VDOE - VMPI is dead? Isn't that illegal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

No, it's quite the opposite. It's very clear what happened with VMPI - it's well documented - and some people are misrepresenting it for ulterior purposes.

-strong math parent to strong math kids

Well I don’t know what to tell you. My 5th grader has fewer options to accelerate (and has to jump through more hoops) than my 8th grader did. That is a FACT. We are making 5th grade math selections (for 6th) as I type this.

And that has nothing to do with VMPI which never even put out a draft and is now dead.

But that’s the direction it was going. Don’t pee in my face and tell me it’s raining. Again, I didn’t vote for Youngkin but this is one silver lining.

No, it wasn’t going in that direction. VDOE clearly stated that they weren’t going to ban advanced math/acceleration. School districts could still accelerate and offer classes as they wanted - just like they do today. Even now that VMPI is dead, school districts will manage their math offerings as they see fit.

Your frustration with your school district was misplaced. Hopefully your kids have better reasoning skills than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

No, it's quite the opposite. It's very clear what happened with VMPI - it's well documented - and some people are misrepresenting it for ulterior purposes.

-strong math parent to strong math kids

Well I don’t know what to tell you. My 5th grader has fewer options to accelerate (and has to jump through more hoops) than my 8th grader did. That is a FACT. We are making 5th grade math selections (for 6th) as I type this.

And that has nothing to do with VMPI which never even put out a draft and is now dead.

But that’s the direction it was going. Don’t pee in my face and tell me it’s raining. Again, I didn’t vote for Youngkin but this is one silver lining.

No, it wasn’t going in that direction. VDOE clearly stated that they weren’t going to ban advanced math/acceleration. School districts could still accelerate and offer classes as they wanted - just like they do today. Even now that VMPI is dead, school districts will manage their math offerings as they see fit.

Your frustration with your school district was misplaced. Hopefully your kids have better reasoning skills than you.

They can discourage it without banning it. And the other aspects they described didn’t seem great either. Why does something need to change every 7 years just because someone says so? Anyway it’s moot thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

No, it's quite the opposite. It's very clear what happened with VMPI - it's well documented - and some people are misrepresenting it for ulterior purposes.

-strong math parent to strong math kids

Well I don’t know what to tell you. My 5th grader has fewer options to accelerate (and has to jump through more hoops) than my 8th grader did. That is a FACT. We are making 5th grade math selections (for 6th) as I type this.

And that has nothing to do with VMPI which never even put out a draft and is now dead.

But that’s the direction it was going. Don’t pee in my face and tell me it’s raining. Again, I didn’t vote for Youngkin but this is one silver lining.

No, it wasn’t going in that direction. VDOE clearly stated that they weren’t going to ban advanced math/acceleration. School districts could still accelerate and offer classes as they wanted - just like they do today. Even now that VMPI is dead, school districts will manage their math offerings as they see fit.

Your frustration with your school district was misplaced. Hopefully your kids have better reasoning skills than you.

They can discourage it without banning it. And the other aspects they described didn’t seem great either. Why does something need to change every 7 years just because someone says so? Anyway it’s moot thank goodness.

It doesn’t matter if VDOE discourages or not. School districts ultimately decide on how much to accelerate or not. They felt like they were accelerating too many kids too much (3 years) and pulled back to 1-2 years.

One of the big ideas for VMPI (and this was in the infographic) was to offer additional advanced math topics for kids who won’t need calculus down the line. Seemed like that was worth exploring to me.

[Anonymous]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

[Anonymous]

I wish Youngkin had a clue about it what’s required by VA law or that he appointed people who do. Instead he appointed people from Minnesota and Wyoming who have no idea that the curriculum is supposed to be reviewed periodically. This man is so ignorant about his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

Detracking was one of multiple ideas that were floated around over a year ago and it was squashed 9+ months ago. It was never core enough to make the infographic, even back then, but calculus was always there.

The clear goals that *did* make the infographic were adding new math tracks for data/stats/etc as well as blending AGA.

Continuing to focus on this one, minor component that was already eliminated from consideration 9+ months ago is purely pushing GOP propaganda.

[Anonymous]

There are already data and stats class in high school. I am not sure why you are mentioning that this is something new. it has always been there. I know in the FCPS board there has been lots of discussion of kids moving into the Stats class because they were struggling with Calculus.

I have no problem with a periodic review of the curriculum, I think that is a good thing. The proposed plan at this time last year was not a good one for any kid that is strong at math and needs a challenge. Differentiation is a wonderful concept but fails to work for the kids on the tails, the kids who are far behind and the kids who are ahead. We need something for those kids. Many parents begrudgingly accept SPED programs and the like for kids who are struggling but are hostile to the idea that there needs to be something for kids who are ahead. It is like they know they cannot complaining about helping struggling kids but it is fair game to complain about kids who are performing above grade level getting special treatment while the majority of kids who are on grade level. If only their kids would get the time that the kids are ahead are getting, their kid would be ahead.

I am glad that VDOE has backed off of its aggressive plan to level the math classes because the type of differentiation they were discussing would not work for my kid and kids like him. I agree that we need to make sure that all kids have strong foundations in math. I am sure that there are some kids who are accelerated who do not have strong foundations but have been pushed ahead for some reason. I am also sure that there are kids on grade level who are struggling with math foundations at that pace.

[Anonymous]

As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

Your post seems to highlight the problem VMPI was trying to address. Your list of alternatives to calculus were a bunch of classes for which calculus would typically be a prerequisite, or other AP-level classes. VDOE recognizes that students who are not on the calculus/advanced math track aren’t well-served by the current math curriculum because it’s not giving them enough focus on the functional math skills they will need/use as adults. That is a lot of kids, significantly more than will take anything beyond calculus at any point in their academic career, and their needs have to be met as well.

Unfortunately, some people cannot cope with the idea that meeting the needs of those students might mean a school system takes your suggestion if partnering with a local community college to offer differential equations to advance math students.

[Anonymous]

I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

They did include "dual enrollment" as a possible option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

Your post seems to highlight the problem VMPI was trying to address. Your list of alternatives to calculus were a bunch of classes for which calculus would typically be a prerequisite, or other AP-level classes. VDOE recognizes that students who are not on the calculus/advanced math track aren’t well-served by the current math curriculum because it’s not giving them enough focus on the functional math skills they will need/use as adults. That is a lot of kids, significantly more than will take anything beyond calculus at any point in their academic career, and their needs have to be met as well.

Unfortunately, some people cannot cope with the idea that meeting the needs of those students might mean a school system takes your suggestion if partnering with a local community college to offer differential equations to advance math students.

How is discrete math, gen Ed statistics, or gen Ed comp sci a course with calculus as a prerequisite? We also offer stand alone trig, and a bridge math between geometry/algebra 2. These are all courses where we send kids who can’t or don’t want to do precalc and above. Even AP stats only has algebra 1 as a prereq and is quite accessible to atypical math kids.

What are you hoping for? Shopping math? Construction math? Personal finance math? These are offered through sped courses and votech courses and the mandatory finance credit. VMPI is literally just making more courses without solving any problems.

If the only change was merging A1/geo/a2 into a 3 year series I would be okay-ish with it. I feel like in northern Virginia I have so many kids coming from out of state this would be a challenge though. Where does a kid who transfers as a junior with A1 and Geo completed out of state go? Year 3? But then they’ll miss half of algebra 2 and repeat extra geometry and not be ready for precalc. I wish we would just go common core like other states—it would simplify so much for kids and teachers alike. Why must Virginia always be special?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

Detracking was one of multiple ideas that were floated around over a year ago and it was squashed 9+ months ago. It was never core enough to make the infographic, even back then, but calculus was always there.

The clear goals that *did* make the infographic were adding new math tracks for data/stats/etc as well as blending AGA.

Continuing to focus on this one, minor component that was already eliminated from consideration 9+ months ago is purely pushing GOP propaganda.

Ok, so this infographic shows Foundational Math Concepts for K-7 and Essential Math Concepts for 8-10.

- The VMPI initiative imagines math instruction for students that integrates existing math content into blended courses for students typically in grades 8-10.
- The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

How does that work without making all kids take the same courses in Math 8, 9, and 10? Do advanced students take Math 8 in grade 7? Are there multiple versions of Math 9? This is still assuming no tracking without saying no tracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

As a high school math teacher, can you please explain to me why Algebra 2 is a pre-req for Prob and Stats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

Detracking was one of multiple ideas that were floated around over a year ago and it was squashed 9+ months ago. It was never core enough to make the infographic, even back then, but calculus was always there.

The clear goals that *did* make the infographic were adding new math tracks for data/stats/etc as well as blending AGA.

Continuing to focus on this one, minor component that was already eliminated from consideration 9+ months ago is purely pushing GOP propaganda.

Ok, so this infographic shows Foundational Math Concepts for K-7 and Essential Math Concepts for 8-10.

- The VMPI initiative imagines math instruction for students that integrates existing math content into blended courses for students typically in grades 8-10.
- The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

How does that work without making all kids take the same courses in Math 8, 9, and 10? Do advanced students take Math 8 in grade 7? Are there multiple versions of Math 9? This is still assuming no tracking without saying no tracking.

This has been beaten to death a million times.

Today, we have math 6, math 7, math 8 math standards from VDOE. And students in VA today are not required to take math 6 in 6th grade, math 7 in 7th, and math 8 in 8th. School districts can customize courses/accelerate where needed to meet the needs of their students. Many students take the concepts from math 8 earlier than 8th grade. That ability to customize and accelerate was not going to change with VMPI. That was painfully hashed out last year.

The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.

Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

Here are notes from a meeting with more details and they walked through an example of how school districts could have offered accelerated paths - but school districts were fully able to create paths as they see fit to meet the needs of their students. Just like they can do today.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/120/970434.page#20082589

Here was a slide shared during that meeting:

[Anonymous]

This has been beaten to death a million times.

They can claim one thing and do entirely another.