Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For years, all FCPS MS students were automagically enrolled in
honors courses with few exceptions.

Instead of dumbing it down FCPS is raising the bar so good for them!

This is the Lake Wobegon Effect in action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For years, all FCPS MS students were automagically enrolled in
honors courses with few exceptions.

Instead of dumbing it down FCPS is raising the bar so good for them!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For years, all FCPS MS students were automagically enrolled in
honors courses with few exceptions.

Instead of dumbing it down FCPS is raising the bar so good for them!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For years, all FCPS MS students were automagically enrolled in
honors courses with few exceptions.

Instead of dumbing it down FCPS is raising the bar so good for them!

Anonymous wrote:For years, all FCPS MS students were automagically enrolled in
honors courses with few exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detracking can work if most of the students are supported at home, and if the school system provides extra supports for low achievers.

Nassau County, for example, is an oft cited success story for detracking. The high achievers didn't suffer, and the low achievers benefited significantly. What gets forgotten, however, is that Nassau County had a median family income of $146,000. Lesser resourced school districts by and large haven't had the same success.

Detracking could still potentially work at some of the wealthier schools like the "W" schools, but we haven't had enough success stories for Progressives to be championing detracking as much as they do.

Progressives also don't seem aware of the risks like what happened at Chicago.

Nassau County involved moving regular kids up to Algebra 1 in 8th grade. Nassau maintained the rigor of the original class by offering an additional, second support class for kids who needed it. That approach differs from most other cases of actual/proposed detracking where they eliminate honors and put everyone in the same class with a regular curriculum as the base and then honors content is offered as an extension. There is a paucity of verifiable research to support that latter approach.

What is the percentage of poor kids or kids from single parent headed households? What are the i of blck and brown kids? When did the detracting happn and is it still going? A homogeneous population cannot be modeled as a good example for places like MoCo or Dc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detracking can work if most of the students are supported at home, and if the school system provides extra supports for low achievers.

Nassau County, for example, is an oft cited success story for detracking. The high achievers didn't suffer, and the low achievers benefited significantly. What gets forgotten, however, is that Nassau County had a median family income of $146,000. Lesser resourced school districts by and large haven't had the same success.

Detracking could still potentially work at some of the wealthier schools like the "W" schools, but we haven't had enough success stories for Progressives to be championing detracking as much as they do.

Progressives also don't seem aware of the risks like what happened at Chicago.

Nassau County involved moving regular kids up to Algebra 1 in 8th grade. Nassau maintained the rigor of the original class by offering an additional, second support class for kids who needed it. That approach differs from most other cases of actual/proposed detracking where they eliminate honors and put everyone in the same class with a regular curriculum as the base and then honors content is offered as an extension. There is a paucity of verifiable research to support that latter approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: if most of the students are supported at home

This is the root cause of most of our educational issues.

It's funny too when you read about people blaming strivers and parents who are enriching their child creating artificially achieved AAP status and creating gaps... blah blah blah, and then see those same people talk about what the schools can do for the lower performing children to close those gaps or bring them up to the grade level standard.

They just freakin answered their own question. Parents can raise the bar for those kids every single time... but parents can't be bothered to bring up the low performing kids because thats the schools job.

Even better is these conversations appear to take place between people champion their child and other people that champion the poor performing children, but usually not the parents of the poor performing children. Probably because if they had the conviction to advocate for their poor performing child's school record, that child probably wouldn't have a poor record. These people don't care.

This is all true. But it’s not the child’s fault that he or she has dud parents, any more than it’s your child’s “fault” they got involved educated parents. We can’t throw all these kids under the bus because you blame their parents. Some parents don’t feed their kids either. Do those kids deserve to starve?

Anonymous wrote:Detracking can work if most of the students are supported at home, and if the school system provides extra supports for low achievers.

Nassau County, for example, is an oft cited success story for detracking. The high achievers didn't suffer, and the low achievers benefited significantly. What gets forgotten, however, is that Nassau County had a median family income of $146,000. Lesser resourced school districts by and large haven't had the same success.

Detracking could still potentially work at some of the wealthier schools like the "W" schools, but we haven't had enough success stories for Progressives to be championing detracking as much as they do.

Progressives also don't seem aware of the risks like what happened at Chicago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: if most of the students are supported at home

This is the root cause of most of our educational issues.

It's funny too when you read about people blaming strivers and parents who are enriching their child creating artificially achieved AAP status and creating gaps... blah blah blah, and then see those same people talk about what the schools can do for the lower performing children to close those gaps or bring them up to the grade level standard.

They just freakin answered their own question. Parents can raise the bar for those kids every single time... but parents can't be bothered to bring up the low performing kids because thats the schools job.

Even better is these conversations appear to take place between people champion their child and other people that champion the poor performing children, but usually not the parents of the poor performing children. Probably because if they had the conviction to advocate for their poor performing child's school record, that child probably wouldn't have a poor record. These people don't care.

Anonymous wrote: if most of the students are supported at home

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents should be pushing the school board and administrators on this.
Loudoun implemented VMPI early, eliminated 6th grade algebra, and had staff that wanted to eliminate 6th grade prealgebra.
Nevertheless, with parental pressure, 6th grade algebra was reinstated for 2022-2023.

Fairfax has I think Tina Mazzacane handling math curriculum, and she is on record wanting to eliminate different math tracks.
She instead wants to settle on algebra in 8th grade is advanced, so they are actually making math class tougher by putting everyone in this class.

Yep I think E3 will look to remove a path to 7th grade algebra while all the other efforts push to bring everyone to 8th grade Algebra. I just dont see how the equity police will stop there. AAP will be next.

More BS and speculation from the "anti-equity" people.

Do you think it is equitable to have three different Algebra entry points (7,8,9) that results in varying Math outcomes for HS students?

The Algebra entry point aren't the cause of different math outcomes, they're a symptom. Assuming your answer to your question is no, wouldn't you also answer "no" to these questions:
Do you think it's equitable to have multiple different senior year math classes (basic/remedial math, normal precalc, honors precalc, Calc AB, Calc BC) that result in varying math outcomes for undergrad students?
Do you think it's equitable to have different degrees that result in varying career outcomes for college graduates?
Do you think it's equitable to have different careers that result in varying income options for employees?

If you want to see what your version of "equity" looks like in practice, I suggest you go read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

Of course those varying results in senior year, career, and income arent equitable.

Good. The kids aren't equal in smarts or effort or skills either. No one is. I hope we never have "equity" - it would be evil.

How exactly are you defining "equity" here?

Im just trying to understand if having multiple tracks of math would be equitable for people who are proponents of equity. I support differentiation and tracking. Not sure if that fits into the pro-equity viewpoint or not.

I'm not an equity "proponent" - I only speak for myself. I support clustering with extensions (available to all) through elementary school maybe up to middle school/6th or 7th. Alternate math paths opening up in 7th or 8th. No tracking.

But that's what the rest of us want? I want clustering! What I don't want is kids stuck in remedial classes because a few kids in the class are behind. How is this different than what people want?

Equity to me means that higher tracks are open and available to anyone (not just those whose parents pay for IQ testing or whose counselors recommend them). If the kids can't do the rigor of the work, they will be weeded out and returned to regular classes.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with detracking is that it often requires additional resources to make it work. Struggling students need extra supports, and they need to be motivated enough to benefit from it. Otherwise, it can potentially lead to dragging the entire class down. It's by no means a no-brainer slam dunk.

Chicago tried detracking in the late 90s/early 2000s, and it led to fewer students matriculating into college.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/devil-is-in-the-details-when-it-comes-to-tracking-detracking/2014/03

"In the wake of that policy change, low-achieving students were more likely to fail 9th grade math and, eventually, less likely to graduate from high school. They were no more likely to attend college. In the meantime, higher-achieving students’ test scores declined, in part, the researchers suggested, because struggling and unsupported lower-achieving peers were slowing down the class. The high achievers were also less likely to go on to take advanced math, which may have helped explain why they were also less likely to attend college. One reason was that schools often lacked the capacity to both offer higher-level courses and also accommodate the curricular changes, which extended well beyond algebra-for-all in that they raised basic graduation requirements in all core subjects, Consortium director and brief co-author Elaine Allensworth said.

'It’s kind of a depressing story,' Allensworth said . 'The whole intention was to get more students able to go to college.'"

You can't just mix a bunch of students together and hope it works.