Virginia Eliminates Accelerated Math Courses

I invite anyone two read two essays, which address two separate lies related to the absurd arrangement of math courses announced by this article.

Lie 1: You can arrange all of the information in a field into a test, and once you've passed the test you "know the field"

(https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/04/the_maintenance_of_c...)

Lie 2: Math can be arranged as a ladder system

(https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....)

These two lies brutalize students across the globe and turn them into automatons that distrust their own abilities. The lucky ones that get away with their desire to learn intact are generally the ones with creative, rich parents.

Way to skirt responsibility. A school has the same responsibility to accommodate special needs, remedial education, and accelerated education. You have to provide all those services since your student body will be diverse.

This has nothing to do with equity.

Those who advocate for such policies are the true racists. Their argument is that poor academic performance is a function of race, rather than a result of poverty. They are giving up on the kids who need help the most.

I mean, this hardly seems true. Sounds like Ian Serotkin is looking for a hot take. From the .doc on the VDOE website itself [1],

  The implementation of VMPI would still allow for student
  acceleration in mathematics content according to ability
  and achievement. 

  Local school divisions will still have plenty of 
  flexibility to create courses ... School divisions will 
  also be able to offer advanced sections and acceleration 
  through the courses.

So, is Serotkin wrong or what?

[1] https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/in...

San Francisco did a reform to the math curriculum that angered a lot of people.

However, you can see how the courses in SF work here:

https://www.sfusdmath.org/high-school-pathways.html

So after the reform, despite all the gnashing of teeth, it's still possible to take multivariate calculus by senior year. They do this by compressing algebra 2 and precalculus together, which makes sense to me.

The difference is there's no longer tracking into advanced math classes in middle school, everyone instead starts Algebra I in 9th grade. It sounds like the Virginia plan may be similar -- allow acceleration starting junior year.

A lot of people are down on this idea, but what about the argument that these schools are failing to educate half of their students by tracking them into low-expectation classes?

If you decide in the 6th grade that a student is not going to make it academically, you're perpetuating a cycle of failure.

Dividing students into tracks and providing different resources to each track is a great way to provide a separate-but-not-equal experience based on race or class.

Suppose this continues.

We can predict that private school tuition will go up. A market for additional tutoring might also appear, as in South Korea.

It's less clear how this will affect the real estate premium for "good public school districts". If certain districts consistently avoid these policies, then perhaps the premium will increase. Or if public schools in general become less competitive and they become irrelevant (with people turning to private schools instead), then the premium will decrease. I can see it going either way.

This is absolutely insanely bad and puts us well on the road to a HARRISON BERGERON world. [1]. Cannot wait for United States Handicapper General position to be announced to decide what skill we'll "equalize" across everyone next.

[1] http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

I do get their point from two perspectives: - in my own schooling, I anecdotally heard non-accelerated courses were worthless. Edit: even for the same course - Algebra had a different teacher for accelerated vs non. - Finland achieved its high global rank by pursuing equity first. However, not sure of the international rankings anymore.

anything having to do with equality or equity always invariably ends up with bringing down everyone to the level of the lowest. Not bringing the lowest up to the level of everyone else.

Why? because it’s much easier. Humans will optimize for their goals, just like AI. When you make the goal equity instead of well-being that’s what happens.