NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity math means hold back advanced students, using all means possible.

DP.

Agree completely. What the VMPI-supporters do not want you to know is they desperately want to:

- close the racial achievement gap from the top down.

It is that simple: the want to eliminate advanced and accelerated learning.

Examples include NYC eliminating the entire G&T program, Seattle following NYC, and the state of California banning Algebra prior to 9th grade. VMPI was based on the same principles, with an emphasis on eliminating any tracking in math.

It is just really sad to see someone here who simply cannot bring herself to be honest, and just say the truth about what she was trying to do to MATH education in VA.

No. Equity programs are trying to get MORE kids into accelerated classes.

Look at Texas, pushing opt-out acceleration classes and 4 years of HS math.

It's on FCPS's strategic plan (increase # of kids in A1 in 8th) and they have multiple programs to help get kids there - AVID program, Young Scholars, GMU Early Identification Program, NVCC's pathway to the baccalaureate, etc

Even the VMPI concepts would have accelerated the baseline pathway - everyone at least taking Algebra 1 content in 8th. They discussed but never actually proposed detracking.

No, VMPI would have slowed down pacing down for students taking Algebra 1 or above in 8th grade. There was virtually no Algebra 1 in VMPI's Grade 8 course which is why it generated no high school math credit. VMPI's Grade 8-10 courses generated only two high school math credits, similar to what current 9th grade Algebra 1 students earn. Presently, students taking Algebra 1 or higher in 8th grade earn at least three high school math credits by 10th grade. VMPI watered down math pacing and content acquisition to the lowest common denominator as originally proposed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Here is more history on California’s misadventure in banning Algebra I prior to 9th grade for “equity” reasons. In 2021, the state released a draft of the California Mathematics Framework, whose authors were promising to open up new pathways into science and tech careers for students who might otherwise be left behind. Here is what happened:


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/


It is a horrible mistake to try to “close the racial achievement gap from the top down” by eliminating advanced math and getting rid of G&T programs. And yet, NYC, Seattle WA, and the state of California have eliminated advanced and accelerated programs in the name of “equity.”[/quote]

Unfortunately couldn't get past the paywall w/ this link. From experience though... we moved from CA to NoVA in 2022. Algebra 1 for 8th was standard advanced track math in our prior district. Our district didn't offer (or at least didn't publicize) a pathway to Algebra 1 in 6th or 7th, but our "next door" district did. Those were all long-standing offerings, so I'm not sure this "top-down" policy was implemented anywhere but SF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Yes fair. Once it was clear the shit storm this was creating politically in a Governor election year they backed off. The issue was - at least for me - that I don’t think folks trusted them not to revert back to what they wanted to do if things blew over a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

Differentiating/clustering within heterogeneous classes, which is what FCPS's E3 program currently does, is not more effective. Even a superb teacher cannot differentiate across a wide ability spectrum in one class as effectively as could be done if students are in classes according their needs. E3 is a step backward for students at both ends of the ability spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

Flexible groupings within a class and clusters occur in a heterogeneous class setting and are subject to the same problems identified above. In E3, students are in the same heterogeneous class all year, with the teacher expected to differentiate for all students. Not as effective as the current approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Yes fair. Once it was clear the shit storm this was creating politically in a Governor election year they backed off. The issue was - at least for me - that I don’t think folks trusted them not to revert back to what they wanted to do if things blew over a bit.

You think they could have snuck that in there without people noticing?

Let’s say the VMPI leaders went rogue and ignored all input from parents and schools over this multi-year process and did include a ban of all accelerated/advanced math classes across the entire state of VA in their final proposal…it still would have to pass the GA and be signed by the governor. You think they’d approve an unpopular proposal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

Flexible groupings within a class and clusters occur in a heterogeneous class setting and are subject to the same problems identified above. In E3, students are in the same heterogeneous class all year, with the teacher expected to differentiate for all students. Not as effective as the current approach.

Personally, I think the best solution is flexible groupings with the kids switching for math & ELA. So, no tracking, but better differentiation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Except they never actually proposed that.

They did talk about detracking, but didn't go beyond that. It wasn't in any of the materials.

They were running through the baseline pathway - similar to the baseline Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 progression. FCPS was never bound to only offering Math 6, Math 7, Math 8 and VMPI never proposed changing that. From the start, they said school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they always have done. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then. They never proposed banning acceleration.

In the November 2020 video cited earlier, the Essential Concepts leader noted that students would be in heterogeneous classes in Grades 8-10 and that this assumption was crucial to the Essential Concepts courses construction since it meant all students would be taking the same English, history, science course so cross curricular connections could be made. That was the whole premise around which the Grade 8-10 classes were designed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:December 2020:

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 spelled out options for acceleration.

You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole, PP.

We can all see what you were trying to do with VMPI, and everyone knows it would have watered down math rigor and reduced course offerings had you succeeded in ramming it through.

Just look at what you posted! Notice the logo? It’s the same as the one on info-graphic I posted about VMPI, and it touts “the 5 C’s” of math, except:

- citizenship? Citizenship is a “math” skill?

You mean to seriously tell us you planned to devote class-time, IN MATH, to promote citizenship, but somehow the math instruction would be stronger under VMPI??

Just drop it, equity-troll. No one believes your sad defense of VMPI, which failed for many good reasons.

That's the same person who said in an e-mail that we need to end tracking.
"VMPI proposals do promote equity and that the practice of isolating low-achieving students in low-level or slower-paced mathematics groups should be eliminated.
"

+1
I sat through the webinars and it was clear they were talking about ALL kids doing the same math classes K-10 and just trying to “differentiate” within the class by “going deeper”. This is NOT evident in the top line materials VMPI posted but it was entirely clear in the verbal discussion on the webinars.

Agreed. At the start they wanted to detrack k-10 and then have advanced units available for 11 and 12. This was wildly unpopular and they quickly walked it back in subsequent webinars and materials. I am not a political operative of any kind, just a parent who was paying attention.

Yes fair. Once it was clear the shit storm this was creating politically in a Governor election year they backed off. The issue was - at least for me - that I don’t think folks trusted them not to revert back to what they wanted to do if things blew over a bit.

You think they could have snuck that in there without people noticing?

Let’s say the VMPI leaders went rogue and ignored all input from parents and schools over this multi-year process and did include a ban of all accelerated/advanced math classes across the entire state of VA in their final proposal…it still would have to pass the GA and be signed by the governor. You think they’d approve an unpopular proposal?

No, VMPI did not require GA approval or governor signature; it was to be done by VDOE and BOE. FCPS is currently going rogue and implementing VMPI is grades 3 and 4 with E3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like these equity programs goal is to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No, they are trying to get MORE kids into advanced math classes.

It's even in FCPS's strategic plan.

The goal is laudable but the method of implementation is the issue. There is movement nationally to delay the jumping off point for acceleration so that late bloomers are not shut out. But, this means that students who are ready earlier have to tread water while waiting for others to catch up. Why can't FCPS's emphasis be on developing all young elementary students so that they are ready for the current acceleration path rather than holding off on dedicated advanced math classes until the late bloomers are ready?

In ES, flexible groupings/clusters - for math and ELA - make more sense than tracking.

Heterogeneous classes, like FCPS is using in its E3 math program, are not as effective as classes that are based on student need; students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. FCPS is heading in the wrong direction with E3, moving away from dedicated advanced math classes that meet students where they are, and moving toward heterogeneous classes where advanced students tread water and struggling students are neglected relative to the prior structure.

That's where I see flexible groupings/clusters working better. Kids aren't tracked, but they are getting differentiation more effectively.

Flexible clusters could work if the teacher gave each cluster equal time. That isn't happening in most FCPS schools. My gen ed child who was above grade level in reading had a group that met with the teacher for 15 minutes one or two times per month. For the other 2000-ish hours per month of reading block, they had to work independently or do edu-tainment programs. The FCPS model is to try to get kids up to grade level at all costs and ignore the kids who are already likely to pass the SOL. I imagine that math would work the same way, where the kids who learn quickly would get no attention whatsoever from the teacher. I'd be okay with that if the school purchased a bunch of subscriptions to Beast Academy online or a similar high quality program and just let the top kids work at their own pace. Instead, they'll get something awful like ST Math plus a lot of busywork.

[Anonymous]

When I did flexible math grouping, the grade-level teachers switched kids between claims and the math specialist took 6. Each class felt like it was tracked, but the faces in it switched each month. It worked well, but it took extra teamwork to make it happen. Schools need to get rid of extra meetings so teachers can team-plan as they see fit.