Reply to APS 6th grade pre algebra

Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS

Reply to "APS 6th grade pre algebra "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions. [/quote]

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration. [/quote]
Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.[/quote]

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

[/quote]
Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.[/quote]

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra. 
[/quote]
FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.[/quote]

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement. 
[/quote]
No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.[/quote]

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade. 
[/quote]
They have a sufficiently high bar to generate good placements as is. They have two parts to their threshold: 91+ IAAT and pass advanced SOL.[/quote]

If APS’s bar was already “sufficiently high” they wouldn’t need to raise it. 
[/quote]
It depends on why they're raising it. Early on, it reflected the problems with how they were implementing the ramped up acceleration in 6th grade. However, the recent threshold increases followed VMPI when there was a pedagogical desire to move toward more heterogenous math classes. Raising the threshold for prealgebra above MI's threshold for Algebra readiness is one way to sharply scale back acceleration and make classes more heterogenous. Thus, raising the threshold is not always motivated solely by performance considerations.[/quote]

They have already shared that:
- MI data shows that kids are taking higher-level math courses before they reach grade-level proficiency
- AP pass rates for math courses have been below state and national averages

and their goal is to "increase depth and complexity for advanced learners".

Everything isn't some big conspiracy.  :roll: 
[/quote]
The threshold for prealgebra was not set at grade-level proficiency; it was set 1-2 years above grade level proficiency. They effectively said the student needs to already know prealgebra before we let them take prealgebra. That makes no sense. As for AP pass rates versus the state and the US, APS was virtual longer during covid than elsewhere in Virginia and the US which has hurt APS students vis a vis their peers.[/quote]

This. My kid missed the cut-off for 6th grade pre-algebra by a hair in the fall. The result is that she's been bored in math all year, getting easy As, doing more accelerated math than she gets at school at Mathnasium.  The 1-2 years above grade level proficiency system doesn't work well for kids like mine.  In Fairfax of Loudoun she would have been on the 1-year acceleration track, so much better.[/quote]

There should be an intermediate track - math 6/7.

If she’s doing mathnasium and still had borderline scores then maybe it’s good she has more time. But if you truly thought she was going to do well in pre-algebra then you could have parent placed her. [/quote]
The fact that the test standards falsely labelled a student who would have been much better served with prealgebra and is bored out of her mind in math 6 as "borderline" is proof that they're incredibly inappropriate. It's like requiring kids to have a 5 on the calc BC exam in junior year in order to take calculus AB as a senior, and putting them in precalculus if they can't. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics