Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the pendulum swings back....

It's more like whiplash.

or a metranome...acceleration...none....acceleration...none

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

The 5/6 curriculum has been pretty bad and random under Eureka. I'm not sure who decided which lessons to skip, but some of them contain core content that is subsequently tested.
Some of the grading standards are based on "Eureka things" that these poor kids have not had ingrained in them since K, but rather thrust upon them in a pandemic. I guess this year has been all about smart kids figure things out that they've never been taught.

My kid is in it now. They're wapping up 6th-grade module 4 which is basic algebraic equations. This seems fine to me.

They've been jumping all over the place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just left a meeting and was told that very few kids currently enrolled in Compacted 4/5 would move on to Compacted 5/6. There are strict guidelines coming from the county level and principals are not allowed around it. These include MAP scores and scores from performance matters testing. It sounds like around 30 total kids countywide will move on.

Compacted 4/5 will be decided on the county level. Don't expect many to get in.

Epic troll post. Funny to see how a fabricated rumor can spark so much debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

The 5/6 curriculum has been pretty bad and random under Eureka. I'm not sure who decided which lessons to skip, but some of them contain core content that is subsequently tested.
Some of the grading standards are based on "Eureka things" that these poor kids have not had ingrained in them since K, but rather thrust upon them in a pandemic. I guess this year has been all about smart kids figure things out that they've never been taught.

My kid is in it now. They're wapping up 6th-grade module 4 which is basic algebraic equations. This seems fine to me.

They've been jumping all over the place

Yeah, I think that is the elephant in the room. The compacted Eureka course was a slap-dash construction job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

The 5/6 curriculum has been pretty bad and random under Eureka. I'm not sure who decided which lessons to skip, but some of them contain core content that is subsequently tested.
Some of the grading standards are based on "Eureka things" that these poor kids have not had ingrained in them since K, but rather thrust upon them in a pandemic. I guess this year has been all about smart kids figure things out that they've never been taught.

My kid is in it now. They're wapping up 6th-grade module 4 which is basic algebraic equations. This seems fine to me.

They've been jumping all over the place

Yeah, I think that is the elephant in the room. The compacted Eureka course was a slap-dash construction job.

I’d say the elephant in the room is the lack of evidence that the OP knows whether MCPS is actually changing anything.

[Anonymous]

NP who just found this thread. Assuming this is true, what is the point of cutting the compacted classes down to bare bones? Is it financial? Are there not enough disadvantaged kids in compacted math? I truly don’t understand the point of eliminating a program that is used and needed by thousands of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP who just found this thread. Assuming this is true, what is the point of cutting the compacted classes down to bare bones? Is it financial? Are there not enough disadvantaged kids in compacted math? I truly don’t understand the point of eliminating a program that is used and needed by thousands of students.

There is no point, which is why they’re not doing it. Don’t fall for the churn of the rumor mill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

What is the cutoff for current 3rd graders to get into compacted 4/5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 7th grader would have made the cutoff (247 spring grade 5) but having him repeat algebra since learned nothing this year.

You're a good example of why Central MCPS should not play "Math G-D." Parents and students are capable of judging their own situation and whether something needs to be fixed. A ridiculously large number of kids aren't meeting standards at all in either math or reading during a good, normal year. Why would one slow down an 85%ile kid, if that kid is willing to challenge themselves and has already covered the material?

If it were left to parents, most would put their kids in the most advanced math possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 7th grader would have made the cutoff (247 spring grade 5) but having him repeat algebra since learned nothing this year.

You're a good example of why Central MCPS should not play "Math G-D." Parents and students are capable of judging their own situation and whether something needs to be fixed. A ridiculously large number of kids aren't meeting standards at all in either math or reading during a good, normal year. Why would one slow down an 85%ile kid, if that kid is willing to challenge themselves and has already covered the material?

If it were left to parents, most would put their kids in the most advanced math possible.

Exactly. 7th grade mom here. I had an older child so I know better. Very few kids need to be on this path. My older one is in that category.

[Anonymous]

NP here - I reached out to my son’s compacted 4/5 math teacher today to ask about math 5/6 next year. In truth I wanted to see if she referenced what OP shared in thier post. Teacher’s response was that “we’ve just received new guidance about 5/6 requirements and will be making decisions about how to place students next year in the next few weeks”.

My DS earned A’s every quarter and was in the 70th percentile for the recent MAP-M. He loves the compacted more accelerated format so while he’s not in the 90th percentile - or even 80th - I am bummed at the prospect that he will be left out of a more accelerated track next year. The teacher’s vague response doesn’t give me hope.

[Anonymous]

The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

*I meant to say fall or spring for MAP-M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

So what’s the track then for kids who are not in that group but for whom Algebra by 8th was the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

*I meant to say fall or spring for MAP-M.

What is the rationale for this?