceleration COULD happen at lower grades. But that was NOT the original plan.