Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

No one is lecturing middle school students for 88 minutes straight.

Heck, no one is lecturing middle school students for 44 minutes straight.

I didn’t say they were. They are filling up that time with various types of learning (half of which parents are denigrating as “study hall”) to create shorter chunks of tasks and to differentiate the learning going on. Some parents here seem to feel that doing that isn’t teaching. It is, and kids are learning, but if you define learning as “sitting and taking notes and tests,” no, no kid can do that for 88 minutes. It wouldn’t be learning. And it’s why we don’t structure block classes that way.

Stop repeating the lie that half of the class is used as study hall.

Please god read what people write. I said the kids have various LEARNING TASKS that HALF THE PARENTS HERE denigrate as “study hall.” In other words: I don’t consider it study hall. Other people do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

No one is lecturing middle school students for 88 minutes straight.

Heck, no one is lecturing middle school students for 44 minutes straight.

I didn’t say they were. They are filling up that time with various types of learning (half of which parents are denigrating as “study hall”) to create shorter chunks of tasks and to differentiate the learning going on. Some parents here seem to feel that doing that isn’t teaching. It is, and kids are learning, but if you define learning as “sitting and taking notes and tests,” no, no kid can do that for 88 minutes. It wouldn’t be learning. And it’s why we don’t structure block classes that way.

Stop repeating the lie that half of the class is used as study hall.

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

What is the Superman reference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

So basically, block scheduling is “Waiting for Superman”

I’m a little confused; you went from 50 minute blocks (250 minutes a week) to 2 90 minute blocks (180 minutes a week) yet now feel like you can teach at a slower pace?

Anonymous wrote:I am a teacher who was strongly against 90 minute core classes in middle school. I am in the process of changing my mind.

When it is poorly done, it is an abysmal mess; however, when it is done well, it is a sight to behold. At my school, I see about a third of our teachers in a mess and the others, wow, it is amazing. Even for subjects like math (which was the root of my previous objections).

It has taken a year or two for teachers to get the swing of it. The pacing changes, you have to make large and also subtle changes to the way you teach the material, but it can be very effective.

Our school made a concerted effort to hold several different types of PD for teachers to talk about the pacing of the 90 minutes as well as pacing with regards to the overall curriculum. That was very helpful. Many of us needed to see examples of how we can manage the ebb and flow of 90 minutes. What we've found is that the 90 minute block can be much less stressful on the children than the 50 or 55 minute block, which was sometimes almost frenetic because we had SO MUCH to accomplish that all we did was push, push, push.

Even with the last year being as difficult as it was on everyone, I could see positive changes occurring in our school's learning environment and outcomes for the children. Standing in the hallway as kids leave classes this year, I see happy and enthusiastic students, who were engaged in active bell-to-bell learning ... without looking like they were being pushed and pummeled to race through material as they did when we had the shorter blocks. We're not perfect but we're getting there.

Anyway, that's my two cents as someone who works at a school system that is not APS but it is NoVa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

No one is lecturing middle school students for 88 minutes straight.

Heck, no one is lecturing middle school students for 44 minutes straight.

I didn’t say they were. They are filling up that time with various types of learning (half of which parents are denigrating as “study hall”) to create shorter chunks of tasks and to differentiate the learning going on. Some parents here seem to feel that doing that isn’t teaching. It is, and kids are learning, but if you define learning as “sitting and taking notes and tests,” no, no kid can do that for 88 minutes. It wouldn’t be learning. And it’s why we don’t structure block classes that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids love a block schedule. There are fewer transitions and they’re not trying to do homework in 7 classes each night.

This. For my kids with ADHD, it's great

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

This is why the 90-min. blocks are a waste for math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

No one is lecturing middle school students for 88 minutes straight.

Heck, no one is lecturing middle school students for 44 minutes straight.

Anonymous wrote:My kids love a block schedule. There are fewer transitions and they’re not trying to do homework in 7 classes each night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids APS middle school does it and I hate it. It seems especially bad for the 6th grade pre algebra class. It's hard to learn three years of math in one year when your class only meets 2-3 times a week.

Why would the sixth grade prealgebra class need to teach three years of math?

Yeah I don't understand this either.

It used to be called Math 6-7-8.

It's one year of pre-algrebra. They are not trying to cram three years of material into one year.

How is it not three years of math in one? These kids were all in fifth grade math the year before, at the end of the year they take the 8th grade SOL. That means they have to cover material from.6, 7 and 8th.

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf
DP. You have some bad information. They do not take the 8th grade SOL at the end of 6th grade.

I was told the pre-algebra kids do.

You got bad information. Most APS 8th graders take algebra or geometry in 8th grade. Only those who are effectively on a remedial math track take pre-algebra in 8th grade.

Yes, exactly. Pre-algebra is only one year. If you stretched out Math 6, 7, 8 over three years, it would be remedial and very slow. That's why it's not the same as saying "three years worth of math in one year." Normal course is algebra in 8th.

No, "normal" is pre-algebra in 8th. Advanced is algebra in 8th. Algebra is a high school course. That's why they get high school credit for it if they pass it in middle school - whatever year they take it.
"Stretching out Math 6, 7,8 over three years" is called taking grade level math each year. There's nothing "remedial" about that.

Then what is the difference between taking Math 8 vs. pre-algebra in 8th?

I believe they are one and the same. In the middle school program of studies, there is only one listing, Pre-Algebra for 8th graders.
https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Middle-School-POS-2022-23-FINAL.pdf

If you are doing Math 6, then Math 7, then pre-algebra over three years, then that is the slowest track. If you are in that track, even if it is not technically called "remedial," you are in there with kids who are behind and may well be remedial.

I don't think you understand the math program. Nobody is doing pre-algebra over 3 years. "Math 8" is "pre-algebra." "Math 6" and "math 7" are the math classes traditionally taken prior to taking pre-algebra; then algebra traditionally taken in 9th. Where are you getting this "pre-algebra over 3 years" idea?

Right, I'm saying if you do this program, over three years, that is the slowest track:
6th - Math 6
7th - Math 7
8th - Pre-algebra

I am objecting to PP who claimed this track is not remedial. Maybe it is technically not "remedial" per se, but it goes at a much slower pace than pre-algebra for 6th (6/7/8) or Math 6+pre-algebra for 7th (7/8). It is the slowest track, so it includes the kids who are the farthest behind. Does that mean it's still "on grade level" and everyone else on higher tracks (60% according to one PP) are "above grade level?" Who knows. Whatever.

Ok, so it takes 3 years to get to Algebra instead of one or two. But I don't equate that with "slower paced" or "remedial" class at all. A primary (GOOD) reason to take the time for grade level math each year is to get better exposure and build a stronger fundamentals understanding foundation for the higher math. Those in the accelerated classes often get abbreviated curriculum in order to get through the concepts faster. But not all those kids are building as strong an understanding of the fundamentals that they could or should. I highly object to classifying appropriate grade level math as "remedial" even if there are kids who are less adept and struggle more with it in the class.

Three years is objectively and unequivocally slower placed than one or two years to learn the same content.

Again, the class itself may not technically be called remedial. But the remedial students will be put into those classes. Depending on the make up of the class, that can affect the overall pace of the class and how much can be taught.

Relating it back to the topic of the OP, I can't imagine block scheduling for math helps those students catch up, as there is only so much math one can absorb in 90 min, especially for students who are struggling and disinterested in math.

But they might have more time to get assistance from the teacher.

Well, that would come at the expense of the "on target" kids in the class.

Guess the lesson is not to let your kid get stuck in the slow track.

If your kid is “on target” they don’t need the extra assistance. They’re in their zone of proximal development and progressing.

If your kid isn’t “on target” they need extra assistance and get it.

This forum really needs to examine its obsession with viewing their kids as constantly not getting something that they maybe don’t even need but that their parents feel they’re entitled to nonetheless.

You do you, but I'd rather have my kid learning for the whole 90-min. block.

In various ways they are but I can assure you that developmentally no kid and very few adults can sustain complete focus for 88 straight minutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a HS teacher and have never taught anything but block. We don’t lecture the entire 88 minutes. In my class it looks like this: warm up activity/attendance question, independent reading, maybe a journal prompt, mini lesson and group practice, independent practice. Or, warm up/read/journal prompt, “workshop” time where some kids are drafting, some are revising, some are in a small group with me while I reteach something.

So study hall for half the time.

Um, no. Independent reading is important for building reading endurance, vocabulary, comprehension. It has measured and proven benefits. Journaling does as well, when students are writing to a prompt they are practicing the writing muscle and developing ideas they’ll later use in their formal written pieces. Independent practice = the graded work on whatever skill we are currently working on. Maybe if you guys knew what words meant and what teaching looks like you wouldn’t be losing your minds over 88 minute classes.

What are you doing while kids do independent work?

OMG can we please stop second-guessing and armchair quarterbacking teachers? Go look at that thread on FCPS teachers who are all miserable and want to quit!

This teacher probably has a million other things to do while kids are reading, including perhaps grading papers or planning the next lesson! Why is there so much complaining. Do we want our kids to have subs all year?

This was PP who started the idea that the teachers are grading papers or planning, they framed it as a positive.