Math equity nonsense LCPS
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Goal posts shifting... I was also following and joined the webinars. I provided summaries on DCUM. Again, in the beginning, people were jumping to conclusions based on very little info. VDOE was very early in the process and throwing out ideas. They were several months out from an actual plan. And, at no point did they say that school districts couldn't accelerate or define their own courses to meet the needs of their students, as they were already doing. As I said earlier, VMPI never proposed to eliminate advanced math or acceleration. And, Calculus/IB were *always* included as possible paths. And, back to the OP.....LCPS did not “eliminate acceleration”. Kids can take accelerate at least two years ahead in math. OP is pushing lies and random articles about CA schools because the Rs have no actual platform. |
Anonymous
| Democrats in Loudoun haven't been this racist since the 60s. The fact that they think brown kids are not capable of white kid math is disgusting. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
DP VDOE was not "very early in the process". They already had a draft of the Essential Concepts courses by early 2021 and were intending to write the standards in spring 2021. From BOE January 2021: https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/virginia-board-of-education/board-meetings-agendas-and-minutes/january-27-28-2021 "Phase 1 of the project occurred during the 2019-2020 school year. ... Members of the leadership team led these groups to develop a draft set of essential mathematics concepts for grades 8-10" "Phase 2 of the project is currently underway during the 2020-2021 school year. ... The Essential Mathematics Concepts team met to review the existing 2016 Mathematics Standards of Learning and further define a set of essential mathematics concepts for grades 8-10. The team is now seeking feedback from various stakeholder groups to revise the work and will begin creating draft standards and a curriculum framework this spring." |
Anonymous
^ This |
Anonymous
YOU ARE A LIAR. I recognize you by your writing style. VMPI initially sought to eliminate advanced math. It was only after push-back the proposed VMPI plan was altered to “allow pathways” (whatever that was supposed to mean) to advanced math. You fanatically defended VMPI, especially in the FCPS sub forum. Thank God VMPI has been scrapped. People like you, PP, are hell-bent on destroying public education. |
Anonymous
VMPI said explicitly in November 2020 that students would be in detracked, heterogenously grouped classes in Grades 8-10, which means they were calling for no collective acceleration through 10th grade. As described, students in each grade (through grade 10) would be taking math/English/Social Studies/Science together which would permit inter-disciplinary activities. You ignore all of this and instead chose your words carefully to say that there was no language instructing districts not to offer acceleration. Districts are the ultimate arbiters of whether to offer acceleration. However, VMPI was a committee which included representatives from the major VA school districts, thus school district representatives were participating in VMPI's crafting of the detracking policy. To assume that school district representatives to VMPI would help craft VMPI's detracking policy and then return to their district and do the opposite of what VMPI called for is absurd. The only thing that stopped the effort to detrack math classes through 10th grade was public outcry, which ultimately prompted VDOE to publicly abandon its detracking call. VMPI November 2020 Regional Webinar https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo "we're also wanting to identify include meaningful interdisciplinary connections and this is one of the things that excites me the most about having these heterogeneously grouped detracked classes think about an 8th grade year all of the students currently all of them take civics all of them take english language arts in grade 8 and all of them take some type of physical science class so think about how we might do a cross-curricular lesson with with civics so in civics they may go out and talk about the the political side about a poll and then in our math class we can talk about the mathematics behind it in a real deep connection that just is not possible in our current system." (35:45-36:30) |
Anonymous
No, it was still early in the process. At that point, they were still seeking early feedback from stakeholders. After that, they were going to be working on a proposal through 2022 and then it would go through a more formal public review process. |
Anonymous
It was early and they were throwing out ideas. 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 called out options for acceleration. |
Anonymous
It was not early in the process. VMPI sprang out of a coordinated effort by the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences and the Dana Center in early 2019, which encouraged states to reform their math programs in line with the recommendations of NCTM's "Catalyzing Change" and NCSM's "A Call for Detracking Math". CBMS asked states to form working groups in each of their states, which prompted VA to establish VMPI. In May 2019, CBMS grouped VA with California in a small working group to advance their math agendas together, which is why there are common themes (heterogenous, detracked classes) in the original versions of VMPI and the California Math Framework. VMPI was following a detailed roadmap from this multi-state venture; it was not just "throwing out ideas". By the end of 2020, VMPI had its plan for heterogenous, detracked classes in place and began to ask for feedback from the community. They got that feedback in abundance. |
Anonymous
They were in phase 2 out of 8. They weren't going to have a draft for another year. Nothing was "in place" - they just started to ask for feedback. Many states used the same framework as a starting point. Alabama and Ohio also used it and kept acceleration. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2019-Alabama-Mathematics-COS-Rev.-6-2021.pdf https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Mathematics/Resources-for-Mathematics/Math-Pathways/Math-Pathways-Overview.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US |
Anonymous
They worked on VMPI for 1.5 years and the version they offered up for public discussion at the end of 2020/beginning of 2021 intentionally called for detracked, heterogenous classes with no collective acceleration through 10th grade. Those were the features that sparked the public outcry which then forced VDOE to revise its plans. |
Anonymous
After being delayed by COVID, they sought out feedback from stakeholders on some initial ideas and got it. They were still far out from an initial draft. Out of all of the many states and many school districts who were using this roadmap only a handful of districts actually ended up detracking. The core concepts of the roadmap were around integrated math and providing more math paths/options that were more relevant to their students’ needs. They wanted to encourage more kids to take more math in high school, not the opposite. |
Anonymous
DP here. There was no version floated that offered differentiation prior to 10th or 11th grade. My bright (but not remotely “gifted”) kids were bored in math from K-5. Instead of giving them relief in 6th, you want them to wait until 10th? |
Anonymous
There was after they received feedback. The subsequent presentations to stakeholders clearly stated that. I’m not anti-tracking, just anti-Republican lies. |