Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick question: are there actual math educators who teach aspiring engineers, mathematicians and scientist behind this plan? Is there buy in from The technical community? Or is it a bunch of English majors coming up with and advocating for this?

Speaking of which, let's look back at the history of Everyday Math, the spiraling curriculum out of U Chicago. Apparently the project began jointly between the mathematicians and the educators. Disagreement ensued, the mathematicians quit, and the educators moved forward on their own.

Sounds like spiraling is what they want. But, that is a method, a curriculum, not standards.

FCPS already spirals in the younger grades. As far as I can tell, it's kind of a disaster. Learn a little bit of addition. OK, onto fractions. Now back to a little bit of addition, only more so. OK, onto geometry. They do that every year. The quick kids are bored. The kids with dyscalculia don't stay with a topic long enough to get either the whys or the methods (one kid I know like that has done much better with Saxon, which is still cumulative). Sounds like a total nightmare for high school level math, whatever grade you take it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are totally gaslighting us, trying to pretend they weren’t doing exactly what they were doing, and then calling us crazy for over reacting.

+1
What's surprised me is that they haven't yanked down the Youtube videos yet since that's where the evidence is that we aren't all crazy.

+100 it's infuriating and makes me more likely to think the current statements are just a smokescreen and the plan is still the same. If you've head the concerns and are adjusting, just say that instead of lying about it.

Anonymous wrote:They are totally gaslighting us, trying to pretend they weren’t doing exactly what they were doing, and then calling us crazy for over reacting.

+1
What's surprised me is that they haven't yanked down the Youtube videos yet since that's where the evidence is that we aren't all crazy.

They are totally gaslighting us, trying to pretend they weren’t doing exactly what they were doing, and then calling us crazy for over reacting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any recommended math curriculums? Spiraled or not? What do they do in the areas with good schools (MA, NY, etc)?

These areas have similar problems of taking away advanced academic programs because it is mostly Asians in them.
Boston Public Schools said so directly. They also have a statewide policy of rating schools based on the differential in performance in races, giving them an incentive to not teach the better performing races.
NY Mayor is looking to make the good schools get rid of the merit based admission.

No not the cities -the small MC/UMC towns up there that are well known to have great schools. How are they teaching math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any recommended math curriculums? Spiraled or not? What do they do in the areas with good schools (MA, NY, etc)?

Singapore Math is my recommendation. Singapore is known for its excellent math programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_math

+1 Singapore Math has a nice balance. Not spiraling.

Anonymous wrote:Are there any recommended math curriculums? Spiraled or not? What do they do in the areas with good schools (MA, NY, etc)?

Singapore Math is my recommendation. Singapore is known for its excellent math programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_math

Anonymous wrote:Are there any recommended math curriculums? Spiraled or not? What do they do in the areas with good schools (MA, NY, etc)?

These areas have similar problems of taking away advanced academic programs because it is mostly Asians in them.
Boston Public Schools said so directly. They also have a statewide policy of rating schools based on the differential in performance in races, giving them an incentive to not teach the better performing races.
NY Mayor is looking to make the good schools get rid of the merit based admission.

Are there any recommended math curriculums? Spiraled or not? What do they do in the areas with good schools (MA, NY, etc)?

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick question: are there actual math educators who teach aspiring engineers, mathematicians and scientist behind this plan? Is there buy in from The technical community? Or is it a bunch of English majors coming up with and advocating for this?

Speaking of which, let's look back at the history of Everyday Math, the spiraling curriculum out of U Chicago. Apparently the project began jointly between the mathematicians and the educators. Disagreement ensued, the mathematicians quit, and the educators moved forward on their own.

Sounds like spiraling is what they want. But, that is a method, a curriculum, not standards.

Anonymous wrote:I think what they are saying is that they are eliminating the advanced track that starts in elementary and middle
school and delaying the advanced math classes in HS. They said teachers can offer differential services in class. What that means is that certain students will go deeper in the topic rather than advancing to upper grade math. So everyone will be doing the same math from K-10, with some students diving a bit deeper while staying within grade level.

They seem to be saying they can take courses at any time - but it's not completely clear.

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml
* The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student acceleration in mathematics content according to ability and achievement. It does not dictate how and when students take specific courses. Those decisions remain with students and school divisions based on individualized learning needs.

* The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please answer this question then. Will kids be able to take Algebra in 7th and post-Calc in 12th? If so, what’s the difference between VPMI and what we have now?

As far as we know, there will no longer be post-calc options (unless you're taking summer school on your own.) Obviously, that could change, but right now everything we have seen indicates that VMPI precludes post-calc math in K-12 schools.

Not "everything":
The traditional high school pathway culminating in the study of Calculus or other advanced courses is not being eliminated.

As explained already, this is categorically false. Algebra- Geometry- Algebra 2- Precalculus is the traditional pathway, and this is eliminated.
Replaced by a pathway of Essential Concepts 7, Essential Concepts 8, Integrated Math 9, Integrated Math 10, plus an insufficient year 11.

Speculation...

You have posted that algebra is eliminated under the new standards. The traditional pathway is eliminated.

You mean algebra as a standalone course listed in a course catalog? Sure. But it seems like they aren't as literal as you - they mean the pathway to cover that content will still exist. Algebra content will still be taught (spiraled w/geometry&alg2) in various course offerings, accelerations, tracks, years, etc.

VDOE now says it's up to the school districts to decide how to implement.

NP This is the worst part of the whole proposal.

Latest from latest VMPI website (4/26 @ 8:49pm):


* The VMPI initiative imagines math instruction for students that integrates existing math content into blended courses for students typically in grades 8-10.

* The content from Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 is not being eliminated by VMPI, but rather the content of these courses will be blended into a seamless progression of connected learning. This encourages students to connect mathematical concepts and develop a much deeper and more relevant understanding of each concept within its context and relevance.

* The foundation of VMPI’s integrated mathematics content approach is common in many countries, including in countries that are our chief global competitors.

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick question: are there actual math educators who teach aspiring engineers, mathematicians and scientist behind this plan? Is there buy in from The technical community? Or is it a bunch of English majors coming up with and advocating for this?

My bet: mostly edu-bureaucrats and equitarians.

I think what they are saying is that they are eliminating the advanced track that starts in elementary and middle
school and delaying the advanced math classes in HS. They said teachers can offer differential services in class. What that means is that certain students will go deeper in the topic rather than advancing to upper grade math. So everyone will be doing the same math from K-10, with some students diving a bit deeper while staying within grade level.

Just a quick question: are there actual math educators who teach aspiring engineers, mathematicians and scientist behind this plan? Is there buy in from The technical community? Or is it a bunch of English majors coming up with and advocating for this?