Reply to Math equity nonsense LCPS

Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS

Reply to "Math equity nonsense LCPS"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

At no point were they [b]eliminating acceleration - they [u]always[/u] included calculus & IB as possible paths[/b]. As anyone can see if they look at those first presentations. And they [b]completely clarified shortly[/b] after the question came up.

Go on pushing Republican propaganda. I’ll call out the lies and misinformation every time.

[/quote]

So I've been following most of the threads discussing VMPI and acceleration on this forum. There is a single person (PP), probably female, steeped in politics (constant references to democrats/republicans), who defends this. There are at least 3 or 4 others who oppose it (I don't think more than that make these posts).

Unfortunately, this person has trouble either with the truth or she can't read and apply common definitions. I will correct her once again:

Getting to calculus in HS is not acceleration. It is a normal, unaccelerated path. This is because (single-variable) calculus (with some extensions) is a necessary prerequisite for university attendance in most of the world, including the United States for those who are college bound. So when she repeats like a broken record that "they weren't eliminating acceleration" because (for a small subset of students) their original proposal "allowed" them to take calculus as seniors (but no math beyond calculus), she's either uninformed or intentionally misleading.  (My guess is actually the former. She might be honestly believing that calculus has no place in high school, that putting it there is "acceleration" - but maybe that's ascribing too much good faith here. She's probably also the one who believes that complex numbers shouldn't be part of Algebra II.)

Now for the "completely clarified shortly" comment: what actually happened was that after VMPI had exploded and they'd been swamped with complaints, they backpedaled. I distinctly recall how Tina Mazzacane read a slide they added that emphasized that acceleration would not be eliminated, and how school districts could continue to offer it, and then - in a voice that clearly tried to make fun of it - declared that school districts can continue to offer algebra or geometry in 7th, 6th, or 5th grade. Well, perhaps PP is right on this one: Mazzacane's tone of voice did indeed "completely clarify" how they thought about it: as something to make fun of.
 [/quote]

Wrong:
Calculus in HS is accelerated by at least one year. Same with IB; Algebra 1 in 8th grade is a pre-req.

The baseline path is: 9-A1, 10-G, 11-A2, 12-PreCalc

School districts have always had flexibility when creating their own courses and pathways. And nothing in VMPI was proposing to change that.

The list of courses provided by DOE has always been treated as a baseline. For example, if you look at the list of math courses listed today on Youngkin's DOE website you'll notice there are ZERO compressed/advanced/accelerated options - not even calculus. And yet, nearly all school districts do offer calculus. Did Youngkin ban advanced/accelerated math? 
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/k-12-standards-instruction/mathematics/standards-of-learning/2023-mathematics-sol

I'm not personally pushing to eliminate advanced classes or acceleration - just dispelling the lies and misinformation that some posters insist on pushing on DCUM. 
[/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