Those of us with well behaved daughters on grade level know exactly how this will play out because we've seen it already in general education. They'll be used to "help" their lower performing peers rather than get any actual enrichment. No thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Nope, that's not the reason for this. There's much more going on than tutoring, and you can go back and read some more examples I wrote up thread. No one is lowering expectations of students. They are just not making calculus the be-all-end-all of HS math education. There's so much more math that's needed for STEM jobs besides calculus nowadays. VA and the many other states making this change are modernizing to keep up with high demand STEM jobs and what colleges and universities are telling them they need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some PPs still don’t understand the basic premise. They are proposing that instead of just having a single path focused on calculus we have multiple PATHWAYS - including calculus for STEM.

I’ll post links tomorrow.

Yeah, we get that. Nobody is upset about the varied electives in 11-12. I personally think that's a great feature of the proposal.

Have *you* looked at the proposal? You're aware it encompasses a lot more than just the extra stat/data science electives, right?

What people dislike is the elimination of honors and 'accelerated' math options in favor of 'heterogenous' classrooms to promote equity. VDOE has not convinced us these classes will have high expectations. They have not convinced us that the 'pathway' to calculus is adequate (ie, doesn't require summer school, or condensing multiple current class curriculums into a single year) for those who do want to choose that pathway. Teachers have said they can't effectively differentiate in classes with such a wide swath of readiness and would ignore the higher (and sometimes the lower) achieving students.

Anonymous wrote:I think some PPs still don’t understand the basic premise. They are proposing that instead of just having a single path focused on calculus we have multiple PATHWAYS - including calculus for STEM.

I’ll post links tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lemme get this straight. You are NOW worried that rich people who live in Virginia and don't like this change in math curriculum are going to move out of state in droves? SERIOUSLY? You need medication.

I mean, the whole reason for this is that 'too many people are getting tutoring.' Right? You think lowering the speed/expectations is going to cause fewer people to move/go private/pay for tutoring? Can you explain that thinking, because I don't see how that's a likely outcome.

Wouldn't providing substantial additional resources in schools to help kids keep up/go at speed/meet high expectations cause less of a demand for this sort of thing and level the playing field better?

Nope, that's not the reason for this. There's much more going on than tutoring, and you can go back and read some more examples I wrote up thread. No one is lowering expectations of students. They are just not making calculus the be-all-end-all of HS math education. There's so much more math that's needed for STEM jobs besides calculus nowadays. VA and the many other states making this change are modernizing to keep up with high demand STEM jobs and what colleges and universities are telling them they need.

Honestly, if people leave public schools over this in favor of old school private schools who are teaching calculus to the 75 percent of kids who won't need it again, well then... good luck with that. And why are you so worried about what other people do? Hmm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really don't get it. There is systematic inequality built into the current system. It isn't that your 'advanced' kid has a "different learning style." It's that your kid grew up in a house with parents who could read their math textbook and help them with homework. Many of you DO pay for tutors. You sent your kid to a quality preschool. Your kid has had every opportunity to learn and, yes, get ahead of other kids who are just as smart, talented, and capable as your child.

This change levels the playing field. If you don't like it, tough.

No. This change makes me support vouchers and charters. and, barring that, makes me need to send my kids to private school. At which pint, why pay to live in a good school district?

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really don't get it. There is systematic inequality built into the current system. It isn't that your 'advanced' kid has a "different learning style." It's that your kid grew up in a house with parents who could read their math textbook and help them with homework. Many of you DO pay for tutors. You sent your kid to a quality preschool. Your kid has had every opportunity to learn and, yes, get ahead of other kids who are just as smart, talented, and capable as your child.

This change levels the playing field. If you don't like it, tough.

Anonymous wrote:I think some PPs still don’t understand the basic premise. They are proposing that instead of just having a single path focused on calculus we have multiple PATHWAYS - including calculus for STEM.

I’ll post links tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lemme get this straight. You are NOW worried that rich people who live in Virginia and don't like this change in math curriculum are going to move out of state in droves? SERIOUSLY? You need medication.

I mean, the whole reason for this is that 'too many people are getting tutoring.' Right? You think lowering the speed/expectations is going to cause fewer people to move/go private/pay for tutoring? Can you explain that thinking, because I don't see how that's a likely outcome.

Wouldn't providing substantial additional resources in schools to help kids keep up/go at speed/meet high expectations cause less of a demand for this sort of thing and level the playing field better?

Anonymous wrote:Lemme get this straight. You are NOW worried that rich people who live in Virginia and don't like this change in math curriculum are going to move out of state in droves? SERIOUSLY? You need medication.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you really don't get it. There is systematic inequality built into the current system. It isn't that your 'advanced' kid has a "different learning style." It's that your kid grew up in a house with parents who could read their math textbook and help them with homework. Many of you DO pay for tutors. You sent your kid to a quality preschool. Your kid has had every opportunity to learn and, yes, get ahead of other kids who are just as smart, talented, and capable as your child.

This change levels the playing field. If you don't like it, tough.

The majority of us DON'T pay for tutors. The point is that we're asking for additional resources/work to help underprivileged kids who don't have the advantages of 'parents who can read their math textbook' or 'going to preschool'. Instead of saying that kids who have the advantage of a 'better' home situation must not be allowed to learn too much.

I fully believe that racial makeup does not determine ability... which tells me that the kids who aren't getting the advantages are perfectly capable of performing at the same level if they're given a couple of advantages. WHY aren't we trying to boost these kids up, instead of tearing everyone else down?

Actually, you're not asking for anything except the status quo. You didn't care about systemic inequality before it impacted your life in this way.

And YOU may not be paying for tutors, but your neighbors are using mathnasium, kuman, and all the other math places. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business. Giving a few meager resources to underprivileged kids, when they're already behind, is not enough.

What do you think is going to happen to your snowflake when s/he learns math slightly later than the ideal time you had in your head? Do you really think this condemns them to a worse college or job? Because if you do, you need your head examined. Seriously. Like, go call a doctor. I'll hold.