Math equity nonsense LCPS

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


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.

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."


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.

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.


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

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.


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.


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?


There was after they received feedback. The subsequent presentations to stakeholders clearly stated that.

I’m not anti-tracking, just anti-Republican lies.


Why did education experts need “feedback” that lots of kids were going to need differentiation prior to 10th grade? Answer: they knew, they just don’t care about those kids. They’d rather close the gap from the top.
post reply Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS
Message Quick Reply
Go to: