Compacted Math- FYI

[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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If MCPS made easy on and off ramps for the kids it wouldn´t matter. Getting a C, move down. Sleeping through class and getting an A? Move up. Easy peasy.

[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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

[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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Wouldn't be DCUM otherwise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

He earned As every single quarter. Why from a research and data-grounded educational perspective is this not the right path?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

And why from your perspective should this student not continue in compacted math? Also what does this mean for kids who want to be in calculus by grade 12? Seems to me this early tracks every kid who is not in the 90th% to bit making it to calculus and then completely disadvantaged. So much for equity because all of the wealthy families pay for prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

I’ve got a kid who is similar. I think the fall MAP (taken at home) was like an 85 percentile although it was about 5 points lower than the score the previous year. MAP scores are easy to juice by just previewing the next year’s material. If you don’t preview upcoming year’s material, it’s tough to get to 90. A subject matter test that just covered the material from compacted 4/5 would be a better system for decided who is ready to advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

He earned As every single quarter. Why from a research and data-grounded educational perspective is this not the right path?

Grade inflation is rampant in MCPS. The testing is more neutral. Think about the math he'll have to take in HS - where he'll have to take it every single year.

[Anonymous]

FYI people. On track is calculus in 12th grade. Hardly any kids need to be in calculus in 11th grade. Chill.

[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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

90% on the MAP-M for fall of 3rd is around 215 for fall of 4th its around 225. This is not a high bar.

[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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Why do you think that? This is a big deal to a large group of kids. A child who scored in the 88th percentile of MAP testing after having an easy time all year will have no opportunity to continue in the class. Instead, that child will repeat a full HALF of the year next year at a slower pace. However, a child who scored 1-2 points higher is allowed to continue?

It would make sense if these were the entry requirements to get into the class. However, to demote kids at the halfway point based on a test given one day does not seem like nonsense.

[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

I should add the kid scores in the 280s on the MAP-M and thinks compacted is a joke.

[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

Then you’re issue appears to be with Eureka Math. The 5/6 curriculum has done 4 continuous modules in the curriculum without skipping around. It is true that each module has a different topic, but compacted 5/6 is not skipping around.
I should add the kid scores in the 280s on the MAP-M and thinks compacted is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

90% on the MAP-M for fall of 3rd is around 215 for fall of 4th its around 225. This is not a high bar.

Of course it’s a high bar. Stop with your strangely casual “it’s not a high bar” crap.