Compact math is really not compact math anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

So the parents are the problem, honestly. I don't understand why parents push so hard for compacted math. It's teaching topics that are a year ahead of their grade level, folks. It goes much faster and doesn't go into depth as on grade level math. Even if your kid is borderline, why push it? It cant just be based on MAP scores. Teacher input like it is at our school has a lot to do with it too. So there you have it, it's essentially the parents who are itching to have their kid take on more than what they are capable of that is causing the watering down of compacted math. Let teachers do their jobs!

Why push your kid into it? Because the choice is between a kid at the 80th percentile learning with kids in the 80-99 percentile, or learning with kids in the 0-79th percentile. There's also the problem that the OTHER parents are also pushing, so compacted is probably not kids who are 80-99 but rather 70-99, meaning grade level is kids at 0-69%.

So bottom line, schools need to place the child where they see fit. Also, compact math placement is not solely on math placement. It also considers the teacher's feedback on whether or not the child will be able to handle the work at the pace that it goes. So your kid might be in the 80th percentile but he/she may need to take a bit more time to understand the concepts. At our school, kids whose parents insist that they be placed in compacted math even though it wasn't the suggested placement by the school, are given a test by the teacher to evaluate if they are ready for it or not. Majority of the time, the child doesn't do well in that test.

Way to ratchet up the pressure. How about teachers be honest with the parents of 4/5 math kids who are struggling and suggest they switch to grade level?

[Anonymous]

Way to ratchet up the pressure. How about teachers be honest with the parents of 4/5 math kids who are struggling and suggest they switch to grade level?

I haven't read all 8 pages but in what school is any kid struggling with compacted math? Its pretty darn easy.

Are the materials often miss worded and riddled with errors? Yes -but that's true with everything that came from the central office for 2.0 and hasn't yet been corrected by the teacher. By 4th grade, the kids know to raise their hand and say there is a mistake on this page. The teachers know that they kids are likely correct about the mistake.

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of kids struggling with the class. However, the current grading system covers a lot of it. Kids get assessed in small groups with support but can never actually do the skill independently. The County added district tests last year and the scores are low.

Teachers are not allowed to kick the kids out unless there is enough documentation (hard to come by as they will ask you about the 20 different strategies you’ve tried to reach the kid) or a parent requests it.

I’m glad your child is successful but don’t assume all are.

[Anonymous]

Compact Math is the same problem with AAP in Fairfax County

Noone wants to be with the normal kids so everyone pushes to get into the advanced class

If I ruled the world I would go back to 8th grade Algebra for most kids

That sets you up for

9th Geometry
10th Algebra II
11th Trig
12th Calculus AB or Pre-Calc/Stats if you are less math focused

That should be adequate for 99% of the population

College STEM majors almost universally advise against skipping any math programs at all. So starting with Univeristy Calculus 1 the 110 course.

I don't know where the obsession to have Algebra 1 in 7th came from. It's dumb serves no purpose and is just a by product of tiger moms run amuck

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of kids struggling with the class. However, the current grading system covers a lot of it. Kids get assessed in small groups with support but can never actually do the skill independently. The County added district tests last year and the scores are low.

Teachers are not allowed to kick the kids out unless there is enough documentation (hard to come by as they will ask you about the 20 different strategies you’ve tried to reach the kid) or a parent requests it.

I’m glad your child is successful but don’t assume all are.

The problem probably is not that the kids are not capable but that the curriculum isn't providing the correct practice and assessment. Kids will not do well on tests if they are never really tested in class. If they are just assessed in a group, check their own homework and only get 1-3 pretty easy questions for a test where the grading rubric "forgives" mistakes as long as they demonstrated understanding then you can't expect them to do well on a test. The answer isn't to knock them down to easier math its to use testing in class as a tool.

Trust me if a kid gets an F on a practice test and has access to additional practice questions then that kid will prepare for the real test. Math requires not just concepts but fluency and precision which requires practice. You can't just talk about precision you have to set the expectation with examples and consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

Here's the problem. We have a lot of smart kids in this area so while an 80% is an excellent score in most areas it is average here. Most kids in compacted math are hitting the 90's or above. Compacted math is also pretty slow. The real issue is 2-3 grade math is slow so it does ramp up in 4th but not as much as many kids can handle. We have three classes in our school. One math is compacted and the two are regular. So, they only take 1/3 the kids into compacted math and probably are looking at the top numbers. 80% is not going to cut it. But, no harm in asking if you child can join compacted math. To get those high MAP scores, kids aren't on grade level but above grade level and have been exposed to higher math concepts usually outside of school (though some are just that smart).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Compact Math is the same problem with AAP in Fairfax County

Noone wants to be with the normal kids so everyone pushes to get into the advanced class

If I ruled the world I would go back to 8th grade Algebra for most kids

That sets you up for

9th Geometry
10th Algebra II
11th Trig
12th Calculus AB or Pre-Calc/Stats if you are less math focused

That should be adequate for 99% of the population

College STEM majors almost universally advise against skipping any math programs at all. So starting with Univeristy Calculus 1 the 110 course.

I don't know where the obsession to have Algebra 1 in 7th came from. It's dumb serves no purpose and is just a by product of tiger moms run amuck

Let me guess. You are in 8th grade - or is it 9th?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

You just showed everyone the problem. You. The parents. Most kids in compact math are testing 95-99%. You pushing your 80% kid is only slowing the whole class down until your kids needs are met. Teachers HATE the pushy parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

You just showed everyone the problem. You. The parents. Most kids in compact math are testing 95-99%. You pushing your 80% kid is only slowing the whole class down until your kids needs are met. Teachers HATE the pushy parents.

Seems unlikely that there was a gap between 80 and 95 with no kids in it. Also unlikely that 45% of the class scored over 95 if 80 was borderline.

[Anonymous]

80% should not be in compacted math. No wonder so many kids are in these classes now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:80% should not be in compacted math. No wonder so many kids are in these classes now

I heard from school administrator that 80% is the MCPS suggested cutoff.

If a school has two classes worth of kids with >80%, why not differentiate further?

[Anonymous]

I visited a compacted 4/5 yesterday and they were working on multiplication and there were several kids who had no idea of their basic multiplication facts. When a child made a mistake, my child looked at me and rolled her eyes. She has been complaining about the lower kids not being able to keep up and I saw it with my own eyes.

During independent time, the kids were working on a chrome book assignment and they were all on task but I saw several kids counting on their fingers...in an advanced 4th grade math class.

I would guess that 80th percentile is actually fine for the class, but the kids need basic math facts memorized!

[Anonymous]

This is not a generation used to the concept of memorization.

[Anonymous]

Parents of borderline kids who want them in the compacted math ought to be given a set of specific recommendations for at-home work to ensure they are successful. Many parents expect to help/supplement but these easily fall by the side of the row when things get busy. If parents are given a supplemental calendar, or maybe supplemental homework each week, then they would take the placement more seriously. Some would do it and their kids will probably succeed. Others will probably decide not to request compacted math.