One of the most fascinating conversations in the media over the past weeks has been on-going conversations around the Virginia Math Pathways Initiative. A Loudon County school board member posted what he understood to be elements of the new math curriculum focused on equity. Now, readers can see both his original understanding AND his edited comments on facebook. But there is still a mysterious element to this conversation. Was there really a misunderstanding or was the county planning to do away with accelerated math courses in the name of equity?
Fact checkers argue that the curriculum is still under discussion and the school system has now said “accelerated math placement won’t go away.” But there was no evidence that this wasn’t the case until the community outrage began. Did policies change due to the significant negative reactions from parents in the system or was this always their intended path? It is hard to know from the evidence online, but either way, here are two things we think are important about this story:
Individualized education matters - Yes, students should have equal opportunities for education, but equal opportunities should not mean that every child must learn the same material at the same time. Like the parents, we are concerned about the general idea of keeping students from excelling. Would we tell parents to stop reading to their children since some parents sadly can’t or don’t read to their children? The idea seems preposterous. Rather, policy should revolve around giving literacy opportunities to children who don’t have as much reading exposure. And the same goes for school.
In this case, even the new language is a bit concerning. In the revised curricular stance the VDOE writes it will “allow for student acceleration.” The word “allow” seems to suggest that the best practice would still be to minimize acceleration. Why not take a stance that gives room for acceleration, something like, “encourage acceleration where appropriate?”
Parents voices should matter - We hope that if plans for this curriculum originally did include removing accelerated pathways that parent perspectives mattered to the school board. According to the Washington Post,
Parents of all political persuasions expressed alarm at the proposal... [Sen. Chap] Petersen wrote a letter to state Secretary of Education Atif Qarni citing constituent unease and asking for more information, “I have reviewed a version of the program on the DOE website but am not sure I understand the purpose or what it actually does,” he wrote. “I would appreciate a plain explanation . . . without using socio-political jargon but rather just simply stating what subjects will be taught and when.
With this level of outrage, parents had the ability to make change. But there are many circumstances where parents are alone, advocating for the needs of their children. When there isn’t a viral moment, parents need the freedom to do what’s best for their child. If a school was taking away important curricular resources, families should have another option for education. What option you might ask?