What the Kool-Aid Says

A collection of references posted or tweeted by MVP supporters and "education pros" providing insight into their ways of thinking.

This citation in the GHHS FAQ is the single research reference explaining the reasoning WCPSS chose MVP.

Effective Mathematics Teaching Practices, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.


From the GHHS FAQ:

Yes. You read that right.

There is only ONE reference supporting MVP and it contains only ONE page.

Your child's public education has been risked based on a ONE page reference.

Ironically, the file name is "7-EffectiveMathematicsTeachingPractices" but 8 are listed!

It's hard to fathom that our elected leaders would jeopardize the futures of Wake County students with so little due diligence. We have tried to discern the reasoning behind the thinking. All of the references below are additional posts or research we've found which we believe has informed our school system leaders, whether they admit it or not.

This page is a collection of the points of view and tweets from people advocating for MVP or teaching styles upon which MVP is based.

We're not trying to promote them, we're trying to EXPOSE them - and educate our community to understand what we're up against.

This is about more than a failed math curriculum.

It is an ideology that our politicians and school leaders have bought into hook, line, and sinker.

So now that we know that WCPSS chose MVP because it was based on the 7 (or 8) NCTM practices, let's dig into that further. This presentation literally explains how "a miracle occurs" and really teachers only need to focus on ONE of the 8 principles: Elicit and use evidence of student thinking.

See for yourself. Page 3 shows the 8 practices. Pages 4-56 show the miracle. And page 57 states, "If you place eliciting and using student thinking as the focus of your instruction, you will naturally pull in the other 7 Effective Teaching Practices." Simple as that.

No wonder our kids are failing! MVP has oversimplified the duty of the math teacher at the expense of the student receiving a well-rounded educational experience!!!

Read this article and think about it. It's a "thought experiment" that wonders if students would be better served if knowledge were NOT the aim of education. Instead, "doing" would be the aim of education. This would make an interesting conversation over a couple of beers, but MVP puts this "thought experiment" into action and YOUR CHILDREN are the lab subjects. Tweeted by the curriculum specialist for high school mathematics in WCPSS.

This speaks for itself.


Here's another "controversial gamble" seemingly endorsed by WCPSS's former assistant superintendent who brought us MVP. Let's celebrate the eradication of honors classes and gifted track.

A quote from the referenced article in EdWeek:

"Traditional math teaching, the thinking goes, tends to reinforce rather than break down inequities.

"If you have a procedural textbook, not only is there nothing to collaborate about, the 'smart kid' in the group is always the one who gets the computation right," said Lizzy Hull Barnes, the mathematics supervisor for the San Francisco district. But when students wrestle over problems together, they can use different methods, compare approaches, and figure out why some work and others don't, making all of them active participants in the learning, she said."

Read this paper to understand why advanced classes are not fair and why leaders like Brian Kingsley celebrate the destruction of honors classes and 8th grade Algebra.

Is It Time to Detrack Math? by Carly Berwick, Edutopia, August 9, 2019

Abstract: Districts are moving to end the practice of tracking as research suggests that it may deepen educational inequities—with little benefit for students’ academic performance.

Translation: Get rid of 8th grade Algebra and have all kids take Algebra in 9th grade. Reduces achievement gap by holding back the high performing students who otherwise could have accelerated math by starting Algebra in 8th grade.

Same premise as above story. Different year.

This article will attempt to convince you that by students "doing" math before the teacher teaches them anything about math will somehow lead to deeper learning. This is the whole sandy foundation of MVP:

An adaptation to the “I do—we do—you do” instructional routine that attempts to address this concern is “You do—we do—I do.” McCaffrey’s (2016) blog post Rethinking the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model explains “You do—we do—I do.” “You do”—the teacher gives students a task to see what students know and understand. The task should have multiple entry points, have varied solution paths, and focus on mathematical processes. The teacher monitors the classroom for strategies and asks probing questions. “We do”—after working on the task independently, students collaborate with peers in pairs or small groups. On the basis of the monitoring of the classroom while students worked independently, the teacher is purposeful in putting students in pairs or small groups. Additionally, this might be an opportunity to orchestrate a productive mathematical discussion. “I do”—the teacher engages in instruction, pulling together the mathematical ideas that arose during “you do” and “we do.” Also, the teacher’s instruction connects and deepens the mathematical understanding of students. “You do—we do—I do” provides opportunities for students to engage in the mathematical practices that deepen their understanding of mathematical content and the practices.