Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade.

They have a sufficiently high bar to generate good placements as is. They have two parts to their threshold: 91+ IAAT and pass advanced SOL.

If APS’s bar was already “sufficiently high” they wouldn’t need to raise it.

It depends on why they're raising it. Early on, it reflected the problems with how they were implementing the ramped up acceleration in 6th grade. However, the recent threshold increases followed VMPI when there was a pedagogical desire to move toward more heterogenous math classes. Raising the threshold for prealgebra above MI's threshold for Algebra readiness is one way to sharply scale back acceleration and make classes more heterogenous. Thus, raising the threshold is not always motivated solely by performance considerations.

Most of the discussion in this thread seems centered on APS, but the forum is "VA Public Schools other than FCPS" so I'll chime in here.

I assume that "MI" stands for Math Inventory by HMH? The only public resource I can find is here, which claims that 1030 is Algebra readiness. So using it as a threshold for for general prealgebra admission would be wrong if this information were accurate/reasonable. However, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of such standards.

For instance, the 91% percentile IAAT criterion used elsewhere is (in my experience and opinion) too low of a bar. 91% means up to 9 questions wrong on a 60 question test on fluency of simple prealgebra concepts. A better standard would be 57 (out of 60) raw score or higher, basically only allowing for the occasional, low frequency, trip up or error.

Using SOLs as a criteria for algebra readiness is also meaningless/problematic unless you add the grade level. Some VA school districts select based on (regular) 5th grade math SOL, which has nearly no coverage of prealgebra topics. If SOLs are used, they should ideally be 8th grade SOLs but no less than 7th grade. This is in contrast with VDoE's policy of not letting students take SOL tests on material they weren't directly instructed on. I'm not sure how to solve this problem.

Overall, politics aside, it's difficult to argue with high (or higher) standards. We don't need to accelerate borderline or so-so students or students whose parents think they should be doing more math. We must provide opportunities to accelerate for students that score "off the scale" on standard school tests like MI, MAP, or IAAT. The scale of these assessments typically ends at about 2 sigma, maybe 2.5. (I'm the parent of one such student and I am observing that some of my child's fellow accelerees should not have been.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade.

They have a sufficiently high bar to generate good placements as is. They have two parts to their threshold: 91+ IAAT and pass advanced SOL.

If APS’s bar was already “sufficiently high” they wouldn’t need to raise it.

It depends on why they're raising it. Early on, it reflected the problems with how they were implementing the ramped up acceleration in 6th grade. However, the recent threshold increases followed VMPI when there was a pedagogical desire to move toward more heterogenous math classes. Raising the threshold for prealgebra above MI's threshold for Algebra readiness is one way to sharply scale back acceleration and make classes more heterogenous. Thus, raising the threshold is not always motivated solely by performance considerations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade.

They have a sufficiently high bar to generate good placements as is. They have two parts to their threshold: 91+ IAAT and pass advanced SOL.

If APS’s bar was already “sufficiently high” they wouldn’t need to raise it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade.

They have a sufficiently high bar to generate good placements as is. They have two parts to their threshold: 91+ IAAT and pass advanced SOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

You can’t draw any conclusions from FCPS not changing something that has multiple moving parts. Have they ever even considered updating it?

Raising the bar for 2x acceleration will result in better placements.

I do think we need a middle option for 6th grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

No. FCPS has not adjusted theirs for at least 15 years. APS is the anomaly. And APS has not just adjusted theirs, they have swung it wildly. A better focus would be to look at how districts are readying students to meet the threshold for accelerated math. One reason why FCPS has succeeded with their steady threshold is that they begin acceleration gradually in 3rd grade. In contrast, APS ramps up sharply in 6th grade. APS should use more gradual, earlier acceleration; the focus should be on building downstream readiness instead of ratcheting the threshold around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

I think the goal for these “accelerated kids” should be the number of 5s on the AP BC Calc exam.

Then force everyone to take it senior or junior year, and delay graduation for as long as legally possible (20 years old in VA) forcing them to repeat BC each year and only taking the exam the last year. Once again, this is not done because that is not the goal.

Yikes, hyperbole much?

The question is how do we figure out which kids to accelerate in 6th grade. I believe we are accelerating too many kids. I suspect those accelerated kids—despite being excellent math students—are not performing “excellently” on Junior year BC calculus. I suspect if we gave them another year, they’d do much better. We’d be preparing them better for college. I think we need to examine how well the accelerated kids perform years later when we harm them by accelerating them.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

I think the goal for these “accelerated kids” should be the number of 5s on the AP BC Calc exam.

Then force everyone to take it senior or junior year, and delay graduation for as long as legally possible (20 years old in VA) forcing them to repeat BC each year and only taking the exam the last year. Once again, this is not done because that is not the goal.

Yikes, hyperbole much?

The question is how do we figure out which kids to accelerate in 6th grade. I believe we are accelerating too many kids. I suspect those accelerated kids—despite being excellent math students—are not performing “excellently” on Junior year BC calculus. I suspect if we gave them another year, they’d do much better. We’d be preparing them better for college. I think we need to examine how well the accelerated kids perform years later when we harm them by accelerating them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Ok. Like I said, each district has different requirements. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each of those tests is revised and renormalized periodically. Adjusting thresholds should be expected if they are trying to fine tune placement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

Maximizing pass rate for English language might have helped you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in the 2019-20 school year taking the accelerated 6-7-8 class (this is the class that scrunches three years into one to get ready for Algebra). Then Algebra I intensified was online the next year.

This didn't go well at all. The teachers had to try to teach the missed last quarter of 6-7-8 during algebra and then every other class got behind.

It's very hard to tease out what was pandemic-caused vs poor placement decisions.

But the kids who took 6/7/8 before 19-20 had their compacted year before the pandemic. The current 11th & 12th graders.

Anyway, the more advanced mathy kids still make the cut even with the higher standards - these are the kids who truly need the extra acceleration.

Current 11th and 12th graders were taking a combination of Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 during the virtual years. These courses are the foundation for the advanced classes they are now taking and instruction was unavoidably impaired during virtual learning. These students are having to backfill content while in their advanced courses that was skipped or covered cursorily during virtual learning. Covid had a significant impact on current 11th and 12th graders too.

As to your second point, students that meet nationally accepted definitions of acceleration readiness should be allowed to accelerate. They should not have to surmount artificially inflated thresholds.

A single data point isn’t sufficient determination for acceleration.

Those kids who were appropriately accelerated are doing well now. The pandemic revealed the downsides of accelerating kids who could use more time on the fundamentals. There is no downside for slowing down acceleration for the non-mathy kids. Not every bright kid needs to be multiple years ahead in math.

Pass advanced SOL and a math skill measure (whether MI, IAAT, or other) are the standards for assessing acceleration readiness in NoVa and elsewhere. Test scores are objective measures of readiness.

No. The pandemic revealed how poorly virtual learning served students which is why so many students developed a weaker math foundation that they would have in non-pandemic times.

Each district has different requirements (tests, thresholds) at different points in time. There isn’t a universal threshold for placement. And each test changes/renormalizes periodically (MI in 2019). Thresholds change over time based on a variety of factors. Test changes, classroom performance, standardized testing performance, etc. Placement should also be informed by classroom performance, progress BOY/MOY/EOY, and parent/teacher input.

A higher threshold would support kids who could use more time reviewing foundational skills before jumping into algebra.

FCPS has been using the same threshold for at least 10-15 years; 91+ on IAAT and SOL pass advanced. Other VA districts use similar thresholds. FCPS's approach is transparent and consistent; it is set at the level that they have found leads to student success with acceleration. The constant threshold is also useful in preempting flavor-of-the-day pedagogy from impacting threshold levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation.

If you really are a STEM PhD you would have had no trouble finding the relevant research (I suggest looking at papers from the SMPY), but if you want everything on a silver platter for you, I suggest you read A Nation Empowered, Volume 2. (Volume 1 is more appropriate for a lay audience)

I'm a STEM PhD with a job. I don't research for message board discussions that I post on while I wait for my kid to finish swimming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

It’s an important metric for measuring appropriate placements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

I think the significant achievement is correlation not causation.

If you really are a STEM PhD you would have had no trouble finding the relevant research (I suggest looking at papers from the SMPY), but if you want everything on a silver platter for you, I suggest you read A Nation Empowered, Volume 2. (Volume 1 is more appropriate for a lay audience)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't be too hard to look back over many years of acceleration and see the results for these students, broken down by the performance on entrance tests to this pathway, SOL, MAP, COGAT, grades, etc.

SOL data is public. The 7th grade accelerated cohort has much stronger SOL performance in Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 than the 8th or 9th grade Algebra 1 cohorts.

Obviously, there are many kids who should be accelerated 2 years and comparing the average test scores of those three populations would reflect that. The question is teasing out which kids (at the bottom of that cohort) would have been better served with just 1 year acceleration.

What % of those kids struggling is acceptable? How much would they benefit by getting another year of foundation skills?

The objective of raising the bar for placement is to improve outcomes for the kids on the cusp, which should theoretically increase SOL performance for two of the groups (7th & 8th Algebra 1).

There's also the issue of teasing out which 8th grade algebra 1 students (at the top of the distribution) would have been better served with 2 years of acceleration, and which 7th grade algebra 1 students (at the middle to top of the distribution) would have been better served with 3 or more years of acceleration.

3 + years should be the rare exception.

Why? Given how much better 7th grade algebra 1 students do than 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students, it's clear that many of them likely would have been at least as successful as 9th or 8th grade algebra 1 students had they taken algebra 1 in 6th instead.

Aside from the true math prodigies there is very little benefit. Race to nowhere.

What's a "true math prodigy"? If you acknowledge there's at least a little benefit (which I think is false given the significant differences in achievement between accelerated and non-accelerated students), why do you use the phrase "race to nowhere" which falsely implies there being no benefit?

The Young Sheldons. (Shout out to Arlington native, Iain Armitage!)

It’s a race to nowhere for 99% of the kids.

Ideally, we want to maximize the pass rate for kids. Pushing some kids to a 3rd year of acceleration would bring down the pass rate for the 3x and 2x acceleration cohorts. And there is no real benefit for 3x acceleration for 99% of the kids.

If you really wanted to maximize the pass rate, you would force all students to repeat algebra 1 throughout high school (or even repeat first grade math through all 12 years of school). This would give a much higher pass rate. Obviously, the pass rate is not the most important metric.

I think the goal for these “accelerated kids” should be the number of 5s on the AP BC Calc exam.

Then force everyone to take it senior or junior year, and delay graduation for as long as legally possible (20 years old in VA) forcing them to repeat BC each year and only taking the exam the last year. Once again, this is not done because that is not the goal.