Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the sort of thing that drives middle of the road Dems to vote Republican.

Sure, Republicans love education

Sure you aren't confusing the Rs "pull you up by your bootstraps" as a love of education

Don't get lost in D vs R.

Centrists have to pick a side, and often do based on issues close to home.

We used to have Rockefeller Republicans, who loved money but also liked society.

Most of this is contradictory word salad.

https://go.boarddocs.com/md/msde/Board.nsf/files/DDCNW2617726/$file/Math%20Policy%20(INFORMATION%20ONLY).pdf

"includes a transition away from the
traditional Algebra-Geometry-
Algebra 2 sequence to Integrated
Algebra 1 & 2 beginning in school
year 2027-2028"

So are they eliminating Geometry?

Or accelerating 3 years into 2, to magically help kids who can't even learn it in 3 years?


My god, they'll try anything, anything, except having kids STUDY AND PRACTICE MATH MORE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

+1 or go deeper. The goal should be understanding, not knocking out a skills test and then forgetting everything when you move on.

Anonymous wrote:This is the sort of thing that drives middle of the road Dems to vote Republican.

Sure, Republicans love education

Sure you aren't confusing the Rs "pull you up by your bootstraps" as a love of education

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

but logistics matter. Wasting class time on 10 pretests/year means that kids are losing actual instruction time. the way to teach math is to have a curriculum delivered to kids at the pace that matches their abilities.

Kids need more testing time and less "instructional" time. Math is not learned by "instruction", it's learned by practice, practice, practice.

Anonymous wrote:So FCPS superintendent says want to accelerate all kids into algebra in 8th and MD saying nope, everyone slow down? The school districts are doing extreme Goldilocks-ing. Does there exist a “just right” state in terms of math education right now or are all states lost and guessing at what to do for all levels?

Read actual article. MD changes are for K-5, by 6 will work with kids for 8th grade algebra and “By fall 2026, schools would be required to screen all students in third to seventh grades annually and offer advanced math coursework to anyone deemed qualified. In addition, high scores on state tests would trigger an evaluation by a school-based committee for accelerated learning.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This policy extends a deep commitment to instructional equity,” a report detailing the plan states.


So they’re doubling down on DEI. Again. Does that make it tripling down?

The worse of fake equity. REAL equity is providing rigorous math instruction to all kids at the appropriate level, not being fixated on who is advanced and who is not advanced. People just do not want to admit that learning math and teaching math takes hard work and they think that somehow jockeying everyone into advanced math solves the problem.

I promise you, what poor Black parents want is for their kids to learn their multiplication tables, not for endless handwringing about who is in the top group.

Sadly, no.

Math is the lightning rod for highlighting the failures of broken homes and social collapse, because it's the most objective way to show what a kid can and cannot do.

The Black and Brown Coalition pushes this narrative that the problem is "instruction" when the actual problem is immersion. Success Black and Brown people are embarrassed by unsuccessful Black and Brown people, ad instead on focusing where it matters -- improving the home environment, they pretend that the problem can be magically fixed in 60minutes a day at a chaotic school with chaotic kids. Meanwhile, the success white and Asian kids are living and breathing basic math reinforcement for HOURS every day.

So FCPS superintendent says want to accelerate all kids into algebra in 8th and MD saying nope, everyone slow down? The school districts are doing extreme Goldilocks-ing. Does there exist a “just right” state in terms of math education right now or are all states lost and guessing at what to do for all levels?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

Anonymous wrote:“This policy extends a deep commitment to instructional equity,” a report detailing the plan states.


So they’re doubling down on DEI. Again. Does that make it tripling down?

The worse of fake equity. REAL equity is providing rigorous math instruction to all kids at the appropriate level, not being fixated on who is advanced and who is not advanced. People just do not want to admit that learning math and teaching math takes hard work and they think that somehow jockeying everyone into advanced math solves the problem.

I promise you, what poor Black parents want is for their kids to learn their multiplication tables, not for endless handwringing about who is in the top group.

It sounds like they're trying to mandate what Montgomery county already does.

The assembly is trying to punish Howard county for its racially/wealthy homogeneous educational success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

but logistics matter. Wasting class time on 10 pretests/year means that kids are losing actual instruction time. the way to teach math is to have a curriculum delivered to kids at the pace that matches their abilities.

Anonymous wrote:How many times does detracking need to fail before people realize it’s not a magic bullet?

+1. It boggles the mind that they are not looking in the mirror at their own failures to teach math. Especially because there is a significant body of research showing how to do it successfully, which has been rejected for apparently ideological reasons. It is very similar to phonics.