If your school is currently piloting or offering E3 Math next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Placing every child in AAP-level math sounds great, and E3 or “equity cubed” essentially does just that.

However, when every child is in AAP, there is no more AAP.

And accelerated-pace learning? The general-education kids will not learn at the accelerated pace used in AAP, so the whole class will have to slow down to the level appropriate for the slowest learners. Acceleration will be lost, and the kids who would previously have been in AAP will be bored, and likely lose interest in learning.

Sure - E3 claims to have anticipated advanced learners needing more/faster pace. E3 says they plan for occasional “pull outs” to give advanced learned a little extra work once in a while.

Pull-outs don’t work the way a dedicated AAP class works. Advanced learners absolutely will get far less under E3.

If your school adopts E3, it will be best for your child to switch to private school.

Stop making up BS stories in an election year.

E3 doesn’t mean eliminating accelerated paths.

“*Opt-Out Policy for high-performing students enrolling in accelerated math starting in 6th grade.”

... as opposed to right now, when students can get accelerated starting from 3rd grade. At least, from some place other than Kumon/AoPS/stable educated parents. Sucks to be smart and poor or have a chaotic home life.

[Anonymous]

At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

This is great news and a step toward restoring sanity to public education in Fairfax county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

May I ask which elementary this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Placing every child in AAP-level math sounds great, and E3 or “equity cubed” essentially does just that.

However, when every child is in AAP, there is no more AAP.

And accelerated-pace learning? The general-education kids will not learn at the accelerated pace used in AAP, so the whole class will have to slow down to the level appropriate for the slowest learners. Acceleration will be lost, and the kids who would previously have been in AAP will be bored, and likely lose interest in learning.

Sure - E3 claims to have anticipated advanced learners needing more/faster pace. E3 says they plan for occasional “pull outs” to give advanced learned a little extra work once in a while.

Pull-outs don’t work the way a dedicated AAP class works. Advanced learners absolutely will get far less under E3.

If your school adopts E3, it will be best for your child to switch to private school.

Stop making up BS stories in an election year.

E3 doesn’t mean eliminating accelerated paths.

“*Opt-Out Policy for high-performing students enrolling in accelerated math starting in 6th grade.”

Your reply tells me you never had a kid in K-2 that was above the standard pace of the class - largely on computers or solo reading, rarely meeting with the teacher in small groups. Those of us that did have those kids KNOW that “AAP for all!” Means basically shifting back to that K-2 model of kids of all abilities in the same class which means of course it will move slower. It will be super rare for a parent to opt their kid out of the default track onto a Lower one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

Some schools began the E3 pilot in 2021-22; those third graders would now be in 5th. What Math SOL are those kids taking in 5th grade -- Math 5 SOL or Math 6 SOL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God forbid kids from lower income families get the chance to do advanced math too. Rich people gotta hoard, hoard, hoard!

San Francisco's math track has been a pure disaster. Everyone admits it now. It harmed high achieving students, low achieving students, URMs, everyone.

That’s not FCPS’s E3.

Neither is the PP's post about lower income families and hoarding.

San Francisco is relevant because their goal, to increase math attainment particularly for URMs, by creating a single math track for everyone, failed everyone. It did not achieve its goal. And it didn't help URMs or any students. It's a bad idea. Irrefutably.

That is NOT what E3 advocates for. They want more kids in accelerated tracks.

And it has nothing to do with SF.

Stop spreading misinformation.

[Anonymous]

https://e3alliance.org/2022/08/29/call-for-advanced-math-policy-during-texas-88th-legislature/
"E3 Alliance research indicates that taking more advanced math courses in high school highly correlates with students enrolling in a higher education institution, persisting in their studies, and ultimately completing a postsecondary credential"

"we believe the time is now to amplify all students across the state, scaling these tested and refined practices into state policy during the upcoming Texas 88th Legislative Session."

"Our state-level policy priorities include:
*Opt-Out Policy for high-performing students enrolling in accelerated math starting in 6th grade.
*Math All Four Years for high school students."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Placing every child in AAP-level math sounds great, and E3 or “equity cubed” essentially does just that.

However, when every child is in AAP, there is no more AAP.

And accelerated-pace learning? The general-education kids will not learn at the accelerated pace used in AAP, so the whole class will have to slow down to the level appropriate for the slowest learners. Acceleration will be lost, and the kids who would previously have been in AAP will be bored, and likely lose interest in learning.

Sure - E3 claims to have anticipated advanced learners needing more/faster pace. E3 says they plan for occasional “pull outs” to give advanced learned a little extra work once in a while.

Pull-outs don’t work the way a dedicated AAP class works. Advanced learners absolutely will get far less under E3.

If your school adopts E3, it will be best for your child to switch to private school.

Stop making up BS stories in an election year.

E3 doesn’t mean eliminating accelerated paths.

“*Opt-Out Policy for high-performing students enrolling in accelerated math starting in 6th grade.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an AAP student with math as her strongest area and a student in special education with math as her absolute weakest area. I *hate* the idea of my child with a math learning disability sitting in a classroom with advanced math students. She already struggles and has low academic self esteem. If she's in a room with advanced students who will steamroll the class discussions because they already know what they're being taught and pick it up quicker, she will complete disappear into the woodwork. She's terrified of being perceived as "dumb" and this will just make it worse. I understand there are concerns with the advanced students losing their advanced curriculum which is significant. But I feel like these discussions (at the county level, not here) never consider how the special education students will struggle in this setup.

Agree completely. E3 is another terrible equity-driven idea which will ultimately hurt every student, including those it claims to want to help.

FCPS needs to dump E3 entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God forbid kids from lower income families get the chance to do advanced math too. Rich people gotta hoard, hoard, hoard!

San Francisco's math track has been a pure disaster. Everyone admits it now. It harmed high achieving students, low achieving students, URMs, everyone.

That’s not FCPS’s E3.

Neither is the PP's post about lower income families and hoarding.

San Francisco is relevant because their goal, to increase math attainment particularly for URMs, by creating a single math track for everyone, failed everyone. It did not achieve its goal. And it didn't help URMs or any students. It's a bad idea. Irrefutably.

That is NOT what E3 advocates for. They want more kids in accelerated tracks.

And it has nothing to do with SF.

Stop spreading misinformation.

E3 waters down math instruction by placing students in heterogeneous math classes in 3rd and 4th grade. Students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer as even good teachers can't differentiate in heterogeneous classes as well as teachers can in classrooms matched to student needs. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of San Francisco's math reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God forbid kids from lower income families get the chance to do advanced math too. Rich people gotta hoard, hoard, hoard!

San Francisco's math track has been a pure disaster. Everyone admits it now. It harmed high achieving students, low achieving students, URMs, everyone.

That’s not FCPS’s E3.

Neither is the PP's post about lower income families and hoarding.

San Francisco is relevant because their goal, to increase math attainment particularly for URMs, by creating a single math track for everyone, failed everyone. It did not achieve its goal. And it didn't help URMs or any students. It's a bad idea. Irrefutably.

That is NOT what E3 advocates for. They want more kids in accelerated tracks.

And it has nothing to do with SF.

Stop spreading misinformation.

E3 waters down math instruction by placing students in heterogeneous math classes in 3rd and 4th grade. Students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer as even good teachers can't differentiate in heterogeneous classes as well as teachers can in classrooms matched to student needs. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of San Francisco's math reform.

Now, if you’re posting in good faith, please share the key differences between the SF math and E3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an AAP student with math as her strongest area and a student in special education with math as her absolute weakest area. I *hate* the idea of my child with a math learning disability sitting in a classroom with advanced math students. She already struggles and has low academic self esteem. If she's in a room with advanced students who will steamroll the class discussions because they already know what they're being taught and pick it up quicker, she will complete disappear into the woodwork. She's terrified of being perceived as "dumb" and this will just make it worse. I understand there are concerns with the advanced students losing their advanced curriculum which is significant. But I feel like these discussions (at the county level, not here) never consider how the special education students will struggle in this setup.

Agree completely. E3 is another terrible equity-driven idea which will ultimately hurt every student, including those it claims to want to help.

FCPS needs to dump E3 entirely.

E3 mirrors VMPI which originally advocated for heterogeneous classes through 10th grade. VMPI was ended but E3 is a way to enact VMPI's ideas piecemeal at the district level nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone with a kid in 5th grade advanced math at an E3 school confirm whether their kid took the 6th grade Math SOL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our LLIV orientation, the AART made it sound like the E3 math at our school (who had piloted it for the last year or two, I think) was going away.

May I ask which elementary this is?

VRES. She made it sound like while it was officially going away, it might be merged in somewhat to the regular curriculum? I wasn't clear exactly what E3 entailed or what parts exactly might be sticking around, but it sounded like at a minimum it wasn't sticking around as-is.