Here is McAuliffe plan for education https://terrymcauliffe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1.29.21-FINAL-Education-Plan-1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to see these radical changes, you need to vote! VDOE board members were appointed by Northam and McAuliiffe. I wish they would just add to the tracking or most importantly invest in title I schools to get those kids on track early but they want to make it easy and lower the bar.

Regardless of who you vote for, make it clear where you stand on this issue, and make it a campaign issue. if these candidates think they will lose a lot of the northern va parents if they don't oppose this, they will oppose this.

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t want to see these radical changes, you need to vote! VDOE board members were appointed by Northam and McAuliiffe. I wish they would just add to the tracking or most importantly invest in title I schools to get those kids on track early but they want to make it easy and lower the bar.

Yes, vote D! Or else education will *really* be flushed down the drain.

If you don’t want to see these radical changes, you need to vote! VDOE board members were appointed by Northam and McAuliiffe. I wish they would just add to the tracking or most importantly invest in title I schools to get those kids on track early but they want to make it easy and lower the bar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What % of students who aren’t going into STEM take AP Calc?

It’s currently expected for ALL students aiming for top schools. It is the de facto path for all top students.

If that's true then Virginia shouldn't be eliminating it. I don't know that that's true that top schools expect calculus from all students who apply.
Agreed it is a de facto path for all top students, but it doesn't have to be.
Under the new proposal the de facto path will be for students to not take calculus.

They aren’t eliminating AP calc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
● Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Tell that to the hundreds of kids who took a precalculus eligibility test instead of a simulated math 8 SOL to get into algebra class in February, in response to these changes.
That is well past development stage.

That wasn’t this initiative, nimrod.

Any changes made to the Mathematics Standards of Learning would be scheduled for classroom level implementation in the 2025-2026 school year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got a response from Tina about the specific pathway to calculus.
One of the many options that is being proposed is that a student could take grade 6 and 7 mathematics; essential concepts courses in grades 8, 9, and 10; pre-calculus in grade 11; and calculus in grade 12. Many other options and pathways will also be available.

Sincerely,
Tina

Has anyone gotten a response on post-AP math classes? Calc is great for those who need it, but many northern VA kids go beyond it in HS.

With all the emphasis they've placed on 'and kids don't need calc anyways', the fact that they've repeatedly stated that there is still a 'path to calculus', and the fact that we're not really sure how easy/realistic even getting to calc is going to be for most students, I think it's pretty much a given that the way it's structured now, there is no anticipated offering of post-calc classes in HS. I guess kids could take classes at NOVA at night or during summer school.

Anonymous wrote:I got a response from Tina about the specific pathway to calculus.
One of the many options that is being proposed is that a student could take grade 6 and 7 mathematics; essential concepts courses in grades 8, 9, and 10; pre-calculus in grade 11; and calculus in grade 12. Many other options and pathways will also be available.

Sincerely,
Tina

Has anyone gotten a response on post-AP math classes? Calc is great for those who need it, but many northern VA kids go beyond it in HS.

I got a response from Tina about the specific pathway to calculus.
One of the many options that is being proposed is that a student could take grade 6 and 7 mathematics; essential concepts courses in grades 8, 9, and 10; pre-calculus in grade 11; and calculus in grade 12. Many other options and pathways will also be available.

Sincerely,
Tina

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Tell that to the hundreds of kids who took a precalculus eligibility test instead of a simulated math 8 SOL to get into algebra class in February, in response to these changes.
That is well past development stage.

Do we know for sure that what LCPS is doing is in response to VMPI? VMPI is a Virginia DOE initiative that they've said they haven't started rolling out yet. Did LCPS do something in response to VMPI, or is it just a coincidence that they're doing something similar right now?

That is what I heard from my principal:
"Rising 6th graders are testing for eligibility to take Pre-Algebra as there is a new state, and thus LCPS, progression for mathematics that will affect them as they enter middle school."

Anonymous wrote:
What % of students who aren’t going into STEM take AP Calc?

It’s currently expected for ALL students aiming for top schools. It is the de facto path for all top students.

If that's true then Virginia shouldn't be eliminating it. I don't know that that's true that top schools expect calculus from all students who apply.
Agreed it is a de facto path for all top students, but it doesn't have to be.
Under the new proposal the de facto path will be for students to not take calculus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

The issue isn't offering additional pathways. The issue is whether pathways are being removed - or, perhaps more accurately, altered in ways that have a negative impact or render them impractical to pursue.

There is a need for DOE to spell out the pathways more precisely, as that may make the difference between something people can live with and something that will push families away. Their failure to do so, even at this early juncture, gives one the sense of either (a) incompetence or (b) obfuscation.

Ok. Are they removing pathways?

I haven’t heard that.

Yes they are removing pathways. 6th graders previously had three or four different classes to choose from, now they have 1. Same with 7th,8th,9th,and 10th grades. There were previously 10th graders taking calculus under the old pathways.

Anonymous wrote:
Tell that to the hundreds of kids who took a precalculus eligibility test instead of a simulated math 8 SOL to get into algebra class in February, in response to these changes.
That is well past development stage.

Do we know for sure that what LCPS is doing is in response to VMPI? VMPI is a Virginia DOE initiative that they've said they haven't started rolling out yet. Did LCPS do something in response to VMPI, or is it just a coincidence that they're doing something similar right now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
● Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Nothing has been finalized but the DOE has been very clear they want to end tracking or other kinds of sorting kids into classes by ability. They have also been clear they think calculus is being overemphasized.

Maybe because it IS overemphasized. Far too many kids who don’t need calculus take calculus because that’s how our system currently works. What is wrong with offering them alternate math pathways?

That's not the issue, and I haven't seen anyone argue against it. There was one person arguing against it in the diplomas video, against the idea that kids should be required to have 4 years of math classes to graduate.
The problem is that kids who are capable of advancing faster are being denied the opportunity, and instead getting algebra in 9th grade.
The other problem is that they are removing tracking, putting all skill levels in one class even in middle school and 9th and 10th grade.
The other problem, not discussed much here, is that they are revising the classes to put in more modeling and other topics, downgrading algebra and geometry, while also merging them together into a single set of classes, instead of traditional algebra 1 and geometry and prealgebra.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Rs are the pro-science party,”

Neither side is pro science. Each bases positions much more off of what outcome is desired. It’s just that on this topic Ds want equity more than they want to cultivate the kids who will be the leading edge of our math and science force. Plenty of other issues where the R position is likewise driven by dogma not data.

You know those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Of course they are not. The actual equity problem is that Black and Hispanic kids are under-identified for advanced math. That's the problem to fix. VAs solution is to instead just not let any kids pursue math at a faster, more advanced pace.

They aren’t doing that.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/VMPI%20for%20vdoe%20website.docx

● The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated. Additional course pathways will include engaging semester courses in statistics, data science, modeling, design, and logic, among others.
● Local school divisions will still have plenty of flexibility to create courses aligned to the standards to meet the needs of all students; and provide opportunities for all students to advance through the curriculum based on their learning needs. School divisions will also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration through the courses.

Since this document just appeared recently, and contradicts earlier statements, what they are actually planning now is unclear.

Can’t you read? It’s still in the development stage.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FINALIZED YET.

Sorry, your trash candidates will have to manufacture some other hot issue.

Tell that to the hundreds of kids who took a precalculus eligibility test instead of a simulated math 8 SOL to get into algebra class in February, in response to these changes.
That is well past development stage.