One question that should be asked is what is the pathway for someone to take calculus, what course or courses will they take in 11th grade? I don't see a pathway in the courses they have listed.

Anonymous wrote:

Group work doesn't automatically mean making kids "responsible" for other kids' comprehension or tying grades to other members... You drew that conclusion yourself.

I didn't draw any conclusions. I noted that the Riverside study, which is being used as a citation for how well detracking has worked in the past, made kids responsible for other kids' comprehension. It doesn't mean that VDOE will do the same, but they are heavily pushing group work as a model, and they're also heavily relying upon studies like the Riverside one to justify their view that detracking will benefit all students.

This was the quote from the article.

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Anonymous wrote:Of course it does.

Not if it's done well.

Of course it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Overall, collaborative learning / group work can be more engaging.

Are there bad group work experiences? Sure. There are also bad direct instruction experiences. Rather than just avoid all group work, find ways to make it more productive and effective. There are tons of resources available.

They're not just describing collaborative learning. They're suggesting making kids responsible for other kids' comprehension of the materials, to the point that the kids who fully understand the math will get lower grades if one of the members does poorly on a test or can't answer a question from the teacher. If trained teachers have failed to get a kid to understand the materials, why would they expect untrained peers to do better? Also, how would it not be utterly discouraging for your kid to have mastered the material him/herself, be working hard to help peers, and then get a bad grade because the peer is not trying or failing to understand the material?

I haven't heard any of that. Citation?

Not the VDOE thing. It's in the Railside study, which promotes a lot of group work as the answer for heterogeneous classrooms. Read the 5 posts prior to yours in this thread.

Group work doesn't automatically mean making kids "responsible" for other kids' comprehension or tying grades to other members... You drew that conclusion yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Overall, collaborative learning / group work can be more engaging.

Are there bad group work experiences? Sure. There are also bad direct instruction experiences. Rather than just avoid all group work, find ways to make it more productive and effective. There are tons of resources available.

They're not just describing collaborative learning. They're suggesting making kids responsible for other kids' comprehension of the materials, to the point that the kids who fully understand the math will get lower grades if one of the members does poorly on a test or can't answer a question from the teacher. If trained teachers have failed to get a kid to understand the materials, why would they expect untrained peers to do better? Also, how would it not be utterly discouraging for your kid to have mastered the material him/herself, be working hard to help peers, and then get a bad grade because the peer is not trying or failing to understand the material?

I haven't heard any of that. Citation?

Not the VDOE thing. It's in the Railside study, which promotes a lot of group work as the answer for heterogeneous classrooms. Read the 5 posts prior to yours in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Overall, collaborative learning / group work can be more engaging.

Are there bad group work experiences? Sure. There are also bad direct instruction experiences. Rather than just avoid all group work, find ways to make it more productive and effective. There are tons of resources available.

They're not just describing collaborative learning. They're suggesting making kids responsible for other kids' comprehension of the materials, to the point that the kids who fully understand the math will get lower grades if one of the members does poorly on a test or can't answer a question from the teacher. If trained teachers have failed to get a kid to understand the materials, why would they expect untrained peers to do better? Also, how would it not be utterly discouraging for your kid to have mastered the material him/herself, be working hard to help peers, and then get a bad grade because the peer is not trying or failing to understand the material?

I haven't heard any of that. Citation?

Anonymous wrote:
Overall, collaborative learning / group work can be more engaging.

Are there bad group work experiences? Sure. There are also bad direct instruction experiences. Rather than just avoid all group work, find ways to make it more productive and effective. There are tons of resources available.

They're not just describing collaborative learning. They're suggesting making kids responsible for other kids' comprehension of the materials, to the point that the kids who fully understand the math will get lower grades if one of the members does poorly on a test or can't answer a question from the teacher. If trained teachers have failed to get a kid to understand the materials, why would they expect untrained peers to do better? Also, how would it not be utterly discouraging for your kid to have mastered the material him/herself, be working hard to help peers, and then get a bad grade because the peer is not trying or failing to understand the material?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

The best way to master content is to be able to teach to someone else.

This is all assuming that the struggling kids are actually trying and want to learn. Many don't, and from my experience, will actively sabotage the efforts of the other group members.

Additionally, even if the students want to learn, why are they assuming that fellow students could convey the materials in any way that would help struggling kids? The teachers have learned the full pedagogy behind math instruction. Likewise, many schools have math resource teachers who are trained in helping struggling students. The classroom teachers and math resource teachers have been unable to get these struggling students up to grade level for years, so why on earth would anyone assume that bright kids in the same classroom would have better results?

There are many benefits of collaborative learning:
https://www.edutopia.org/stw-collaborative-learning-research
https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engaging-students/collaborative-learning
http://ijepr.org/panels/admin/papers/157ij10.pdf

Overall, collaborative learning / group work can be more engaging.

Are there bad group work experiences? Sure. There are also bad direct instruction experiences. Rather than just avoid all group work, find ways to make it more productive and effective. There are tons of resources available.

Anonymous wrote:Here is the paper that mathematicians critiquing Railside wrote:
https://nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Articles/v8n1.pdf

Interesting read. Didn't know that the VDOE crap had already been disproven 15 years ago.

When thinking about the notion of "depth" and "rigor" that the proponents of VMPI put forth it helps to read the assessment of the post tests by the authors in the appendices.

Remember that VMPI accuses traditional math of being "shallow" and "wide" - in reality, it turned out that the test used by the Railside study was 3 grade level behind, testing 6th grade knowledge which the authors call "pretend algebra."

The conclusion is that the Math standards in place at the time were in fact deep but proponents of "heterogeneous classrooms" intentionally (the authors call it "disingenously") made them shallow to show bogus data. When the student cohort was asked to do deep mathematics, it failed. (Not a single Railside student took AP Calculus.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

The best way to master content is to be able to teach to someone else.

This is all assuming that the struggling kids are actually trying and want to learn. Many don't, and from my experience, will actively sabotage the efforts of the other group members.

Additionally, even if the students want to learn, why are they assuming that fellow students could convey the materials in any way that would help struggling kids? The teachers have learned the full pedagogy behind math instruction. Likewise, many schools have math resource teachers who are trained in helping struggling students. The classroom teachers and math resource teachers have been unable to get these struggling students up to grade level for years, so why on earth would anyone assume that bright kids in the same classroom would have better results?

Exactly! And I and my kids have been in that kind of group experience discussed above. What it means is the smart kid in the group is expected to fill out the test for everyone else. Not that the other kids learn the stuff. How does that help anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

32:20
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

He NEVER saiid that there will still be algebra 2, he said REMOVING them(alg/geom/alg 2) and replacing with something totally different...I mean please--that has a totally different meaning....

The content will be covered. Kids can still do AP calculus.

Here is how some other school systems have done this. VDOE should more clearly map out the options for STEM pathways so parents don’t freak out.
https://justequations.org/wp-content/uploads/BRANCHING_OUT_PRESENTATION.pdf

There are three school system pathways presented in the link. The first Escondido has AP Calculus in 12th grade, with no description of what is in 9th and 10th beyond Math1 and Math 2.
The second is Oregon, and does not mention calculus at all.
The third is San Francisco, which removes acceleration but then provides options for 11th and 12th to take community college classes to get calculus, or to take an Algebra 2 and PreCalc compression class to get to AP Calculus the next year.
So kids are considered hurt by jumping ahead a grade, but now they are considered good enough to take two classes in a compressed class.

Algebra 2/precalc compressed is impossible to do! I mean talk about setting up kids for failure--or is this the idea?
FCC experimented with compressed geometry/alg 2 honors and it was a royal cluster###, BTW this experiment was done on high achieving students, so the ones that barely missed algerbra honors in 7th grade....well when these poor kids came to do precal in grade 10 they were totally clueless and could not even follow the class.....

This! My kids HS already has a compressed Intensified Algebra 2/Trig class that is a big weed-out class for the kids who did fine in intensified Alg 1 and Geometry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

From the first link:
“ A major part of the equitable results attained at Railside was the serious way in which teachers expected
students to be responsible for each other’s learning. Many schools employ group work which, by its nature, brings with it an element of interdependence, but Railside teachers went beyond this to ensure that students took their responsibility to each other very seriously. One way in which teachers nurtured a feeling of responsibility was through the assessment system. For example, teachers occasionally graded the work of a group by rating the quality of the conversations groups had. In addition, the teachers occasionally gave group tests, which took several formats. In one version, students worked through a test together, but the teachers graded only one of the individual papers and that grade stood as the grade for all the students in the group. A third way in which responsibility was encouraged was through the practice of asking one student in a group to answer a follow-up question after a group had worked on something. If the student could not answer the question, the teacher would leave the group to further discussion before returning to ask the same student again. In the intervening time, it was the group’s responsibility to help the student learn the mathematics they needed to answer the question.”

Uh yeah this notion that the quick kids will effectively become teacher assistants once they learn the material is exactly what many of us are mad about!!!

The best way to master content is to be able to teach to someone else.

This is all assuming that the struggling kids are actually trying and want to learn. Many don't, and from my experience, will actively sabotage the efforts of the other group members.

Additionally, even if the students want to learn, why are they assuming that fellow students could convey the materials in any way that would help struggling kids? The teachers have learned the full pedagogy behind math instruction. Likewise, many schools have math resource teachers who are trained in helping struggling students. The classroom teachers and math resource teachers have been unable to get these struggling students up to grade level for years, so why on earth would anyone assume that bright kids in the same classroom would have better results?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

32:20
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

He NEVER saiid that there will still be algebra 2, he said REMOVING them(alg/geom/alg 2) and replacing with something totally different...I mean please--that has a totally different meaning....

The content will be covered. Kids can still do AP calculus.

Here is how some other school systems have done this. VDOE should more clearly map out the options for STEM pathways so parents don’t freak out.
https://justequations.org/wp-content/uploads/BRANCHING_OUT_PRESENTATION.pdf

There are three school system pathways presented in the link. The first Escondido has AP Calculus in 12th grade, with no description of what is in 9th and 10th beyond Math1 and Math 2.
The second is Oregon, and does not mention calculus at all.
The third is San Francisco, which removes acceleration but then provides options for 11th and 12th to take community college classes to get calculus, or to take an Algebra 2 and PreCalc compression class to get to AP Calculus the next year.
So kids are considered hurt by jumping ahead a grade, but now they are considered good enough to take two classes in a compressed class.

Algebra 2/precalc compressed is impossible to do! I mean talk about setting up kids for failure--or is this the idea?
FCC experimented with compressed geometry/alg 2 honors and it was a royal cluster###, BTW this experiment was done on high achieving students, so the ones that barely missed algerbra honors in 7th grade....well when these poor kids came to do precal in grade 10 they were totally clueless and could not even follow the class.....

Yes, VDOE should more clearly map out the pathways for calculus/STEM tracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

32:20
"Let me totally clear we are talking about taking algebra 1 geometry algebra 2, those three courses that we've known and loved for 150 years, and removing them from our HS mathematics programs and replacing them with essential concepts for grade 8, 9, 10."

Chill, people.

He NEVER saiid that there will still be algebra 2, he said REMOVING them(alg/geom/alg 2) and replacing with something totally different...I mean please--that has a totally different meaning....

The content will be covered. Kids can still do AP calculus.

Here is how some other school systems have done this. VDOE should more clearly map out the options for STEM pathways so parents don’t freak out.
https://justequations.org/wp-content/uploads/BRANCHING_OUT_PRESENTATION.pdf

There are three school system pathways presented in the link. The first Escondido has AP Calculus in 12th grade, with no description of what is in 9th and 10th beyond Math1 and Math 2.
The second is Oregon, and does not mention calculus at all.
The third is San Francisco, which removes acceleration but then provides options for 11th and 12th to take community college classes to get calculus, or to take an Algebra 2 and PreCalc compression class to get to AP Calculus the next year.
So kids are considered hurt by jumping ahead a grade, but now they are considered good enough to take two classes in a compressed class.

Algebra 2/precalc compressed is impossible to do! I mean talk about setting up kids for failure--or is this the idea?
FCC experimented with compressed geometry/alg 2 honors and it was a royal cluster###, BTW this experiment was done on high achieving students, so the ones that barely missed algerbra honors in 7th grade....well when these poor kids came to do precal in grade 10 they were totally clueless and could not even follow the class.....