Compacted 4/5 math

[Anonymous]

PP - I think most parents would support a math program that teaches skills in-depth and is taught well. What most parents who have experienced this 2.0 model is that it skips around in concepts and thus does not teach the kids core fundamental skills that they can build upon in higher level math.

For example, everyone would agree basic math facts are fundamental skills that all children should know by the end of 3rd grade. Kids should also be able to use these skills to do long addition, long subtraction, long multiplication, and long division. These skills were not soundly supported in 2.0. They were introduce, taught for a unit, then the curriculum changed courses when the majority of the class was ready. With young kids, if these skills are not consistently reinforced, they will learn the skills for the test then with time forget skills they are not continuing to use. That was the main problem with the Everyday Math curriculum and is exacerbated in the 2.0 Curriculum.

I would support any math program that would allow for teachers to spend the first 5 minutes of class having the kids practice their basic math skills. A program like Mad Minutes works great and can be given on many levels. One student can take level A and another level I so they are practicing where they are at the time. Do this everyday with a class for a whole year, you will see a remarkable change in the functional abilities in the student population.

I agree with everything except Mad Minutes. DD enjoys this because its fast BUT it really isn't a good tool for solidifying math skills. Its like Kumon where it is more about rote memorization of tables and math facts. I made of point of never having DD memorize the tables but taught her how to do mental calculation. She can multiple, divide, add and subtract very fast and apply it easily to larger numbers now. I would be supportive of program that had the students do things like this everyday for 5 minutes.

The biggest problem in IMO about 2.0 is ironically that it isn't deep. They do skip around and keep repeating things but stop the kids before introducing the interesting concepts or drawing the connections between the unit. They are presenting math in a really backward ass way. DH jokes that an analogous approach with reading would be 'Today we are only going to read words in the book that starts with these 3 letters. We'll skip the other words and come back and read those later. At some point you'll get the gist of the actual story but by then you won't care and hate reading.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS and DD have always been in accelerated Math. DS has been chosen for compacted 4/5 for next year in HGC. DD is HS HGC with a accelerated and challenging curriculum.

I may be the only parent who says this but for me it is more important that the Math concepts are taught in-depth as well as taught well. I feel more Math homework and projects needs to be given so that the foundation is rock solid. I am ok with the slower pace of curriculum 2.0 as long as what the kids learn, they learn well and there are no gaps in their knowledge.

There is no victory medals being awarded if your child gets to Calculus in 10th grade. What is important is that they fully absorb and internalize the concepts in Math and so when they reach higher math they are able to make sense of the abstract concepts.

I have no problem with curriculum 2.0 provided that 2.0 does a better job of laying the math foundation that our kids need.

PP - I think most parents would support a math program that teaches skills in-depth and is taught well. What most parents who have experienced this 2.0 model is that it skips around in concepts and thus does not teach the kids core fundamental skills that they can build upon in higher level math.

For example, everyone would agree basic math facts are fundamental skills that all children should know by the end of 3rd grade. Kids should also be able to use these skills to do long addition, long subtraction, long multiplication, and long division. These skills were not soundly supported in 2.0. They were introduce, taught for a unit, then the curriculum changed courses when the majority of the class was ready. With young kids, if these skills are not consistently reinforced, they will learn the skills for the test then with time forget skills they are not continuing to use. That was the main problem with the Everyday Math curriculum and is exacerbated in the 2.0 Curriculum.

I would support any math program that would allow for teachers to spend the first 5 minutes of class having the kids practice their basic math skills. A program like Mad Minutes works great and can be given on many levels. One student can take level A and another level I so they are practicing where they are at the time. Do this everyday with a class for a whole year, you will see a remarkable change in the functional abilities in the student population.

DD second grade class did Mad Minutes this year under 2.0. It is not like it is somehow forbidden under the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

None of you have seen the 2.0 grades 4 and 5 curriculum. So what is the basis for your complaints?

[Anonymous]

4+4=8. It will always be so.

PP - you (like 2.0) are ignoring that people have different levels of strengths and abilities. We all learn in different ways. I have one child who is very verbal and can write a long explanation as to why 4+4=8. I have another child that is very concrete, knows 4+4=8 just because it is. All children need to know basic math facts to the point they can recall them instantly. They hardly ever in the real world, have time to sit there and explain why nor do they have time to sit and add up 2 sets of 4 to figure out they have 8 in total.

My FIL was a theoretical physicist and he saw colleagues with various ends of the spectrum of these talents. They worked in teams. The ones good at explaining concepts and writing would write the papers for the team. The ones good at calculating would calculate. Then you would have the idea instigators and visionaries who would spur invention and innovation. In his field, and most STEM fields, it takes teams of people with various talents and all were important in the research process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS and DD have always been in accelerated Math. DS has been chosen for compacted 4/5 for next year in HGC. DD is HS HGC with a accelerated and challenging curriculum.

I may be the only parent who says this but for me it is more important that the Math concepts are taught in-depth as well as taught well. I feel more Math homework and projects needs to be given so that the foundation is rock solid. I am ok with the slower pace of curriculum 2.0 as long as what the kids learn, they learn well and there are no gaps in their knowledge.

There is no victory medals being awarded if your child gets to Calculus in 10th grade. What is important is that they fully absorb and internalize the concepts in Math and so when they reach higher math they are able to make sense of the abstract concepts.

I have no problem with curriculum 2.0 provided that 2.0 does a better job of laying the math foundation that our kids need.

PP - I think most parents would support a math program that teaches skills in-depth and is taught well. What most parents who have experienced this 2.0 model is that it skips around in concepts and thus does not teach the kids core fundamental skills that they can build upon in higher level math.

For example, everyone would agree basic math facts are fundamental skills that all children should know by the end of 3rd grade. Kids should also be able to use these skills to do long addition, long subtraction, long multiplication, and long division. These skills were not soundly supported in 2.0. They were introduce, taught for a unit, then the curriculum changed courses when the majority of the class was ready. With young kids, if these skills are not consistently reinforced, they will learn the skills for the test then with time forget skills they are not continuing to use. That was the main problem with the Everyday Math curriculum and is exacerbated in the 2.0 Curriculum.

I would support any math program that would allow for teachers to spend the first 5 minutes of class having the kids practice their basic math skills. A program like Mad Minutes works great and can be given on many levels. One student can take level A and another level I so they are practicing where they are at the time. Do this everyday with a class for a whole year, you will see a remarkable change in the functional abilities in the student population.

DD second grade class did Mad Minutes this year under 2.0. It is not like it is somehow forbidden under the curriculum.

Maybe, again, it depends on the administration at our school. Before 2.0, our school did Mad Minutes. After 2.0, the teachers and administration said they could not continue with the program because they did not have the time built into the day under the 2.0 model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP - I think most parents would support a math program that teaches skills in-depth and is taught well. What most parents who have experienced this 2.0 model is that it skips around in concepts and thus does not teach the kids core fundamental skills that they can build upon in higher level math.

For example, everyone would agree basic math facts are fundamental skills that all children should know by the end of 3rd grade. Kids should also be able to use these skills to do long addition, long subtraction, long multiplication, and long division. These skills were not soundly supported in 2.0. They were introduce, taught for a unit, then the curriculum changed courses when the majority of the class was ready. With young kids, if these skills are not consistently reinforced, they will learn the skills for the test then with time forget skills they are not continuing to use. That was the main problem with the Everyday Math curriculum and is exacerbated in the 2.0 Curriculum.

I would support any math program that would allow for teachers to spend the first 5 minutes of class having the kids practice their basic math skills. A program like Mad Minutes works great and can be given on many levels. One student can take level A and another level I so they are practicing where they are at the time. Do this everyday with a class for a whole year, you will see a remarkable change in the functional abilities in the student population.

I agree with everything except Mad Minutes. DD enjoys this because its fast BUT it really isn't a good tool for solidifying math skills. Its like Kumon where it is more about rote memorization of tables and math facts. I made of point of never having DD memorize the tables but taught her how to do mental calculation. She can multiple, divide, add and subtract very fast and apply it easily to larger numbers now. I would be supportive of program that had the students do things like this everyday for 5 minutes.

The biggest problem in IMO about 2.0 is ironically that it isn't deep. They do skip around and keep repeating things but stop the kids before introducing the interesting concepts or drawing the connections between the unit. They are presenting math in a really backward ass way. DH jokes that an analogous approach with reading would be 'Today we are only going to read words in the book that starts with these 3 letters. We'll skip the other words and come back and read those later. At some point you'll get the gist of the actual story but by then you won't care and hate reading.'

I am always confused when people make it point to say they don't want rote memorization of math facts. Would not the end results be the same, that the kids can recall math facts instantly?
It would be a rare child who can do this without understanding the basic operations behind the math facts. I can see a distinction being made for higher level concepts. But not for math facts for single digits operations.

[Anonymous]

If a child has no memory he or she will fail in life.

[Anonymous]

Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

It's a bit odd only because they do not consult about other enrichment (our school uses pull outs with a specialist in math and reading) or placement in reading groups, etc., that might be more demanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

It's a bit odd only because they do not consult about other enrichment (our school uses pull outs with a specialist in math and reading) or placement in reading groups, etc., that might be more demanding.

That's true. The letter spends a lot of space touting the rigors of 2.0 before discussing the compacted math portion, so it almost feels as if it was intended to persuade parents to have their children remain with the regular curriculum. Maybe more than just a "few" students qualified for the compacted curriculum (or at least more than MCPS expected), which would mean that the needs of more than a "few" children were not being met by 2.0. That would contradict the MCPS belief that 2.0 meets the needs of all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

It's a bit odd only because they do not consult about other enrichment (our school uses pull outs with a specialist in math and reading) or placement in reading groups, etc., that might be more demanding.

I know that there were people who were not happy about their child being in the above-grade-level math group under Math Pathways. Maybe requiring parents to give permission is a way to avoid that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

It's a bit odd only because they do not consult about other enrichment (our school uses pull outs with a specialist in math and reading) or placement in reading groups, etc., that might be more demanding.

That's true. The letter spends a lot of space touting the rigors of 2.0 before discussing the compacted math portion, so it almost feels as if it was intended to persuade parents to have their children remain with the regular curriculum. Maybe more than just a "few" students qualified for the compacted curriculum (or at least more than MCPS expected), which would mean that the needs of more than a "few" children were not being met by 2.0. That would contradict the MCPS belief that 2.0 meets the needs of all students.

If MCPS believed that 2.0 met the need of all students then they wouldn't be doing a compacted curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents have to give permission for their child to be in compacted 4/5 math?

The letter that came home to parents indicates that it would be a more demanding curriculum than the regular 2.0 math curriculum. It also notes that 2.0 is already rigorous so parents would need to be aware of the faster pace and additional demands that would be placed on the kids taking the compacted course. There may be some parents who prefer that their children move at a slower pace for whatever reason.

It's a bit odd only because they do not consult about other enrichment (our school uses pull outs with a specialist in math and reading) or placement in reading groups, etc., that might be more demanding.

That's true. The letter spends a lot of space touting the rigors of 2.0 before discussing the compacted math portion, so it almost feels as if it was intended to persuade parents to have their children remain with the regular curriculum. Maybe more than just a "few" students qualified for the compacted curriculum (or at least more than MCPS expected), which would mean that the needs of more than a "few" children were not being met by 2.0. That would contradict the MCPS belief that 2.0 meets the needs of all students.

If MCPS believed that 2.0 met the need of all students then they wouldn't be doing a compacted curriculum.

As I understand it, the compacted curriculum is part of 2.0 math -- not additional to it.

[Anonymous]

It's 2.0 but faster.