Compacted math going away?

[Anonymous]

I was at my 3rd grader's conference and I asked about criteria for compacted math since my kid usually does well in MAP, gets pull out enrichment etc. The teacher seemed to think it was going away next year.

I'm curious if anyone else has heard about this. I think in a way it's kind of wrong for a child's math education in middle school to be hinged on a decision made in 4th grade and it didn't seem like there were many on ramps for kids to move to a compacted math placement in 5th-6th grade.

On the other hand this smells like more of MCPS's "honors for everyone" where everyone is getting compacted math but really no one is getting it.

[Anonymous]

Does compacted marg in ES matter when all of the MS math classes are advanced/accelerated? Look at how many middle schools don’t even have a single on grade level math class.

[Anonymous]

I think the teacher is wrong or misunderstood something. A third grade teacher would not necessarily know the curricular pathway for upper elementary.

If you are concerned, however, you should probably take this question to the gifted education community of the Montgomery County PTA. They have a Facebook group and would be able to get an answer from the central office relatively quickly I think

[Anonymous]

Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

It seems to be out of step with equity whose goal is to dumb down all high-achievers to create an equally bad outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

I have a 6th grader who just finished it (and is on a more accelerated track in MS because of it) and a 4th grader currently taking it. So, at least for now and in our school, it's going strong.

That said, I don't think tracking kids this early is helpful, though compacted math is less of an issue than the CES/whatever they're calling them now and magnet middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

It seems to be out of step with equity whose goal is to dumb down all high-achievers to create an equally bad outcome.

I think that would be an equitably bad outcome wouldn't it? Equally bad would be if they all just did poorly on their own. Equitably bad is when the school causes equally bad outcomes on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Agree that you can ask the Gifted Education Committee. When MCPS tried to take away CM a few years ago, they launched a campaign to keep it. MCPS kept it in place but tightened criteria for placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

I have a 6th grader who just finished it (and is on a more accelerated track in MS because of it) and a 4th grader currently taking it. So, at least for now and in our school, it's going strong.

That said, I don't think tracking kids this early is helpful, though compacted math is less of an issue than the CES/whatever they're calling them now and magnet middle schools.

While some people complain about it, I actually think the fact that CES, MS magnets, and HS magnets are separate processes is good for the reasons you mention. This lets late bloomers find an "on ramp," but it also lets kids "off ramp" if they are finding the selective programs too difficult.

I think MCPS has tried to do the same for math in MS. It used to be that Math 4/5 led to AIM, and there used to be very few options for kids who didn't take 4/5 to get on a "math track" that put them in Algebra I in 7th. I think the math folks in Central Office are trying to make the process more flexible but I'd be stunned if they got rid of 4/5 and 5/6, in part because parents would freak out and in part because MCPS prides itself on kids getting through Calculus by junior year, leaving room for M/V and other courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

It seems to be out of step with equity whose goal is to dumb down all high-achievers to create an equally bad outcome.

I know that you view equity this way, but an actual equitable approach to this question is the one MCPS was pursuing at at least one point. An equitable approach acknowledges that kids are coming in with different levels of support, and scaffolds in additional support to kids who have potential but lack the advantages of some of their peers.

My child (middle class, single parent household) benefited from that approach through free Saturday enrichment beginning in 3rd grade. MCPS identified my child as "gifted" but correctly identified that my child did not have access to expensive and time-consuming outside enrichment. So they plugged in that support to help create a level playing ground. Many years later, my child was successful in a rigorous magnet programs and has already secured admission to their first-choice college. No wealthy or well-supported child was harmed through the "equity-based" support that MCPS gave my child in elementary school, and no one's class was "dumbed down" because the district tried to level the playing ground through free enrichment for gifted kids from low and medium income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree that you can ask the Gifted Education Committee. When MCPS tried to take away CM a few years ago, they launched a campaign to keep it. MCPS kept it in place but tightened criteria for placement.

As they should.

My DC was the first class to take CM. There were only a handful of kids who really needed that enrichment.

A few years later, after many parents complained and pushed for their kids to go to CM, the class became huge. I volunteered a few times, and some of those kids definitely did not belong in CM. I felt that my own DC#2 would've been better off in an on track math class, but during parent teacher conference, the teacher said that unfortunately, the "on track" math class now had so few kids, and that it was so much slower, that my DC would probably not be served in that class and would be bored. So we kept DC in CM, but I still think DC would've been better off in a true on track math class, but at the time, there was only CM and the "slower" track.

It was indeed "honors for all" type of scenario.

[Anonymous]

At our school, kids join and leave CM throughout fourth grade. And there is an on (and off) ramp at sixth grade so it’s quite flexible in the early years.

Really hope this isn’t true! CM has been great for my kid - she now thinks of herself as a mathy person for the first time! And as a girl, I love that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

It seems to be out of step with equity whose goal is to dumb down all high-achievers to create an equally bad outcome.

I know that you view equity this way, but an actual equitable approach to this question is the one MCPS was pursuing at at least one point. An equitable approach acknowledges that kids are coming in with different levels of support, and scaffolds in additional support to kids who have potential but lack the advantages of some of their peers.

My child (middle class, single parent household) benefited from that approach through free Saturday enrichment beginning in 3rd grade. MCPS identified my child as "gifted" but correctly identified that my child did not have access to expensive and time-consuming outside enrichment. So they plugged in that support to help create a level playing ground. Many years later, my child was successful in a rigorous magnet programs and has already secured admission to their first-choice college. No wealthy or well-supported child was harmed through the "equity-based" support that MCPS gave my child in elementary school, and no one's class was "dumbed down" because the district tried to level the playing ground through free enrichment for gifted kids from low and medium income families.

dp. I'm fully supportive of MCPS's enrichment programs, and happy to help fund it for low income kids.

However, MCPS has dumbed down programs. "Honors" health in HS is a perfect example of this. The class is ridiculously easy, and just has a bunch of busy work, but it's labeled as "honors".

My kids are in HS and college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that you can ask the Gifted Education Committee. When MCPS tried to take away CM a few years ago, they launched a campaign to keep it. MCPS kept it in place but tightened criteria for placement.

As they should.

My DC was the first class to take CM. There were only a handful of kids who really needed that enrichment.

A few years later, after many parents complained and pushed for their kids to go to CM, the class became huge. I volunteered a few times, and some of those kids definitely did not belong in CM. I felt that my own DC#2 would've been better off in an on track math class, but during parent teacher conference, the teacher said that unfortunately, the "on track" math class now had so few kids, and that it was so much slower, that my DC would probably not be served in that class and would be bored. So we kept DC in CM, but I still think DC would've been better off in a true on track math class, but at the time, there was only CM and the "slower" track.

It was indeed "honors for all" type of scenario.

That’s a west county problem. At our school, there are ten kids in 5/6 CM in a grade that contains about 90 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hasn't compacted math been going away for a decade now?

It seems to be out of step with equity whose goal is to dumb down all high-achievers to create an equally bad outcome.

I know that you view equity this way, but an actual equitable approach to this question is the one MCPS was pursuing at at least one point. An equitable approach acknowledges that kids are coming in with different levels of support, and scaffolds in additional support to kids who have potential but lack the advantages of some of their peers.

My child (middle class, single parent household) benefited from that approach through free Saturday enrichment beginning in 3rd grade. MCPS identified my child as "gifted" but correctly identified that my child did not have access to expensive and time-consuming outside enrichment. So they plugged in that support to help create a level playing ground. Many years later, my child was successful in a rigorous magnet programs and has already secured admission to their first-choice college. No wealthy or well-supported child was harmed through the "equity-based" support that MCPS gave my child in elementary school, and no one's class was "dumbed down" because the district tried to level the playing ground through free enrichment for gifted kids from low and medium income families.

dp. I'm fully supportive of MCPS's enrichment programs, and happy to help fund it for low income kids.

However, MCPS has dumbed down programs. "Honors" health in HS is a perfect example of this. The class is ridiculously easy, and just has a bunch of busy work, but it's labeled as "honors".

My kids are in HS and college.

I'm the PP and I actually agree with you, but I think there are about 15 different conversations happening on this thread and we are not using the same vocabulary.

"Honors English" in MS and early HS is about equity in the sense that I think you are using the word - a misguided approach that harms everyone, including gifted kids, non-gifted but just hard-working kids, typical kids, and emerging language learners.

"Honors Health" is not. That's just MCPS engaging in grade inflation to game the rankings.

Throwing open the doors for compacted math about six years ago was about "equity" but (correctly) tightening them back up a few years later was just the right thing to do.

We are talking about a bunch of different trends on this thread, and one of them (compacted math going away) is just a rumor.