NY Times article on Middle School Algebra

[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 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.

Kids could switch classrooms for the ELA and math portions of the day. And change groupings (up or down) during the year as needed.

[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.

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.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But tracking has cast an uncomfortable spotlight on inequality. Around a quarter of all students in the United States take algebra in middle school. But only about 12 percent of Black and Latino eighth graders do, compared with roughly 24 percent of white pupils, a federal report found.
“That’s why middle school math is this flashpoint,” said Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University. “It’s the first moment where you potentially make it very obvious and explicit that there are knowledge gaps opening up.”

Not a problem in FCPS, we make the gap obvious in third grade

School districts around the country have GT programs that begin between 2nd-4th grade and are used to determine eligibility for advanced math placement. Parents in FCPS are so myopic.

Other districts have small GT programs, FCPS has a massive slightly advanced program

And that's a bad thing, how?

SMH

Pulling the smartest 20% ensures those who remain won't even be taught at grade level. It's a great service for those who get it and a message to leave for private to those who don't

It does give those who remain more dedicated teacher time (because you presumably have removed a tier of kids from the room).

If we honestly did more ability groupings (not inescapable "tracking" but even just every year evaluated the top quarter of students for one room, next quarter for the next room, etc. ) the kids would each get a lot more "at their level" attention and would probably learn more. But we hate the idea of doing this because then the kids might feel bad.

Wrong. We hate the idea of doing this because the classes wouldn't look acceptable. If it were just about kids' feelings , all sports teams would be no-cut and every kid would get equal playing time. But we don't worry about this because athletics don't have this bad visual problem.

[Anonymous]

STFU with racist sports tropes.

[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.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

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.

Did you listen to the video you posted?
10:48
16:22
19:34
20:22
21:09
21:47
21:59
22:41
23:58
26:01
38:04
(I stopped hunting after that but I did listen to the full thing when it originally aired - I sat through it live).

The MAIN thrust of this effort was to uproot advanced classes and ability grouping for K-10. Yes they let you take different math in 11 and 12 but it is clear what they were shooting for is that all kids were in the exact same math classes for K-10. They were very much against letting kids advance if they learn math at a quicker pace.

Yes, they did discuss detracking. It's one of many topics discussed. But they never actually proposed it. It didn't even make the infographic.

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"

Again, even from the start they said they were keeping accelerated classes and school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they do today. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then.

These are all just lies that Republicans like to recycle in election years.

It was proposed. E-mail from Tina Mazzacane:

"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."
Math teachers were polled about this in one seminar. They voted against, response "We still have a lot of work to do."

[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.

Did you listen to the video you posted?
10:48
16:22
19:34
20:22
21:09
21:47
21:59
22:41
23:58
26:01
38:04
(I stopped hunting after that but I did listen to the full thing when it originally aired - I sat through it live).

The MAIN thrust of this effort was to uproot advanced classes and ability grouping for K-10. Yes they let you take different math in 11 and 12 but it is clear what they were shooting for is that all kids were in the exact same math classes for K-10. They were very much against letting kids advance if they learn math at a quicker pace.

Yes, they did discuss detracking. It's one of many topics discussed. But they never actually proposed it. It didn't even make the infographic.

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"

Again, even from the start they said they were keeping accelerated classes and school districts would continue have "a lot of flexibility to design courses", just as they do today. VDOE doesn't define how school districts accelerate kids - not before VMPI and that wasn't something they were proposing then.

These are all just lies that Republicans like to recycle in election years.

It was proposed. E-mail from Tina Mazzacane:

"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."
Math teachers were polled about this in one seminar. They voted against, response "We still have a lot of work to do."

It was discussed, but it didn’t actually make the website/infographic. They were shut down before they actually got a proposal out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Kids could switch classrooms for the ELA and math portions of the day. And change groupings (up or down) during the year as needed.

Currently AAP never moves a kid down because it's bad for their self esteem (no problem doing it to a kid who tests into math, because their self esteem doesn't matter). I don't think flexible groupings would work for precisely that reason, teachers don't want to do it and parents would get angry. That means you'd only move up which just whittles away the regular group

[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.

You like to make use of the 'proposals were not fleshed out and in final form' in a handful of videos to argue they were not proposing things. Yet when Loudoun talked to the same people about the same things they did eliminate a year of acceleration with plans to eliminate more going forward. It was presented with 'Introducing VMPI'. High caliber students who the previous year would have been in algebra, were placed in prealgebra. Because Youngkin won in response to what you call right-wing lies about VMPI, the Loudoun school board reversed the changes(at one point specifically said ,"now that they've ended VMPI") and high caliber students are again eligible to take algebra in 6th grade, and many more in 7th grade.
They still have on staff the person who said "I strongly believe in detracking for equity reasons".

The national exposure of VMPI and subsequent backtracking happened because Loudoun implemented it ahead of schedule. Without that, they might have gotten away with it, as the only place I saw talking about it
was a thread here that got deleted because you claimed it was lies.

[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.

So now you’re mad about “citizenship”?

At least we can all agree they weren’t actually taking away advanced/accelerated classes.

The issue is not whether courses would be offered. You can offer topology if you want. The question is whether students would be prepared to thrive in the course. By watering down math preparation throughout the VMPI progression, students would have been less prepared to thrive in advanced math, hence undermining advanced math.

It's not just that - My HS "offered" AP Chem, but never actually ran the class because they couldn't get enough kids to sign up for it any given year. With VMPI's course map, the only way to get Calc was going to be a summer class or a year where you somehow took the year of AlgII and year of precalc and did those in only year's worth of time. Just because you can "in theory" do calc in HS, under that structure it's not *practical* for almost any kid to actually take it.

[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.

So now you’re mad about “citizenship”?

At least we can all agree they weren’t actually taking away advanced/accelerated classes.

The issue is not whether courses would be offered. You can offer topology if you want. The question is whether students would be prepared to thrive in the course. By watering down math preparation throughout the VMPI progression, students would have been less prepared to thrive in advanced math, hence undermining advanced math.

It's not just that - My HS "offered" AP Chem, but never actually ran the class because they couldn't get enough kids to sign up for it any given year. With VMPI's course map, the only way to get Calc was going to be a summer class or a year where you somehow took the year of AlgII and year of precalc and did those in only year's worth of time. Just because you can "in theory" do calc in HS, under that structure it's not *practical* for almost any kid to actually take it.

Yes, agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Kids could switch classrooms for the ELA and math portions of the day. And change groupings (up or down) during the year as needed.

the problem with "each cluster gets equal time" - suppose I have a heterogeneous classroom split into 5 very different levels. Each kid gets explicit teacher one-on-one time during one day a week, while the other kids play ST math and other laptop games. Now, compare that to a class that has kids at only two of those levels. You can have an all-class lesson during that same timeframe 3 days a week, then each half gets more specialized teacher attention a remaining day of the week. Kids in that class are only spending one session a week on ST math/laptop games as opposed to 4. The kids are just getting more on-level instruction when more kids in the class are on that level.

This really would benefit everyone - because the kids in the lowest tier class? guess what, *they're getting more instruction at their level*!

It's fine if they switch classrooms by subject (because not all kids are at the same level in each subject) and also fine if someone is a late bloomer and catches up to be moved up, or for someone who starts struggling to be moved down. But realistically, in these kind of setups, kids are rarely moving way up and down in a subject over the course of the year. Almost all kids are going to either stay at the same level (in a given subject) or be borderline between 2 levels and move just between those two.

[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?

Gee, let me see if I can think of an example of the state level government failing to follow the obvious will of the people.... https://virginiamercury.com/2024/05/20/youngkin-vetoes-bills-on-contraception-access-skill-games-confederate-heritage-rollbacks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

He threw that out as a possible scenario. His example wouldn't work because not all school districts offer Civics in 8th. He also said they were looking for feedback on what should be added or put back. It was all still early in the process.

The whole premise was around the MATH intradisciplinary connections.
data <-> probability <-> linear model <-> linear equations <-> linear function <-> transforming a plane figure in space

No. VMPI was all about modeling real world scenarios. And where would those scenarios come from? INTER-disciplinary connections. Social studies, science, and English classes because all students would be taking the same courses given heterogeneous math classes. Heterogeneous classes were the backbone of VMPI.

"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"
VDOE November 2020 webinar 35:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Algebra Problem: How Middle School Math Became a National Flashpoint - reports that in San Francisco, "The city is now back to where it began: Middle school algebra — for some, not necessarily for all — will return in August."

Congratulations to San Francisco!

Closer to home, in a VA middle school, I'm happy to report that our local 8th grade Geometry teacher (whose class our accelerated 7th grader attended this year) can now look back at 19 years of having 100% of her MS students pass the Geometry SOL at their first attempt. Congratulations to her for "lifting them toward society’s most high-status and lucrative professions" (a quote from the NYT article I linked), and to all hardworking students who love math!

Starts with a lie about not "offering a chance to study it"

The real problem is that ES kids aren't offered intensive math intervention (+2 hrs of school each day) to compensate for lack of education at home.
When families don't prioritize education at home, students need an alternative.

Slow freaking clap to this. If FCPS *really* cared about closing racial/socioeconomic performance gaps, THIS is the way to do it.

School can’t parent your kid. Sorry. Expecting schools to make up for all the parenting inequalities just won’t/can’t happen.

Then we need to accept that closing achievement gaps may not be something the public school system can solve.