Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

[Anonymous]

This is such a slap in the face for Kidd who succeed and are clearly able to thrive in a compacted math setting but who didn’t have the tutors as prep to secure that 90+ percentile score. And why now? After all these kids have endured for the last year?

So lame and completely antithetical to what this school district is supposed to strive for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

You don’t think it’s weird that your kid can get straight As at his school but when he takes a test that compares him to a much broader pool he can’t crack the 90th percentile? Of course he’s benefiting from grade inflation at his school.

[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.

What is a 4 or 5 on assessments? An A or a B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

You don’t think it’s weird that your kid can get straight As at his school but when he takes a test that compares him to a much broader pool he can’t crack the 90th percentile? Of course he’s benefiting from grade inflation at his school.

Yes, of course it’s weird. Particularly in a subject like math where even the terms for partial credit are binary. You either get the right answer or you don’t. So yes, it’s weird and what it means is simply there are kids who are prepped to score well behind the 4th / 5th benchmarks who game the system. And, gosh, where do most of these children live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

You don’t think it’s weird that your kid can get straight As at his school but when he takes a test that compares him to a much broader pool he can’t crack the 90th percentile? Of course he’s benefiting from grade inflation at his school.

Yes, of course it’s weird. Particularly in a subject like math where even the terms for partial credit are binary. You either get the right answer or you don’t. So yes, it’s weird and what it means is simply there are kids who are prepped to score well behind the 4th / 5th benchmarks who game the system. And, gosh, where do most of these children live?

Wait, we’re supposed to prep our kids to “score behind” benchmarks? Yeesh. I’ve been doing it all wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

You don’t think it’s weird that your kid can get straight As at his school but when he takes a test that compares him to a much broader pool he can’t crack the 90th percentile? Of course he’s benefiting from grade inflation at his school.

Its not grade inflation but the curriculum in MCPS is dumbed down and slow. 90% is very low for many kids in MCPS. Its nice they have a guideline. Most kids who are compact math material get 93/4-99%.

[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.

You can argue with the school to continue. But, 60-80% on map tests is very low for this area. You need to supplement.

[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.

You can argue with the school to continue. But, 60-80% on map tests is very low for this area. You need to supplement.

Not everyone tests well. I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting my kid didn’t earn/deserve the A’s? The good thing about math is you either get the answer or you don’t. Nice try.

Also, kids take MAP tests every year. What’s your point about “every single year”?

No one is suggesting anything. It's a fact that the way MCPS averages grades means that an A semester + a B semester = an A for a final grade. That math doesn't add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a slap in the face for Kidd who succeed and are clearly able to thrive in a compacted math setting but who didn’t have the tutors as prep to secure that 90+ percentile score. And why now? After all these kids have endured for the last year?

So lame and completely antithetical to what this school district is supposed to strive for.

90% is not a hard standard to follow and reasonable. Mine never had a tutor but we as parents supplemented. Kids who are pushed forward need support.

[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.

You can argue with the school to continue. But, 60-80% on map tests is very low for this area. You need to supplement.

Not everyone tests well. I

Agree, and I am one of those people but the point of testing is to show knowledge and if they cannot show it you are best not pushing them forward. The MAP test is one of the better tests. A 60-88 is average. Let them go at the regular pace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a slap in the face for Kidd who succeed and are clearly able to thrive in a compacted math setting but who didn’t have the tutors as prep to secure that 90+ percentile score. And why now? After all these kids have endured for the last year?

So lame and completely antithetical to what this school district is supposed to strive for.

90% is not a hard standard to follow and reasonable. Mine never had a tutor but we as parents supplemented. Kids who are pushed forward need support.

In previous years, was it below 90%? If they aren't changing the policy, I'm assuming it wouldn't be controversial. Were they pulling in the to 20% rather than the top 10% previously?

[Anonymous]

It used to be about 75%. I personally do not feel like it is a negative to raise the standards if they are finding that this particular group is struggling in middle school.

However in this particular situation, it seems that it would be better to let the kids continue the course through elementary school and then take a placement test at the end of the year for middle school. Or if that’s not enough, take a placement test for 5th grade based on the actual curriculum they studied.

I like the MAP test but kids that do outside work score way higher. That does not indicate that kids are not little pinged and doing fantastic- it just shows a lack of exposure. And for this year’s test that could just be from geometry as that was skipped this year through no fault of the kids. Not knowing an obtuse angle because you’ve never been taught it should not keep you out of a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It used to be about 75%. I personally do not feel like it is a negative to raise the standards if they are finding that this particular group is struggling in middle school.

However in this particular situation, it seems that it would be better to let the kids continue the course through elementary school and then take a placement test at the end of the year for middle school. Or if that’s not enough, take a placement test for 5th grade based on the actual curriculum they studied.

I like the MAP test but kids that do outside work score way higher. That does not indicate that kids are not little pinged and doing fantastic- it just shows a lack of exposure. And for this year’s test that could just be from geometry as that was skipped this year through no fault of the kids. Not knowing an obtuse angle because you’ve never been taught it should not keep you out of a class.

+1