Anonymous wrote:Has APS loaded any math placement letters into Parentvue? Don’t see ours for Williamsburg.

Anonymous wrote:Has APS loaded any math placement letters into Parentvue? Don’t see ours for Williamsburg.

Anonymous wrote:APS teacher here (4th). I just want to say, first, we don’t have a true adoption that we use. Teachers spend so much time making up SOL-aligned work. At every school. It’s insanity and APS does nothing to help. Yes we have envisions (I don’t even want to know the $$$$ that was spent on that). The issue is envisions is common core aligned which does not match VA SOLs, and then even the order of envisions does not match APS order of instructional units. There are mixed review questions on every page and often these review questions don’t relate to anything my students have learned so they are a total waste. There is a tiny 30 page section at the back of the workbook with VA specific work that we sometimes use. Also envisions is very clunky online to use, requiring a thousand clicks to get to the lesson tools you need. So if you want to know why there is not enough enrichment or acceleration opportunities, well, I’m just one person trying to get through all the instruction I have to do before SOLs and I barely get 90 minutes a day to make all my plans (one day is actually meetings). There just isn’t time to do all of what you want. Get me better instructional materials that align and are good so I don’t have to make up stuff every year (or, update what I made last year to be better or have different review questions because APS changed the order, etc).

Anonymous wrote:APS teacher here (4th). I just want to say, first, we don’t have a true adoption that we use. Teachers spend so much time making up SOL-aligned work. At every school. It’s insanity and APS does nothing to help. Yes we have envisions (I don’t even want to know the $$$$ that was spent on that). The issue is envisions is common core aligned which does not match VA SOLs, and then even the order of envisions does not match APS order of instructional units. There are mixed review questions on every page and often these review questions don’t relate to anything my students have learned so they are a total waste. There is a tiny 30 page section at the back of the workbook with VA specific work that we sometimes use. Also envisions is very clunky online to use, requiring a thousand clicks to get to the lesson tools you need. So if you want to know why there is not enough enrichment or acceleration opportunities, well, I’m just one person trying to get through all the instruction I have to do before SOLs and I barely get 90 minutes a day to make all my plans (one day is actually meetings). There just isn’t time to do all of what you want. Get me better instructional materials that align and are good so I don’t have to make up stuff every year (or, update what I made last year to be better or have different review questions because APS changed the order, etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you folks are obsessed. Summer hasn’t even started yet

I was one of the people who asked last year – it’s annoying that there are no *announced* guidelines or policies. I asked at our elementary last year and got a totally BS answer that I knew was incorrect (they’ll evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year and decide where to place them in the first month or so of school), and when I tried to clarify, was shut down with “most kids don’t benefit from accelerated math and it’s highly inappropriate to parent place.”

Just announce the process/guidelines and that will cut down on a significant amount of speculation.

100% this. Although the website says parents will be notified in late June/early July. They do evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year though.


I bet they don't publish anything because it is not a fixed line. I also bet the scores for placement vary depending on the school. Especially if pp is correct and higher scores are based on outside tutoring/help. S. Arlington/lower income schools are less likely to have that help and there is still a pre-algebra class at these schools. I know for a fact that at our school we had no kids score as high as some of the numbers being through around here, but our MS still has a pre-algebra class. Especially when you add in the Spanish schools which may have a different space due to language (especially when kids are more behind these past couple years due to covid).

That makes sense. There may be some kids who can score highly on the test but not meet other readiness markers like attendance or study skills/work ethic. Automatically placing them would be a disservice

That might apply to some kids but in general, if a kid is scoring above the SOL/MI threshold for acceleration, it's unlikely they have issues with attendance. Scoring high on a test of knowledge (not aptitude) requires a kid to have worked with the material consistently.
A better approach is follow a PP's advice and do what FCPS does. Offer kids more challenging math material in ES so that all kids have the opportunity to accelerate in school. Then more kids would be able to meet the thresholds. Failing to offer more challenging material is ES will lead families that are able to seek enrichment outside of school, which will lead to widening gaps in the number of kids meeting accelerated math thresholds according to the SES level of the MS.

Our schools (one SA, one option) both provided opportunities for enrichment/acceleration.

Enrichment is not acceleration. Our SA ES was very clear that enrichment is fine but nothing above grade level was allowed. They can only go deeper, not faster/higher. Kids in a school with that approach who aren’t learning on their own or from a parent/tutor/outside vendor outside of school hours are NOT going to meet the score threshold. The economic/ethnic makeup of the accelerated class at our MS bears this out. APS is doing equity wrong and it pisses me off. It’s widening gaps, not closing them!

I am one of the previous PPs and agree completely. I am kicking around the idea of showing up to the school board with this argument next year. For my 2e child who thrives with math, enrichment does Jack shit and acceleration is exactly what they need. I accelerate at home - and that child thrives with respect to confidence. The school is being lazy by hiding behind “enrichment”. The enrichment is a complete waste of time.

Feel free to come to board meetings with me…I keep debating it with myself. But this - holding kids back in the name of equity - is simply wrong.

Yuk, the "deeper but not higher" myth raises its ugly head again.

I hope that those perpetrating it are not in a position to determine our children's math education - but to the extent that they are, they should remember that they will be fought every step of the way. (Recall VMPI and the political shifts to which it led.)

"Grade level" math is fundamentally incompatible with engaging mathematically talented children. To pick one of many examples: in VA, grade level standards do not introduce simple variables until 5th grade. No x, no y, no z. Good luck going "deeper" without variables. Actually, good luck even teaching your children the way you were taught in 2nd or 3rd grade 30 years ago when variables weren't taboo. Or, take another example: negative numbers - they're reserved for 5th graders also - mathematicians can only laugh at the idea of "going deeper" without them. Yet, we have to discuss with elementary school teachers why it's ok for our 3rd grader to be fluent in them.

In actuality, there's no notion of "going deeper but not higher." Advanced children will discover the need for, and inquire about concepts that are 2-4 years ahead of what the school establishment considers "grade level." It is the duty of a teacher to respect this fact and support and teach those students no matter their actual grade or age. It is our responsibility as citizens to fight ideologues who (sometimes in the name of so-called "equity") want to hold our children back so that they conform to their notions.

Republicans lying and distorting the truth to push for votes? Yes, it's hard to forget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you folks are obsessed. Summer hasn’t even started yet

I was one of the people who asked last year – it’s annoying that there are no *announced* guidelines or policies. I asked at our elementary last year and got a totally BS answer that I knew was incorrect (they’ll evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year and decide where to place them in the first month or so of school), and when I tried to clarify, was shut down with “most kids don’t benefit from accelerated math and it’s highly inappropriate to parent place.”

Just announce the process/guidelines and that will cut down on a significant amount of speculation.

100% this. Although the website says parents will be notified in late June/early July. They do evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year though.


I bet they don't publish anything because it is not a fixed line. I also bet the scores for placement vary depending on the school. Especially if pp is correct and higher scores are based on outside tutoring/help. S. Arlington/lower income schools are less likely to have that help and there is still a pre-algebra class at these schools. I know for a fact that at our school we had no kids score as high as some of the numbers being through around here, but our MS still has a pre-algebra class. Especially when you add in the Spanish schools which may have a different space due to language (especially when kids are more behind these past couple years due to covid).

That makes sense. There may be some kids who can score highly on the test but not meet other readiness markers like attendance or study skills/work ethic. Automatically placing them would be a disservice

That might apply to some kids but in general, if a kid is scoring above the SOL/MI threshold for acceleration, it's unlikely they have issues with attendance. Scoring high on a test of knowledge (not aptitude) requires a kid to have worked with the material consistently.
A better approach is follow a PP's advice and do what FCPS does. Offer kids more challenging math material in ES so that all kids have the opportunity to accelerate in school. Then more kids would be able to meet the thresholds. Failing to offer more challenging material is ES will lead families that are able to seek enrichment outside of school, which will lead to widening gaps in the number of kids meeting accelerated math thresholds according to the SES level of the MS.

Our schools (one SA, one option) both provided opportunities for enrichment/acceleration.

Enrichment is not acceleration. Our SA ES was very clear that enrichment is fine but nothing above grade level was allowed. They can only go deeper, not faster/higher. Kids in a school with that approach who aren’t learning on their own or from a parent/tutor/outside vendor outside of school hours are NOT going to meet the score threshold. The economic/ethnic makeup of the accelerated class at our MS bears this out. APS is doing equity wrong and it pisses me off. It’s widening gaps, not closing them!

I am one of the previous PPs and agree completely. I am kicking around the idea of showing up to the school board with this argument next year. For my 2e child who thrives with math, enrichment does Jack shit and acceleration is exactly what they need. I accelerate at home - and that child thrives with respect to confidence. The school is being lazy by hiding behind “enrichment”. The enrichment is a complete waste of time.

Feel free to come to board meetings with me…I keep debating it with myself. But this - holding kids back in the name of equity - is simply wrong.

Yuk, the "deeper but not higher" myth raises its ugly head again.

I hope that those perpetrating it are not in a position to determine our children's math education - but to the extent that they are, they should remember that they will be fought every step of the way. (Recall VMPI and the political shifts to which it led.)

"Grade level" math is fundamentally incompatible with engaging mathematically talented children. To pick one of many examples: in VA, grade level standards do not introduce simple variables until 5th grade. No x, no y, no z. Good luck going "deeper" without variables. Actually, good luck even teaching your children the way you were taught in 2nd or 3rd grade 30 years ago when variables weren't taboo. Or, take another example: negative numbers - they're reserved for 5th graders also - mathematicians can only laugh at the idea of "going deeper" without them. Yet, we have to discuss with elementary school teachers why it's ok for our 3rd grader to be fluent in them.

In actuality, there's no notion of "going deeper but not higher." Advanced children will discover the need for, and inquire about concepts that are 2-4 years ahead of what the school establishment considers "grade level." It is the duty of a teacher to respect this fact and support and teach those students no matter their actual grade or age. It is our responsibility as citizens to fight ideologues who (sometimes in the name of so-called "equity") want to hold our children back so that they conform to their notions.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a 5th grade VA teacher. Negative numbers are not a 5th grade concept, they are taught in 6th.

Anonymous wrote:Wait, they introduce variables earlier than 5th. I mean I have seen my 2nd grader get problems like 5+x=10. I mean sure it is very basic, but still there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you folks are obsessed. Summer hasn’t even started yet

I was one of the people who asked last year – it’s annoying that there are no *announced* guidelines or policies. I asked at our elementary last year and got a totally BS answer that I knew was incorrect (they’ll evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year and decide where to place them in the first month or so of school), and when I tried to clarify, was shut down with “most kids don’t benefit from accelerated math and it’s highly inappropriate to parent place.”

Just announce the process/guidelines and that will cut down on a significant amount of speculation.

100% this. Although the website says parents will be notified in late June/early July. They do evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year though.


I bet they don't publish anything because it is not a fixed line. I also bet the scores for placement vary depending on the school. Especially if pp is correct and higher scores are based on outside tutoring/help. S. Arlington/lower income schools are less likely to have that help and there is still a pre-algebra class at these schools. I know for a fact that at our school we had no kids score as high as some of the numbers being through around here, but our MS still has a pre-algebra class. Especially when you add in the Spanish schools which may have a different space due to language (especially when kids are more behind these past couple years due to covid).

That makes sense. There may be some kids who can score highly on the test but not meet other readiness markers like attendance or study skills/work ethic. Automatically placing them would be a disservice

That might apply to some kids but in general, if a kid is scoring above the SOL/MI threshold for acceleration, it's unlikely they have issues with attendance. Scoring high on a test of knowledge (not aptitude) requires a kid to have worked with the material consistently.
A better approach is follow a PP's advice and do what FCPS does. Offer kids more challenging math material in ES so that all kids have the opportunity to accelerate in school. Then more kids would be able to meet the thresholds. Failing to offer more challenging material is ES will lead families that are able to seek enrichment outside of school, which will lead to widening gaps in the number of kids meeting accelerated math thresholds according to the SES level of the MS.

Our schools (one SA, one option) both provided opportunities for enrichment/acceleration.

Enrichment is not acceleration. Our SA ES was very clear that enrichment is fine but nothing above grade level was allowed. They can only go deeper, not faster/higher. Kids in a school with that approach who aren’t learning on their own or from a parent/tutor/outside vendor outside of school hours are NOT going to meet the score threshold. The economic/ethnic makeup of the accelerated class at our MS bears this out. APS is doing equity wrong and it pisses me off. It’s widening gaps, not closing them!

I am one of the previous PPs and agree completely. I am kicking around the idea of showing up to the school board with this argument next year. For my 2e child who thrives with math, enrichment does Jack shit and acceleration is exactly what they need. I accelerate at home - and that child thrives with respect to confidence. The school is being lazy by hiding behind “enrichment”. The enrichment is a complete waste of time.

Feel free to come to board meetings with me…I keep debating it with myself. But this - holding kids back in the name of equity - is simply wrong.

Yuk, the "deeper but not higher" myth raises its ugly head again.

I hope that those perpetrating it are not in a position to determine our children's math education - but to the extent that they are, they should remember that they will be fought every step of the way. (Recall VMPI and the political shifts to which it led.)

"Grade level" math is fundamentally incompatible with engaging mathematically talented children. To pick one of many examples: in VA, grade level standards do not introduce simple variables until 5th grade. No x, no y, no z. Good luck going "deeper" without variables. Actually, good luck even teaching your children the way you were taught in 2nd or 3rd grade 30 years ago when variables weren't taboo. Or, take another example: negative numbers - they're reserved for 5th graders also - mathematicians can only laugh at the idea of "going deeper" without them. Yet, we have to discuss with elementary school teachers why it's ok for our 3rd grader to be fluent in them.

In actuality, there's no notion of "going deeper but not higher." Advanced children will discover the need for, and inquire about concepts that are 2-4 years ahead of what the school establishment considers "grade level." It is the duty of a teacher to respect this fact and support and teach those students no matter their actual grade or age. It is our responsibility as citizens to fight ideologues who (sometimes in the name of so-called "equity") want to hold our children back so that they conform to their notions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow you folks are obsessed. Summer hasn’t even started yet

I was one of the people who asked last year – it’s annoying that there are no *announced* guidelines or policies. I asked at our elementary last year and got a totally BS answer that I knew was incorrect (they’ll evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year and decide where to place them in the first month or so of school), and when I tried to clarify, was shut down with “most kids don’t benefit from accelerated math and it’s highly inappropriate to parent place.”

Just announce the process/guidelines and that will cut down on a significant amount of speculation.

100% this. Although the website says parents will be notified in late June/early July. They do evaluate kids at the beginning of the school year though.


I bet they don't publish anything because it is not a fixed line. I also bet the scores for placement vary depending on the school. Especially if pp is correct and higher scores are based on outside tutoring/help. S. Arlington/lower income schools are less likely to have that help and there is still a pre-algebra class at these schools. I know for a fact that at our school we had no kids score as high as some of the numbers being through around here, but our MS still has a pre-algebra class. Especially when you add in the Spanish schools which may have a different space due to language (especially when kids are more behind these past couple years due to covid).

That makes sense. There may be some kids who can score highly on the test but not meet other readiness markers like attendance or study skills/work ethic. Automatically placing them would be a disservice

That might apply to some kids but in general, if a kid is scoring above the SOL/MI threshold for acceleration, it's unlikely they have issues with attendance. Scoring high on a test of knowledge (not aptitude) requires a kid to have worked with the material consistently.
A better approach is follow a PP's advice and do what FCPS does. Offer kids more challenging math material in ES so that all kids have the opportunity to accelerate in school. Then more kids would be able to meet the thresholds. Failing to offer more challenging material is ES will lead families that are able to seek enrichment outside of school, which will lead to widening gaps in the number of kids meeting accelerated math thresholds according to the SES level of the MS.

Our schools (one SA, one option) both provided opportunities for enrichment/acceleration.

Enrichment is not acceleration. Our SA ES was very clear that enrichment is fine but nothing above grade level was allowed. They can only go deeper, not faster/higher. Kids in a school with that approach who aren’t learning on their own or from a parent/tutor/outside vendor outside of school hours are NOT going to meet the score threshold. The economic/ethnic makeup of the accelerated class at our MS bears this out. APS is doing equity wrong and it pisses me off. It’s widening gaps, not closing them!

I am one of the previous PPs and agree completely. I am kicking around the idea of showing up to the school board with this argument next year. For my 2e child who thrives with math, enrichment does Jack shit and acceleration is exactly what they need. I accelerate at home - and that child thrives with respect to confidence. The school is being lazy by hiding behind “enrichment”. The enrichment is a complete waste of time.

Feel free to come to board meetings with me…I keep debating it with myself. But this - holding kids back in the name of equity - is simply wrong.