Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

+1. My kid's principal recently announced that the school will be piloting E3 math next year for all students. At Q&A time one of the parents asked if 5th graders in Advanced Math would continue to take the 6th grade Math SOL under the new program and if 6th graders in Advanced Math would take the 7th grade Math SOL. The principal hemmed and hawed and did not say yes. Students who don't take the 7th grade Math SOL in 6th grade in our district and pass advanced cannot take Algebra in 7th grade. How is that not detracking math?

I don't see a problem with what you're deeming "detracking" of math. Sounds like this is making sure kids are taking the most appropriate level of math. As a PP described, pushing the highest levels as early as possible doesn't always pan out the best way. Main reason slowing down the progression has been looked at is because a lot of students fall off the advanced math path by the time they get to Alg 2 in high school.
This isn't de-tracking. Quite the opposite - it's actually properly tracking kids onto the best path for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

+1. My kid's principal recently announced that the school will be piloting E3 math next year for all students. At Q&A time one of the parents asked if 5th graders in Advanced Math would continue to take the 6th grade Math SOL under the new program and if 6th graders in Advanced Math would take the 7th grade Math SOL. The principal hemmed and hawed and did not say yes. Students who don't take the 7th grade Math SOL in 6th grade in our district and pass advanced cannot take Algebra in 7th grade. How is that not detracking math?

OK? That’s not VMPI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

+1. My kid's principal recently announced that the school will be piloting E3 math next year for all students. At Q&A time one of the parents asked if 5th graders in Advanced Math would continue to take the 6th grade Math SOL under the new program and if 6th graders in Advanced Math would take the 7th grade Math SOL. The principal hemmed and hawed and did not say yes. Students who don't take the 7th grade Math SOL in 6th grade in our district and pass advanced cannot take Algebra in 7th grade. How is that not detracking math?

When did Arlington take away the ability to take accelerate algebra? My seventh grader is taking it now, which from everything I’ve seen is the earliest you could take it in any of the APS math pathways.

My kid was placed into Algebra I Intensified as a 6th grader in APS (Gunston). He did very well and got an A in the class. This class was mostly 7th graders. He then took Geometry Intensified in 7th grade (with 8th graders), and again got an A. For 8th grade, Gunston didn't offer Algebra II, so he took an on-line class (foreshadowing!). He did OK there, and got an A, but he definitely did not learn the material very well. As a 9th grader at TJHSST, he struggled a bit in math (got a B- in TJ Math 3). By 10th grade, he was doing well again, and ended up taking Calc AB as a junior and Calc BC as a senior, doing well both years. He's now a sophomore in college, majoring in math and doing very well. My lesson from his experience is that too much acceleration wasn't a great plan, and that making sure he had a solid foundation in math was very important. In hindsight, I would have had him start Algebra in 7th grade, not 6th. But every kid is different.

Overall, I think that its a mistake to prohibit acceleration, but parents and school systems need to be careful not to get the kid out over his/her skis. The VMPI program tries to address this, but I think parental pressure when the first drafts came out made it much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

As a high school math teacher, can you please explain to me why Algebra 2 is a pre-req for Prob and Stats?

Two reasons:
1) the state has said all students should have alg 1/ geometry/ algebra 2. They don’t want kids off that road until they’ve completed it. They finally acquiesced that some kids aren’t ready for algebra 2, but instead of letting them take something else they inserted AFDA in the middle. The goal is still that all kids take minimum algebra 2 before graduating.
2) Stats includes a lot of summation notation formulas that are derived/explained (at least, they should be) in algebra 2. It also (should) include exponential and logarithmic regression equations, which are introduced in algebra 2.

None of that would change under VMPI, since theoretically you’ll have finished A2 in 10th grade before you can take any of these other courses. The difference is a lot more kids are going to be doing that earlier. Right now almost half my algebra 2 classes are juniors and seniors. Not sure accelerating the masses would have been all that successful.

Thank you. I took Probability and Statistics my senior year back in the '80s, then again in college for social science major. I didn't feel Algebra 2 was necessary to understand and follow P&S; so never understood that pre-req. One of my kids would probably (no pun intended!) do better with P&S; but can't take it because they ended up on that AFDA track and won't get Alg2 in before senior year.
I know it was off-topic; but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

Detracking was one of multiple ideas that were floated around over a year ago and it was squashed 9+ months ago. It was never core enough to make the infographic, even back then, but calculus was always there.

The clear goals that *did* make the infographic were adding new math tracks for data/stats/etc as well as blending AGA.

Continuing to focus on this one, minor component that was already eliminated from consideration 9+ months ago is purely pushing GOP propaganda.

Are we really arguing about an infographic ? My 9th grader makes those all the time and edits them - they are not set in stone and are very editable. VMPI was about de-tracking kids from K-10th. I don't care if it was in an infographic or not, it was a very serious discussion. Youngkin is right on this, and even though it might have changed 9 months ago, we all knew where it was headed until bipartisan NoVA opposition.

We do know where it was headed - because VDOE very clearly stated in April 2021 that they were NOT going to ban acceleration/advanced math.

GOP tools continue to push these lies to whip up parents into a frenzy and drive division.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

The proposal draft isn’t out yet. Detracking was circulated as an idea very early in the process. Never even made the infographic.

And then it was very clearly eliminated from consideration several months ago.

The fact that you’re still harping on it says more about your motivations than anything else. Why are you still pushing GOP propaganda?

Because anyone who paid attention early on in the process saw where it was headed. It was CRT in action and I was very concerned about my MS kids who are very sharp in math being limited in their courses so that they were not too advanced, which makes the school look bad since they are white/Asian kids. All for paying to help URM kids catch up in math, but don't hold my kid back from their potential. Public schools should have varying offerings for different situations, not just spend all the resources to catch up all kids to the same level, since my kids will get bored, act out, and really start to hate learning if they are not challenged.

Back in April 2021, VDOE very clearly said that they weren't going to "ban" acceleration or advanced math - school districts could accelerate kids as much as they want.

It's now January 2022, why are you STILL harping on this 9+ months later?

This is pure GOP lies and propaganda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=siS8jlTcUzo

This video is very clear about the goal to detrack K-10. They only backed off of this because of public outcry. It’s revisionist history to say that detracking wasn’t the explicit goal of the VMPI.

Detracking was one of multiple ideas that were floated around over a year ago and it was squashed 9+ months ago. It was never core enough to make the infographic, even back then, but calculus was always there.

The clear goals that *did* make the infographic were adding new math tracks for data/stats/etc as well as blending AGA.

Continuing to focus on this one, minor component that was already eliminated from consideration 9+ months ago is purely pushing GOP propaganda.

Are we really arguing about an infographic ? My 9th grader makes those all the time and edits them - they are not set in stone and are very editable. VMPI was about de-tracking kids from K-10th. I don't care if it was in an infographic or not, it was a very serious discussion. Youngkin is right on this, and even though it might have changed 9 months ago, we all knew where it was headed until bipartisan NoVA opposition.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone with an advanced math student knows this is all true. The only ones denying don't have strong math students.

I completely agree with this sentiment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VMPI is disastrous for public schools. It’s a very good thing that he is getting rid of it.

To the pp that was lamenting about just buying in a good school district and now going to have to look at private. You should send him an email to thank him. He just saved your good public school.

Why - because blending algebra & geometry and adding data science was really that terrible?

No, because they wanted to put all kids in the same math class until 10th or 11th grade. I hate Youngkin and did not vote for him but I'm glad this is gone.

That idea that was loosely floated (not even on infographic) around a year ago was squashed several months ago. Stop spreading disinformation.

It was actually in the initial proposal as was equity as the #1 goal (not math education), then it was quickly walked back and equity was put further down the list of goals. They were waiting until after the election until releasing the final version. It truly was like a "you have to pass it to find out what's in it". Didn't vote for him, but know a lot of Asian people who did solely for this issue.

The proposal draft isn’t out yet. Detracking was circulated as an idea very early in the process. Never even made the infographic.

And then it was very clearly eliminated from consideration several months ago.

The fact that you’re still harping on it says more about your motivations than anything else. Why are you still pushing GOP propaganda?

Because anyone who paid attention early on in the process saw where it was headed. It was CRT in action and I was very concerned about my MS kids who are very sharp in math being limited in their courses so that they were not too advanced, which makes the school look bad since they are white/Asian kids. All for paying to help URM kids catch up in math, but don't hold my kid back from their potential. Public schools should have varying offerings for different situations, not just spend all the resources to catch up all kids to the same level, since my kids will get bored, act out, and really start to hate learning if they are not challenged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, we already offer a lot of non calc options. My school teaches stats (AP/gen Ed), computer science (ap/gen Ed), and discrete math, in addition to precalc/calc ab/calc bc/linear algebra/matrix theory.

TBH, the math department is stretched really thin. Most of these offerings are singleton courses, because when you have 10 course offerings for senior year and most kids take calc or stats, there aren’t enough kids to fill multiple sections of everything else. That means most teachers are teaching 3 different courses to make the schedule work, and the quality of lessons is lower and stress level of teachers is higher. I would much prefer we partnered with NVCC to offer some of these classes for the 20 kids who want linear algebra.

As a high school math teacher, can you please explain to me why Algebra 2 is a pre-req for Prob and Stats?

Two reasons:
1) the state has said all students should have alg 1/ geometry/ algebra 2. They don’t want kids off that road until they’ve completed it. They finally acquiesced that some kids aren’t ready for algebra 2, but instead of letting them take something else they inserted AFDA in the middle. The goal is still that all kids take minimum algebra 2 before graduating.
2) Stats includes a lot of summation notation formulas that are derived/explained (at least, they should be) in algebra 2. It also (should) include exponential and logarithmic regression equations, which are introduced in algebra 2.

None of that would change under VMPI, since theoretically you’ll have finished A2 in 10th grade before you can take any of these other courses. The difference is a lot more kids are going to be doing that earlier. Right now almost half my algebra 2 classes are juniors and seniors. Not sure accelerating the masses would have been all that successful.

Sounds like PP is upset with LCPS, not VDOE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been beaten to death a million times.

They can claim one thing and do entirely another.

They actually can't. It's a regulatory process subject to specific procedural guidelines that include disclosure requirements. Enough with the conspiracy theories.

Ok. But the Loudpun Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction wrote me an email (that I still have) saying that accelerated math in MS was not going to be affected by the new pathways. That was a bold faced lie.

What about it was a lie?

Algebra 1 in 6th grade is gone, no exceptions.

That was a LCPS decision, not VMPI.

Ok. PP asked what about it was a lie. I answered.

DP. But you never explained how it was a lie. The email said VMPI wouldn’t change the math options, not that LCPS would never change the options independent of VMPI

No, I specifically asked if the county was eliminating acclerated math options in MS and was given a resounding and exasperated no. Even after I linked to their own program of studies stating otherwise.

Sorry. What does this have to do with VMPI?

DP. I don’t get this either. Also, pp’s account of whar LCPS said in response has changed between the two posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been beaten to death a million times.

They can claim one thing and do entirely another.

They actually can't. It's a regulatory process subject to specific procedural guidelines that include disclosure requirements. Enough with the conspiracy theories.

Ok. But the Loudpun Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction wrote me an email (that I still have) saying that accelerated math in MS was not going to be affected by the new pathways. That was a bold faced lie.

What about it was a lie?

Algebra 1 in 6th grade is gone, no exceptions.

That was a LCPS decision, not VMPI.

Ok. PP asked what about it was a lie. I answered.

DP. But you never explained how it was a lie. The email said VMPI wouldn’t change the math options, not that LCPS would never change the options independent of VMPI

No, I specifically asked if the county was eliminating acclerated math options in MS and was given a resounding and exasperated no. Even after I linked to their own program of studies stating otherwise.

Sorry. What does this have to do with VMPI?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been beaten to death a million times.

They can claim one thing and do entirely another.

They actually can't. It's a regulatory process subject to specific procedural guidelines that include disclosure requirements. Enough with the conspiracy theories.

Ok. But the Loudpun Asst. Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction wrote me an email (that I still have) saying that accelerated math in MS was not going to be affected by the new pathways. That was a bold faced lie.

What about it was a lie?

Algebra 1 in 6th grade is gone, no exceptions.

That was a LCPS decision, not VMPI.

Ok. PP asked what about it was a lie. I answered.

DP. But you never explained how it was a lie. The email said VMPI wouldn’t change the math options, not that LCPS would never change the options independent of VMPI

No, I specifically asked if the county was eliminating acclerated math options in MS and was given a resounding and exasperated no. Even after I linked to their own program of studies stating otherwise.