I hope this is stopped. If not, after-school programs like Russian School of Math will see increased enrollment from parents who are not satisfied with public school math. My 3 children attended RSM.
> During a webinar posted on YouTube in December, a member of the "essential concepts" committee claimed that the new framework would exclude traditional classes like Algebra 1 and Geometry.
This is crazy. I grew up in a South Asian country before immigrating for University. Even in my first year in University, I was tutoring multiple students from both my year as well as 2nd year on algebra, calculus and discrete mathematics. I would even say my math courses in first 2 years of University in western world was much easier than what I had already studied by grade 12 of back home.
I had covered Algebra, Geometry, quite advanced Calculus by grade 12 in South Asia. If these asinine policies continues, you can guarantee that western university students will keep loosing to foreign students like myself. There may even be no longer a point of people immigrating here for higher studies.
I have even spent time thinking about whether it might be a wise idea for me to immigrate back to my home country when I have kids because I wouldn't want them having such watered down education.
Kids are not robots and learn at different rates in different topics and it is functions of genetics and experience, it is wrong to very large extent to train everyone equally outside basics of reading, arithmetic. Objective of education should be to maximize kids learning opportunities in topics they are interested and display some predisposition from age of 4 and beyond.
Standard that one size of 10+ years of education fits all is false. Yes, some kids my have no interests and/or predispositions, it does not mean they failed in any meaningful way, eventually they find something given opportunities (similarly but less strict/competitive education is today) they are passionate about.
True, kids are not robots. One must assume America can live with less American scientists and engineers. As the years pass, fewer and fewer. Who will create the next vaccine technology? Probably won't be an American.
I read the article, and it doesn't sound to me like they are removing math classes in the name of equity. It sounds like they are moving away from having kids only learn Algebra for a year and then only learn geometry for a year. And instead have students learn a variety of mathematical concepts. The article said: "concepts courses wouldn't eliminate algebraic ideas but rather interweave multiple strands of mathematics throughout the courses. Those included data analysis, mathematical modeling, functions and algebra, spatial reasoning and probability."
Honestly, that doesn't sound bad to me. It sounds more like how people actually use math in life and in work, rather than forcing kids to all of sudden only care about geometry for an entire year.
I was laying in bed worrying about the serial and periodic nature of math curriculum just this morning. My kids will finish algebra I this year then geometry then algebra II. And still haven't been shown any statistics beyond mean mode median. By the time algebra II Rolla around they will have forgotten a ton of algebra. And after one lump of geometry, they will never have it again
I can only guess you are not in a STEM career. I am an electrical engineer. When I was 14, I did not know I would become one. I use math in my work every day. If Mr. Funacello (Norwood High) has not taught me Algebra I and II (had him twice) back in the day, I would not be an engineer now. Our kids need teachers like him.
Some people use science and math beyond your experience in "every day life". These are the people that created the steam engine, Apollo, the Internet and our Covid vaccines.
From the school board: "Let me be totally clear, we are talking about taking Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 – those three courses that we've known and loved ... and removing them from our high school mathematics program, replacing them with essential concepts for grade eight, nine, and 10."
Fewer of these poor children will be in STEM careers.
This is not to belittle whatever it is you do. All occupations are important. If I had it to do over again, I might be a plumber and start a business, skipping the student loan BS.
Why would these changes result in any less children in STEM careers? The material presented in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, etc. isn't being eliminated. The material is just being presented throughout a multi-year curriculum instead of being dumped into a single dedicated classes.
The VMPI's number one goal (21:13) is to "Improve equity in mathematics learning opportunities". Note that is "equity", not equality. Why that difference?
I would suggest that kids be given "equal" opportunities. Some will excel at STEM, some will excel at other things like business. Unfortunately, some will not excel.
In 2018, 13 of 39 HSs in Baltimore have not a single child proficient in Math. NOT ONE! I do not have data for Norfolk, but is it likely to be much different? You cannot tell me that not a single kid in those 13 HSs are capable. In these HSs, none excel.
The course names aren't being relabeled, they are being changed to introduce more concepts instead of just doing geometry for one year and then never discussing it again.
I don't see any evidence the curriculum is being watered down. I don't see the problem in making math appeal to more people. We need more people who enjoy and understand math, not less. Including things like word problems that appeal to kids interested in different careers, data sets to analyze, practice creating models to describe the physical world. I think this will make math more interesting and relatable. Also, I think the concepts will stick with them more than spending and entire year only thinking about triangles and congruency, and then never thinking about it again.
Having all students through Grade 10 taking the same classes will inevitably result in watering down the curriculum, as the material and expectations will have to accomodate the slowest students. Replacing Algebra 1 with "Algebra concepts" is like replacing cheese with "cheese food."
Right now, if students are motivated they can test out of Algebra 1, Geometry, or Algebra 2 to advance faster. I don't see any prohibition on letting students test out of these math classes to advance faster either. Is there?
The main difference is whether we spend an entire year on just geometry and then never bring it up again. Or whether we introduce a few mathematical concepts like data analysis, model development, and probability as students are learning these concepts. I don't see how this is an inevitable "watering down the curriculum." If there is language prohibiting students from advancing faster, then yes I think that is a problem. Including these concepts in the curriculum, in my opinion is good.
I am an engineer. I use math everyday in my job. You could have just disagreed, without trying to make it sound like the reason we disagree is because I must be clueless. The article said the courses incorporate, "data analysis, mathematical modeling, and probability." How is this "everyday math" for people who will never do STEM? I use far more data analysis, probability, and modeling than I do pure geometry (although I use that too as well).
You started your response saying, "I can only guess you are not in a STEM career." As if the disagreement is based on "someone who uses math" vs. "someone who doesn't use math". I disagree with the article because it intentionally misrepresents changes to the math curriculum. In reality the changes to the math curriculum of including probability, modeling, and data analysis are all very useful to people pursuing STEM careers. These changes are perfectly reasonable and even welcome. Politicizing these changes as some kind of leftist plot against math is the problem.
Yeah, I also despair. Few people seem to have read the article, and drawn their ideologically-predisposed conclusions from the headline. Which is, of course, the point of the headline, from an ideologically-predisposed news source.
So we've got a thread full of people decrying manipulation... while being massively manipulated in really trivial ways. And instead of talking about how to improve math education, we're talking about BS. Or really not talking, just clutching pearls.
If you want to claim that your way of thinking is so much better, demonstrate it, at least a little.
A school board member stated, quoting the Facebook comment in the article: “ That being said…as currently planned, this initiative will eliminate ALL math acceleration prior to 11th grade. That is not an exaggeration, nor does there appear to be any discretion in how local districts implement this. All 6th graders will take Foundational Concepts 6. All 7th graders will take Foundational Concepts 7. All 10th graders will take Essential Concepts 10. Only in 11th and 12th grade is there any opportunity for choice in higher math courses.”
Does the site you linked refute this? Are you refuting this?
Yes, the site refutes this. It says not word one about "acceleration". If you're ready to take upper grade math, you take it. This is laying out the primary course.
That's because the Facebook post is shitting its pants about the wrong thing. The thing that they're supposed to be shitting their pants about is that they're reorganizing the math in such a way that the regular path allows students to take the main math courses by grade 10, rather than a course focused on getting every single person into calculus (even if it means stopping in a weird place like pre-calculus).
So some students can finish their math by grade 10 and stop (and in the process focus on more everyday math rather than STEM-focused math). That's the things that's supposed to be filling their Fruit of the Looms with fecal matter, not banning gifted students from jumping ahead.
> Yes, the site refutes this. It says not word one about "acceleration".
Does it? The site says The Initiative supports the Profile of a Virginia Graduate by redefining mathematics pathways - i.e. it defines a new program by which math is to be taught. This program is illustrated with a chart (Follow the "Math Path"!). "Advanced placement" appears in this chart no sooner than grade 11.
When someone closely familiar with this system (member of the school board), that may have attended meetings where more information was shared, beyond what is featured in this website, tells me this means there will be no accelerated math before grade 11, why shouldn't I believe them?
For parents that want to help their kids with STEM, First Robotics (high schools around the world) is amazing. I was a mentor on a team for many years. See https://www.firstinspires.org/. There are other programs for younger kids. Become a mentor. You do not have be an engineer to help. Support your team.
26 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 70.9 ms ] threadThis is crazy. I grew up in a South Asian country before immigrating for University. Even in my first year in University, I was tutoring multiple students from both my year as well as 2nd year on algebra, calculus and discrete mathematics. I would even say my math courses in first 2 years of University in western world was much easier than what I had already studied by grade 12 of back home.
I had covered Algebra, Geometry, quite advanced Calculus by grade 12 in South Asia. If these asinine policies continues, you can guarantee that western university students will keep loosing to foreign students like myself. There may even be no longer a point of people immigrating here for higher studies.
I have even spent time thinking about whether it might be a wise idea for me to immigrate back to my home country when I have kids because I wouldn't want them having such watered down education.
Standard that one size of 10+ years of education fits all is false. Yes, some kids my have no interests and/or predispositions, it does not mean they failed in any meaningful way, eventually they find something given opportunities (similarly but less strict/competitive education is today) they are passionate about.
Honestly, that doesn't sound bad to me. It sounds more like how people actually use math in life and in work, rather than forcing kids to all of sudden only care about geometry for an entire year.
Some people use science and math beyond your experience in "every day life". These are the people that created the steam engine, Apollo, the Internet and our Covid vaccines.
From the school board: "Let me be totally clear, we are talking about taking Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2 – those three courses that we've known and loved ... and removing them from our high school mathematics program, replacing them with essential concepts for grade eight, nine, and 10."
Fewer of these poor children will be in STEM careers.
This is not to belittle whatever it is you do. All occupations are important. If I had it to do over again, I might be a plumber and start a business, skipping the student loan BS.
Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=siS8jlTcUzo&ab_c.... I did.
The VMPI's number one goal (21:13) is to "Improve equity in mathematics learning opportunities". Note that is "equity", not equality. Why that difference?
I would suggest that kids be given "equal" opportunities. Some will excel at STEM, some will excel at other things like business. Unfortunately, some will not excel.
In 2018, 13 of 39 HSs in Baltimore have not a single child proficient in Math. NOT ONE! I do not have data for Norfolk, but is it likely to be much different? You cannot tell me that not a single kid in those 13 HSs are capable. In these HSs, none excel.
Wouldn't we be better off helping these kids?
Relabeling course names...is that a solution?
I don't see any evidence the curriculum is being watered down. I don't see the problem in making math appeal to more people. We need more people who enjoy and understand math, not less. Including things like word problems that appeal to kids interested in different careers, data sets to analyze, practice creating models to describe the physical world. I think this will make math more interesting and relatable. Also, I think the concepts will stick with them more than spending and entire year only thinking about triangles and congruency, and then never thinking about it again.
The main difference is whether we spend an entire year on just geometry and then never bring it up again. Or whether we introduce a few mathematical concepts like data analysis, model development, and probability as students are learning these concepts. I don't see how this is an inevitable "watering down the curriculum." If there is language prohibiting students from advancing faster, then yes I think that is a problem. Including these concepts in the curriculum, in my opinion is good.
Who says not being in a STEM field makes one "clueless"? That is your word, not mine.
"There is a great deal of ruin in a nation" - Adam Smith
As each day passes, America has a little bit less left. And no, if you understand the quote, this is a depressing thought.
What they're actually talking about is this:
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/in...
So we've got a thread full of people decrying manipulation... while being massively manipulated in really trivial ways. And instead of talking about how to improve math education, we're talking about BS. Or really not talking, just clutching pearls.
If you want to claim that your way of thinking is so much better, demonstrate it, at least a little.
Does the site you linked refute this? Are you refuting this?
That's because the Facebook post is shitting its pants about the wrong thing. The thing that they're supposed to be shitting their pants about is that they're reorganizing the math in such a way that the regular path allows students to take the main math courses by grade 10, rather than a course focused on getting every single person into calculus (even if it means stopping in a weird place like pre-calculus).
So some students can finish their math by grade 10 and stop (and in the process focus on more everyday math rather than STEM-focused math). That's the things that's supposed to be filling their Fruit of the Looms with fecal matter, not banning gifted students from jumping ahead.
Does it? The site says The Initiative supports the Profile of a Virginia Graduate by redefining mathematics pathways - i.e. it defines a new program by which math is to be taught. This program is illustrated with a chart (Follow the "Math Path"!). "Advanced placement" appears in this chart no sooner than grade 11.
When someone closely familiar with this system (member of the school board), that may have attended meetings where more information was shared, beyond what is featured in this website, tells me this means there will be no accelerated math before grade 11, why shouldn't I believe them?