Anonymous wrote:Another person posted that they got a response they were looking to push algebra to 8th grade.

I think it was Ellis who said they didn't want to stress kids out by testing them in 5th grade for an accelerated class.

I'm actually ok with pushing Algebra to 8th. What concerns me is that if you delve deep into the current program of studies as printed, my current 4th grader will not be able to take Algebra until 9th. When my current 7th grader took it in 7th (and got straight A's) that's a problem.

I heard back from Ian, Atoosa, and Ellis.

Do you think parents who are interested in advanced math would be interested in recalling the school board, or would they consider them unrelated, and offended by introducing politics?

Which school board member responded? The school board recall in Loudoun is probably the way to go, given that they are actively acquiescing to the staff's changes.

Another person posted that they got a response they were looking to push algebra to 8th grade.

I think it was Ellis who said they didn't want to stress kids out by testing them in 5th grade for an accelerated class.

Anonymous wrote:People in Loudoun need to contact the Instruction & Curriculum committee staff, and in particular the school board members on this committee, Ian Serotkin, Harris Mahedavi, and Atoosa Reaser. Two of them are facing recall.
A specific action item is to reinstate testing of 5th graders to advance to algebra. The current plan that the staff has implemented is to eliminate this testing entirely, putting the advanced track as algebra in 8th grade instead of the current where about half the kids are getting algebra by 7th.

I already did that. To no avail. I got a response from him, Reaser, and Dr. Ellis and all act like I’m making a big deal of neither. But none would assure me that my current 4th grader could take Algebra in 7th like her siblings.

People in Loudoun need to contact the Instruction & Curriculum committee staff, and in particular the school board members on this committee, Ian Serotkin, Harris Mahedavi, and Atoosa Reaser. Two of them are facing recall.
A specific action item is to reinstate testing of 5th graders to advance to algebra. The current plan that the staff has implemented is to eliminate this testing entirely, putting the advanced track as algebra in 8th grade instead of the current where about half the kids are getting algebra by 7th.

I think the changes are great. But I am concerned that it will not foster equity and fundamental fairness if competitive state colleges still favor those who have taken the most "advanced" classes.

No that's not what's happening. Advanced students will be less likely to get acceleration, because the base classes will be sold as an accelerated pathway.
If they are putting all kids into Math 8(Now essential concepts I) in 8th grade or earlier, and saying this is algebra-geometry-algebra 2 for grades 8-10, then the kids who would normally be taking algebra in 8th grade on an accelerated path will no longer be on an accelerated path. The Math 8/Essential Concepts I will in reality be a watered down class that is really prealgebra with lots of group work to help the weaker students not fail.
If the school district thought the weaker kids were good enough to take algebra in 8th grade, they would have allowed it.

Beyond that, these are still watered down classes, so less advanced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing talking points to mollify angry parents and teachers.
They have revealed the reality earlier.
I asked if they intended to have the kids who couldn't qualify for algebra in middle school now take a harder curriculum. No response.
Yet this is what is suggested by their putting algebra 2 in math 10, when before it would have been only geometry for the weakest students.
These are dumbed down courses with lots of additional material in other subjects they consider more important.

Their recent responses (combined with their continued dedication to implementing VMPI) means they intend to remove most acceleration opportunities and make the coursework less rigorous.

What “recent responses”? They very clearly said in the last info session and on the website that they NOT intend to remove acceleration.

“ 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.”

NP Agree. This is an important clarification the State made. People are looking at it from the wrong angle. Rather than dictating what math classes and therefore curriculum all the students are going to be taking each year, they are revising the basic math pathways curriculum. So for students just staying in the general grade level math class each year, this is what they'll be taking each year. But for those ready for more advanced math work, the school district determines those opportunities and how they're going to accommodate those students' needs for greater challenge. But it does still seem like an attempt to achieve more consistency for all students, and therefore a better opportunity for students who have typically been less likely to be identified for gifted math services and take advanced math to have better access.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tune in tonight (5/25) at 6:30pm....

Virginia Mathematics Pathways Initiative Community Informational Sessions
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 - Advanced Pathways in Grades 11 - 12


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrbxl9wHScrWKWIEoUWNIfQ

Notes from tonight’s meeting:

They are still in “building” phase - proposal won’t be presented until 2022

First draft to BOE 2022
Crosswalk 2024-25
Full implementation 2025-26

Pilots for some new classes start in 2023

School systems can build own courses and allow students to take in any grade (accelerated path) — **this has always been the case**

They blocked out grade levels from infographic to avoid confusion

ALL upper level classes are still offered
Will support AP and IB as do now

Foundational Concepts <<<< K-7
Essential Concepts I-II-III <<<< 8-A-G-A

Precalculus <<<< Mathematical Analysis
Added Data Science II to the list

Rest of world thinks it’s weird to break out A-G-A; better to connect concepts

Example path of accelerated student (just an example - districts are not restricted to this):

Bump

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing talking points to mollify angry parents and teachers.
They have revealed the reality earlier.
I asked if they intended to have the kids who couldn't qualify for algebra in middle school now take a harder curriculum. No response.
Yet this is what is suggested by their putting algebra 2 in math 10, when before it would have been only geometry for the weakest students.
These are dumbed down courses with lots of additional material in other subjects they consider more important.

Their recent responses (combined with their continued dedication to implementing VMPI) means they intend to remove most acceleration opportunities and make the coursework less rigorous.

What “recent responses”? They very clearly said in the last info session and on the website that they NOT intend to remove acceleration.

“ 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.”

Anonymous wrote:They are providing talking points to mollify angry parents and teachers.
They have revealed the reality earlier.
I asked if they intended to have the kids who couldn't qualify for algebra in middle school now take a harder curriculum. No response.
Yet this is what is suggested by their putting algebra 2 in math 10, when before it would have been only geometry for the weakest students.
These are dumbed down courses with lots of additional material in other subjects they consider more important.

Their recent responses (combined with their continued dedication to implementing VMPI) means they intend to remove most acceleration opportunities and make the coursework less rigorous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process itself would be beneficial for getting the word out. Perhaps VDOE is seriously not pursuing detracking or removing acceleration. However LCPS is eliminating a great deal of acceleration, and has already done so.

What did it eliminate? algebra in 6th?

Is that a "great deal"?

They have eliminated algebra in 6th grade. In some schools a majority of students are taking algebra in 7th grade. This is gone for all of them except the small portion that can get into pre-algebra in 6th grade. Even this pathway is eliminated for current 4th graders. They will then be getting algebra in 8th grade, and really it will be 9th grade if they are following the VMPI courses.

VMPI isn't changing how schools implement acceleration. If schools want to offer the equivalent of Math 8 in 6th grade, as they do today, they will still be able to do that. Nothing from VDOE is preventing that.

VDOE defined what went into Math 8, not when kids take it. Same thing for the blended courses.

BUT there are other school districts in the area that have already slowed the acceleration and cut down on the compressed math in middle school. This was happening way before VMPI.

Agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process itself would be beneficial for getting the word out. Perhaps VDOE is seriously not pursuing detracking or removing acceleration. However LCPS is eliminating a great deal of acceleration, and has already done so.

What did it eliminate? algebra in 6th?

Is that a "great deal"?

They have eliminated algebra in 6th grade. In some schools a majority of students are taking algebra in 7th grade. This is gone for all of them except the small portion that can get into pre-algebra in 6th grade. Even this pathway is eliminated for current 4th graders. They will then be getting algebra in 8th grade, and really it will be 9th grade if they are following the VMPI courses.

VMPI isn't changing how schools implement acceleration. If schools want to offer the equivalent of Math 8 in 6th grade, as they do today, they will still be able to do that. Nothing from VDOE is preventing that.

VDOE defined what went into Math 8, not when kids take it. Same thing for the blended courses.

BUT there are other school districts in the area that have already slowed the acceleration and cut down on the compressed math in middle school. This was happening way before VMPI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The process itself would be beneficial for getting the word out. Perhaps VDOE is seriously not pursuing detracking or removing acceleration. However LCPS is eliminating a great deal of acceleration, and has already done so.

What did it eliminate? algebra in 6th?

Is that a "great deal"?

They have eliminated algebra in 6th grade. In some schools a majority of students are taking algebra in 7th grade. This is gone for all of them except the small portion that can get into pre-algebra in 6th grade. Even this pathway is eliminated for current 4th graders. They will then be getting algebra in 8th grade, and really it will be 9th grade if they are following the VMPI courses.

Stone Hill middle school has sections teaching algebra 2 with trigonometry to 8th graders. Now LCPS would have these kids MAYBE taking algebra 1, or perhaps just the Math 8.