Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scary that the guy won campaigning on fear mongering about CRT being taught in schools when it is not even part of the public school curriculum …

Yawn. Straight from the Virginia Board of Education:

Anti-racism requires acknowledging that racist beliefs and structures are pervasive in education and then actively doing work to tear down those beliefs and structures.

Strategic planning around racial equity that does not include systemic analysis of racism helps to maintain systems of oppression. In doing so, students are hurt. Systemic racism impacts student learning—resulting in disparate educational outcomes—but it also has a significant impact on students’ social-emotional wellbeing.

Racialized outcomes do not require racist actors. Racism goes far beyond individual instances of mistreatment due to skin color. The focus of an anti-racist education agenda should instead be on interrogating and dismantling the system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities.

Striving for equity and inclusion is not interchangeable with acknowledging systemic racism. Racism cannot be defeated unless it is named for what it is. By naming and framing racism it is no longer ‘masked’ by coded language and denial (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

Racism is dynamic and ever-changing. Racism has been ingrained into society through the incorporation of racialized practices into all the social and economic structures of the United States. The work to dismantle systemic racism—and create school environments grounded in the principles of anti-racism—must adapt to the dynamism of racism through ongoing and active work. In other words, school leaders should not expect to eradicate racism in a few weeks, but rather to continuously evaluate current and future practices with anti-racism as the goal (from: Racial Equity Tools, & Grassroots Policy Project. (n.d.). Race, Power and Policy: Dismantling Structural Racism).

Anti-racism requires systemic analysis and proactive action. Anti-racism acknowledges that racism exists, directly and openly names it, and actively works to identify ways in which racism permeates organizational systems. Only then are leaders able to remedy and prevent the racially inequitable outcomes, power imbalances, and the structures that sustain inequities in schools and divisions.

Structural racialization is a system of social structures that produce and reproduce cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities. (from The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity)

Anti-racist school leaders explicitly and implicitly challenge all manifestations of racism and racialization.

Systemic and institutional racism are interchanged, but school and division leaders should note that institutional racism focuses on unfair practices or policies within and between institutions—such as discipline policies—that disproportionately impact students of color. Systemic racism includes institutional racism but takes it further by examining the historical, cultural, and social factors in the unequal power, access, opportunities, treatment, and outcomes between white students and students of color (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/edequityva/navigating-equity-book.pdf
https://www.virginiaisforlearners.virginia.gov/anti-racism-in-education/

Yes, we get it.

You don’t want to do anything about racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean the long thread titled “CRT s not being taught in VA schools!” in which no one can even agree on a definition, let alone provide examples?

Plenty of examples on that thread and all the people supporting CRT say is "liar" and "racist." There is another thread about liberals concerned with identity politics, in which all the liberals who don't like identity politics are told they are liars and racists. On Twitter, you can fond many discussions of CRT where Ibram Kendi himself says his opponents are lying pr being racist. I can pretty much guarantee that Youngkin voters are quite aware of what CRT is and that they themselves are considered lying, racist or stupid. If CRT didn't get them, then their "stupidity" for thinking schools should have opened earlier or that parents should have a say in education did.

It's really long passed the time to be pretending everybody is stupid, lying, or racist except you.

Pretending?

Ok. If it’s so obvious what the definition is and so easy to provide examples of that happening in VA, please share. You can copy and paste from those posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean the long thread titled “CRT s not being taught in VA schools!” in which no one can even agree on a definition, let alone provide examples?

Plenty of examples on that thread and all the people supporting CRT say is "liar" and "racist." There is another thread about liberals concerned with identity politics, in which all the liberals who don't like identity politics are told they are liars and racists. On Twitter, you can fond many discussions of CRT where Ibram Kendi himself says his opponents are lying pr being racist. I can pretty much guarantee that Youngkin voters are quite aware of what CRT is and that they themselves are considered lying, racist or stupid. If CRT didn't get them, then their "stupidity" for thinking schools should have opened earlier or that parents should have a say in education did.

It's really long passed the time to be pretending everybody is stupid, lying, or racist except you.

Pretending?

Ok. If it’s so obvious what the definition is and so easy to provide examples of that happening in VA, please share. You can copy and paste from those posts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean the long thread titled “CRT s not being taught in VA schools!” in which no one can even agree on a definition, let alone provide examples?

Plenty of examples on that thread and all the people supporting CRT say is "liar" and "racist." There is another thread about liberals concerned with identity politics, in which all the liberals who don't like identity politics are told they are liars and racists. On Twitter, you can fond many discussions of CRT where Ibram Kendi himself says his opponents are lying pr being racist. I can pretty much guarantee that Youngkin voters are quite aware of what CRT is and that they themselves are considered lying, racist or stupid. If CRT didn't get them, then their "stupidity" for thinking schools should have opened earlier or that parents should have a say in education did.

It's really long passed the time to be pretending everybody is stupid, lying, or racist except you.

Anonymous wrote:Do you mean the long thread titled “CRT s not being taught in VA schools!” in which no one can even agree on a definition, let alone provide examples?

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:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

I'm not so much trying to BS as I am trying to explain what happened to the Ds so they don't do it again.

Yes, it’s clear that the Ds should have done more to fight the misinformation and BS.

IMO you have to recognize the kernels of truth to fight it. Truth is subjective. This is a really clear example to me. The Ds think CRT is not being taught and the Rs think it is - and they’re both right.

Isn't that what makes disinformation so effective? They are just enough hints of truth to make it believable, but it is not actually true. It's BS.

That's why you gotta listen to people, hear their concerns, instead of telling them to sit down and shut up and that they're a bunch of morons.

We did. In good faith. Many times.

That didn’t stop the Rs from relentlessly pushing misinformation.

"CRT is not taught in schools" over and over is not listening in good faith because the issue is not what label to use.

What was said on the other side? You’re criticizing one phrase out of context. How could Ds “listen” if the Rs could never explain what they meant or provide any details?

Were Rs able to articulate what they actually meant by CRT?

Were the things they called CRT actually happening anywhere in VA?

Where were all of these cases of kids forced to line up by race? Reverse racism?

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:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

I'm not so much trying to BS as I am trying to explain what happened to the Ds so they don't do it again.

Yes, it’s clear that the Ds should have done more to fight the misinformation and BS.

IMO you have to recognize the kernels of truth to fight it. Truth is subjective. This is a really clear example to me. The Ds think CRT is not being taught and the Rs think it is - and they’re both right.

Isn't that what makes disinformation so effective? They are just enough hints of truth to make it believable, but it is not actually true. It's BS.

That's why you gotta listen to people, hear their concerns, instead of telling them to sit down and shut up and that they're a bunch of morons.

We did. In good faith. Many times.

That didn’t stop the Rs from relentlessly pushing misinformation.

"CRT is not taught in schools" over and over is not listening in good faith because the issue is not what label to use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can anyone claim there is white privilege when its the POC that get free food, extra protections, and special selection for college entrance?

What? Admit it's all about class privilege and lose the black vote too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scary that the guy won campaigning on fear mongering about CRT being taught in schools when it is not even part of the public school curriculum …

Yawn. Straight from the Virginia Board of Education:

Anti-racism requires acknowledging that racist beliefs and structures are pervasive in education and then actively doing work to tear down those beliefs and structures.

Strategic planning around racial equity that does not include systemic analysis of racism helps to maintain systems of oppression. In doing so, students are hurt. Systemic racism impacts student learning—resulting in disparate educational outcomes—but it also has a significant impact on students’ social-emotional wellbeing.

Racialized outcomes do not require racist actors. Racism goes far beyond individual instances of mistreatment due to skin color. The focus of an anti-racist education agenda should instead be on interrogating and dismantling the system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities.

Striving for equity and inclusion is not interchangeable with acknowledging systemic racism. Racism cannot be defeated unless it is named for what it is. By naming and framing racism it is no longer ‘masked’ by coded language and denial (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

Racism is dynamic and ever-changing. Racism has been ingrained into society through the incorporation of racialized practices into all the social and economic structures of the United States. The work to dismantle systemic racism—and create school environments grounded in the principles of anti-racism—must adapt to the dynamism of racism through ongoing and active work. In other words, school leaders should not expect to eradicate racism in a few weeks, but rather to continuously evaluate current and future practices with anti-racism as the goal (from: Racial Equity Tools, & Grassroots Policy Project. (n.d.). Race, Power and Policy: Dismantling Structural Racism).

Anti-racism requires systemic analysis and proactive action. Anti-racism acknowledges that racism exists, directly and openly names it, and actively works to identify ways in which racism permeates organizational systems. Only then are leaders able to remedy and prevent the racially inequitable outcomes, power imbalances, and the structures that sustain inequities in schools and divisions.

Structural racialization is a system of social structures that produce and reproduce cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities. (from The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity)

Anti-racist school leaders explicitly and implicitly challenge all manifestations of racism and racialization.

Systemic and institutional racism are interchanged, but school and division leaders should note that institutional racism focuses on unfair practices or policies within and between institutions—such as discipline policies—that disproportionately impact students of color. Systemic racism includes institutional racism but takes it further by examining the historical, cultural, and social factors in the unequal power, access, opportunities, treatment, and outcomes between white students and students of color (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/edequityva/navigating-equity-book.pdf
https://www.virginiaisforlearners.virginia.gov/anti-racism-in-education/

Yes, we get it.

You don’t want to do anything about racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scary that the guy won campaigning on fear mongering about CRT being taught in schools when it is not even part of the public school curriculum …

Yawn. Straight from the Virginia Board of Education:

Anti-racism requires acknowledging that racist beliefs and structures are pervasive in education and then actively doing work to tear down those beliefs and structures.

Strategic planning around racial equity that does not include systemic analysis of racism helps to maintain systems of oppression. In doing so, students are hurt. Systemic racism impacts student learning—resulting in disparate educational outcomes—but it also has a significant impact on students’ social-emotional wellbeing.

Racialized outcomes do not require racist actors. Racism goes far beyond individual instances of mistreatment due to skin color. The focus of an anti-racist education agenda should instead be on interrogating and dismantling the system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities.

Striving for equity and inclusion is not interchangeable with acknowledging systemic racism. Racism cannot be defeated unless it is named for what it is. By naming and framing racism it is no longer ‘masked’ by coded language and denial (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

Racism is dynamic and ever-changing. Racism has been ingrained into society through the incorporation of racialized practices into all the social and economic structures of the United States. The work to dismantle systemic racism—and create school environments grounded in the principles of anti-racism—must adapt to the dynamism of racism through ongoing and active work. In other words, school leaders should not expect to eradicate racism in a few weeks, but rather to continuously evaluate current and future practices with anti-racism as the goal (from: Racial Equity Tools, & Grassroots Policy Project. (n.d.). Race, Power and Policy: Dismantling Structural Racism).

Anti-racism requires systemic analysis and proactive action. Anti-racism acknowledges that racism exists, directly and openly names it, and actively works to identify ways in which racism permeates organizational systems. Only then are leaders able to remedy and prevent the racially inequitable outcomes, power imbalances, and the structures that sustain inequities in schools and divisions.

Structural racialization is a system of social structures that produce and reproduce cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities. (from The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity)

Anti-racist school leaders explicitly and implicitly challenge all manifestations of racism and racialization.

Systemic and institutional racism are interchanged, but school and division leaders should note that institutional racism focuses on unfair practices or policies within and between institutions—such as discipline policies—that disproportionately impact students of color. Systemic racism includes institutional racism but takes it further by examining the historical, cultural, and social factors in the unequal power, access, opportunities, treatment, and outcomes between white students and students of color (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/edequityva/navigating-equity-book.pdf
https://www.virginiaisforlearners.virginia.gov/anti-racism-in-education/

Yes, we get it.

You don’t want to do anything about racism.

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:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

I'm not so much trying to BS as I am trying to explain what happened to the Ds so they don't do it again.

Yes, it’s clear that the Ds should have done more to fight the misinformation and BS.

IMO you have to recognize the kernels of truth to fight it. Truth is subjective. This is a really clear example to me. The Ds think CRT is not being taught and the Rs think it is - and they’re both right.

Isn't that what makes disinformation so effective? They are just enough hints of truth to make it believable, but it is not actually true. It's BS.

That's why you gotta listen to people, hear their concerns, instead of telling them to sit down and shut up and that they're a bunch of morons.

We did. In good faith. Many times.

That didn’t stop the Rs from relentlessly pushing misinformation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scary that the guy won campaigning on fear mongering about CRT being taught in schools when it is not even part of the public school curriculum …

Yawn. Straight from the Virginia Board of Education:

Anti-racism requires acknowledging that racist beliefs and structures are pervasive in education and then actively doing work to tear down those beliefs and structures.

Strategic planning around racial equity that does not include systemic analysis of racism helps to maintain systems of oppression. In doing so, students are hurt. Systemic racism impacts student learning—resulting in disparate educational outcomes—but it also has a significant impact on students’ social-emotional wellbeing.

Racialized outcomes do not require racist actors. Racism goes far beyond individual instances of mistreatment due to skin color. The focus of an anti-racist education agenda should instead be on interrogating and dismantling the system of social structures that produces cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities.

Striving for equity and inclusion is not interchangeable with acknowledging systemic racism. Racism cannot be defeated unless it is named for what it is. By naming and framing racism it is no longer ‘masked’ by coded language and denial (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

Racism is dynamic and ever-changing. Racism has been ingrained into society through the incorporation of racialized practices into all the social and economic structures of the United States. The work to dismantle systemic racism—and create school environments grounded in the principles of anti-racism—must adapt to the dynamism of racism through ongoing and active work. In other words, school leaders should not expect to eradicate racism in a few weeks, but rather to continuously evaluate current and future practices with anti-racism as the goal (from: Racial Equity Tools, & Grassroots Policy Project. (n.d.). Race, Power and Policy: Dismantling Structural Racism).

Anti-racism requires systemic analysis and proactive action. Anti-racism acknowledges that racism exists, directly and openly names it, and actively works to identify ways in which racism permeates organizational systems. Only then are leaders able to remedy and prevent the racially inequitable outcomes, power imbalances, and the structures that sustain inequities in schools and divisions.

Structural racialization is a system of social structures that produce and reproduce cumulative, durable, race-based inequalities. (from The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity)

Anti-racist school leaders explicitly and implicitly challenge all manifestations of racism and racialization.

Systemic and institutional racism are interchanged, but school and division leaders should note that institutional racism focuses on unfair practices or policies within and between institutions—such as discipline policies—that disproportionately impact students of color. Systemic racism includes institutional racism but takes it further by examining the historical, cultural, and social factors in the unequal power, access, opportunities, treatment, and outcomes between white students and students of color (from: How school and district leaders can address systemic racism).

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/edequityva/navigating-equity-book.pdf
https://www.virginiaisforlearners.virginia.gov/anti-racism-in-education/

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:I’m a D but one who doesn’t want to get rid of advanced but nevertheless voted for McA. I remember the VPMI fiasco and I’m too smart to be gaslighted. I know they were considering it and changed their mind with the backlash and that it was dumb to say this was a made up issue.

Headline of the online NYT this morning:

California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash

Proposed guidelines in the state would de-emphasize calculus, reject the idea that some children are naturally gifted and build a connection to social justice. Critics say math shouldn’t be political.

The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction. The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school and tried to promote high-level math courses that could serve as alternatives to calculus, like data science or statistics.

You people will never understand but that was why some people voted R. Because it is a risk with the Ds. Don’t deny that by saying it’s not happening and gaslighting. At least be genuine and say it was considered and discarded and the Ds are really really not considering it again and it’s not a risk with them.

Who said they weren’t considering some amount of tracking? They were. It was definitely discussed. That doesn’t mean they were “banning advanced math / acceleration”. They always included AP/IB as options, which are advanced math options.

The whole point was that there wasn’t an actual plan at that point - they were just discussing a variety of topics related to updating the math curriculum. They also discussed adding other tracks, blending concepts, etc. Detracking wasn’t even the main topic - it didn’t even make the infographic. Wayback machine has screenshot if you want to verify.

And even long after it was squashed, people are still saying the VMPI is trying to take away advanced math. Like a conspiracy theory.

I think the people who voted R wanted to make sure if the Ds in power - they didn’t reconsider. And that was / is a realistic risk with Ds.

This. It is disingenuous to suggest that revisiting the issue was not a possibility had the Dems run the table. Just like “defund the police”, the Dems keep floating ideas that the majority of people find to be too far left, and then have to scramble claiming oh we didn’t mean THAT, when there is a backlash to it. Let’s be real, if there hadn’t been such backlash to these ideas, they would have pushed forward with them because there is a substantial flank of the Democratic Party that believes in them.

No one said that detracking was never discussed.

You can continue to play the semantics game with what is “happening” or discussed” but the point remains that it was “discussed” because Dems wanted it to “happen” and many parents wanted to ensure that it wouldn’t “happen” so they voted Republican.

If you are going to continue to be misleading then we will continue to “play semantics”.

“Dems” didn’t want this to happen. This isn’t on the party platform. There aren’t Ds running around Virginia with “detracking” license plates on their car.

Yes, some people who are likely Dems thought it was a good idea and brought it up for discussion, along with other topics. They didn’t try to force it on anyone. Heck, they didn’t even include it on their website or infographic. Who said they thought it was a bad idea? Lots of Ds. Who ultimately took it off the table? A Dem (assuming Lane is a D).

And they were certainly never “banning advanced math”.

You won. It worked. You can stop the relentless BS now.

This works both ways. You want to scream TRUMP at every Republican and make every asinine and abhorrent thing that has ever come out of his mouth a part of the Republican Party platform. They didn’t try to force this on anyone because the backlash was swift, but make no mistake had the backlash not been swift they would have moved the idea along, and if they felt they were in more friendly political territory in the future they would bring it to the table again. This is an inherent problem with both parties, they each have a wing that is completely out of touch with what the average American cares about and supports. In Virginia’s case, Youngkin was able to keep that flank of the party at a better distance than McAuliffe did and focused more on things that VA moderates care about.

Well, this has nothing to do about detracking math and isn't at all comparable, but I'll bite anyway...

People don't scream "Trump" at every Republican. Only those who have supported him and The Big Lie (e.g., making "election integrity" a top priority) or welcomed an endorsement from him. Or made fast friends with 1/6 nutters like Amanda Chase.

Some Republicans have denounced Trump and some even made the tiniest efforts to hold him accountable. Nobody screams "Trump" at them.

Sorry - you can't have it both ways. If a candidate is going to pander to the insane MAGA base then he is tainted orange.


Back to math detracking - they held multiple information sessions. They asked people for feedback. It was given. And they responded. And yet you continue to vilify them months later. I just don't get it. They aren't evil people looking to hurt people or profit from this. They are math teachers who are trying to look at recent trends in education as they update the curriculum, as required by law. It's not some crazy plot.

They did not ASK people for feedback. Chap Peterson asked them for more info and then it started getting press coverage.

Are you just trolling now?

Maybe that is when *you* noticed but they’ve been asking for feedback since last fall. That was one of the main goals of the info sessions - they explicitly said multiple times they wanted a dialogue and feedback from various stakeholders, including parents.

It was even extensively discussed here before that letter.

How can I learn more or provide feedback?
*Visit the VMPI website for additional details about Community Meetings on VMPI and other opportunities for public feedback.
*The Virginia Department of Education also welcomes your feedback via email at vdoe.mathematics@doe.virginia.gov.
Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative Infographic
*video graphic Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative Informational Video
*video graphic Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative Regional Webinar - November 2020



How can I learn more or provide feedback?
VMPI community meetings being offered this spring are intended to provide initial information regarding the initiative, but also be a venue in which feedback can be collected. The schedule for the sessions is:
Tuesday, March 23, 2021 - Why Change Mathematics Instruction?
Tuesday, April 13, 2021 - How does VMPI affect Virginia Children’s Futures?
Tuesday, April 27, 2021 - Essential Concepts in Grades 8 - 10
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 - Advanced Pathways in Grades 11 - 12
All sessions will be live streamed on the VDOE YouTube Channel beginning at 6:30 p.m., with a 20-minute presentation from members of the VMPI Planning Committees, followed by a question and answer session for the community.
Participants may submit questions to be addressed during the sessions through the Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative form.
The Virginia Department of Education welcomes feedback via email at vdoe.mathematics@doe.virginia.gov as the Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative moves forward.

I’m glad to hear. And I hope they’ve now got a resounding no from parents.

Yes, they heard that feedback even back in April when detracking was squashed.

I don't blame people for thinking they needed to vote R to ensure it didn't happen, for good measure. They're making changes to AAP in FCPS now. It's not like they're not making changes now.

OK. But it's totally irrational since FCPS has always been able to make those changes itself regardless of VDOE does. Math departments in school districts have adjusted the accelerated paths various ways over the years. It's not a VDOE / governor / political effort.

But go ahead and scream about "banning advanced math" to get your candidate elected. Clearly spreading misinformation works.

It's not my candidate. I'm a D but one who is trying to make them realize the error of their ways before they cause us to get Trump back in 2024.