MCPS New Math Pathway, No AIM6 in MS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newest rumor is that no child will be offered Compacted 4/5. I think this is also the theory for the rumors around no AIM for next year.

At this point, at least we know they are all rumors, but it does sound like they are based on true conversations. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

'

10 more pages of rumors with 0 proof

There is currently a Math Recovery Plan under development. I do not know about compacted 4/5, but MCPS curriculum office is absolutely having discussions that include not offering AIM 6 (and not offering a pathway to Geometry in 8th grade). At some schools (lookin' at you E. Brooke Lee) this was announced prematurely to parents. We were told even kids coming from compacted math would be on a pathway for algebra in 8th grade. Kids could double up math Freshman year of high school (geometry and Algebra II together) to get back on the "advanced" math path. That letter from the curriculum office is interesting. They are basically telling everyone to get ready for some changes in the math pathway.

Are they shifting the whole philosophy of Math instruction in MCPS to realign with the rest of the country - Algebra in 9th?

I think it's more of a one size fits all approach to education. Where the brightest must not go any faster than the slowest. This helps foster equity and closes the achievement gap.

I thought learning has been accelerated under DL, no? No distractions and what not. I'd think that MCPS should be ready to step on the gas next year.

No, its been slowed down and parents complained too much screen time and too much schoolwork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The newest rumor is that no child will be offered Compacted 4/5. I think this is also the theory for the rumors around no AIM for next year.

At this point, at least we know they are all rumors, but it does sound like they are based on true conversations. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.

'

10 more pages of rumors with 0 proof

There is currently a Math Recovery Plan under development. I do not know about compacted 4/5, but MCPS curriculum office is absolutely having discussions that include not offering AIM 6 (and not offering a pathway to Geometry in 8th grade). At some schools (lookin' at you E. Brooke Lee) this was announced prematurely to parents. We were told even kids coming from compacted math would be on a pathway for algebra in 8th grade. Kids could double up math Freshman year of high school (geometry and Algebra II together) to get back on the "advanced" math path. That letter from the curriculum office is interesting. They are basically telling everyone to get ready for some changes in the math pathway.

Are they shifting the whole philosophy of Math instruction in MCPS to realign with the rest of the country - Algebra in 9th?

I think it's more of a one size fits all approach to education. Where the brightest must not go any faster than the slowest. This helps foster equity and closes the achievement gap.

I hope no one is buying into this as equity. High SES will just turn to AoPS and others to challenge their kids in Math and it will worsen the gap. Now, accelerated curriculum in school is enough for some percentage who can afford math supplements, and enough for many of the smart kids who can't afford it. Those pathways improve equity.

In ES its easy enough to supplement yourself, which is what we did. In MS and HS it gets harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

I forgot to add that if you look at the State Report Card data, schools in MCPS have fewer students passing the PARCC assessments including Algebra 1. They are earning A's but cannot meet state expectations. The decrees in pass rates and a general widening of the gap tracks the acceleration and Dr. Smith's tenure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

AIM is essentially pre-Algebra, and I've seen a course that purports to teach all of Pre-Algebra (which is mostly review) in 2 hours. Even if a whole year of math was completely and totally lost, it seem possible to cover it in AIM without too much difficulty. There are a few 6th grade standards that will be skipped in the Compacted 5/6 this year, but similar standards were covered extensively in the 5th grade half of the course. I am not sure why the sky is suddenly falling with respect to 6th grade math. That seems displaced. Algebra might be a whole 'nother ball game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

I forgot to add that if you look at the State Report Card data, schools in MCPS have fewer students passing the PARCC assessments including Algebra 1. They are earning A's but cannot meet state expectations. The decrees in pass rates and a general widening of the gap tracks the acceleration and Dr. Smith's tenure.

I don't think the evidence you are pointing to really shows that acceleration is not benefitting students. SF did not just detrack, they also changed the curriculum, and delayed tracking by moving the point of acceleration later. The article you are pointing to is more nuanced and does not claim any causation. It is very possible the problem was not access to algebra in eighth grade per se, but the instruction before algebra, and the criteria they used for placing students in algebra in eighth grade. (This reminds me of what happened in MCPS: Until about ten years ago (before curriculum 2.0) math acceleration in MCPS was just out of control. Along with curriculum 2.0, MCPS went from one extreme to another, and stopped acceleration completely. Then it was realized that the one size fits all approach was not workable, and they introduced new math pathways with compact 4/5 etc.) Also, looking at https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/stem/algebra/index.html, it seems SFUSD seems like an exception.

Similarly, is there really any evidence to conclude that fewer students in MCPS passing the PARCC assessments tracks with acceleration? Take a couple of examples: Newport Mill MS, a feeder to Einstein, has a much better trend line for Proficiency in MCAP Algebra 1 compared to Einstein HS. Tilden MS and North Bethesda MS, both feeders to WJ, have much better trend lines for Algebra 1 compared to WJ. It seems that students that take algebra in MS perform better in PARCC/MCAP assessments than those that take algebra in HS. (May be we should force everyone to take algebra in MS then ?! )

We have a very large public school system, with more than 50% of eighth graders either taking algebra 1 or higher. (As per https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/stem/algebra/index.html, in 2015-16 45% of eighth graders were taking algebra 1. Add those that were taking Geometry or higher since they had already finished algebra 1 before eighth grade.) Completely removing algebra from MS is a nonstarter as it will only add to the achievement gap. Just as in SF, "ambitious parents" will "shell out thousands of dollars for students to take non-district algebra classes ..." worsening the gap.

Are there students that should delay algebra until HS? Sure. Should every student in MCPS wait until HS to take algebra? No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

AIM is essentially pre-Algebra, and I've seen a course that purports to teach all of Pre-Algebra (which is mostly review) in 2 hours. Even if a whole year of math was completely and totally lost, it seem possible to cover it in AIM without too much difficulty. There are a few 6th grade standards that will be skipped in the Compacted 5/6 this year, but similar standards were covered extensively in the 5th grade half of the course. I am not sure why the sky is suddenly falling with respect to 6th grade math. That seems displaced. Algebra might be a whole 'nother ball game.

My kid skipped AIM/IM this year and went directly to Algebra. Its been fine. You aren't missing that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

The above is true and is a growing trend beyond just MCPS. Upper division math teachers/professor have been saying for years now that students are not appropriately ready for what is required in those classes. It a big reason for why math is being slowed down so much in the ES years and deeper number sense is being taught. Ultimately students were good at memorizing the formulas and math facts, but didn’t really understand math, and therefore could not manipulate when needed.

It would probably also help if teachers were given in-depth training on curriculum and processes prior to roll-out, and themselves were math scholars, but that’s a different problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

Maybe i missed something. I re-read that edweek article but it does not say anything about AP participation and scores increase. It said "fewer are receiving D’s and F’s in Algebra 1. About a third more students are ready for calculus, and that pool is more diverse than it’s ever been."

Maybe I should not relate "AP participation and score" with AP score....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Due to COVID and learning losses, I've been told that MCPS is focusing on remediation, and that all students (even those in currently in compacted math) will be taking Math 6 in 6th grade, Math 7 in 7th, and Algebra in 8th. (I have a compacted math kid who is going into 6th next year). Are all schools following this pathway due to Covid? We were told the kids could double up Geometry and Algebra II in 9th grade to "catch up" to the old pathway.

This is incorrect and if your middle school presented this information, they are incorrect. AIM6 has not been eliminated but some schools are moving to eliminate it. It is true that schools may need to change the numbers typically enrolled. Content from each course has been reduced to 50-70% of a typical year. MCPS even published a public facing comment detailing what remains in the curriculums this year: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VT3NlSpH3Ytby5s16Vxs9HkEb7eI64wCQNzhY1jR0Ao/edit

In addition, there is increasing data that the acceleration through mathematics content is not benefiting students. San Francisco detracted and actually increased Ap participation and scores: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/a-bold-effort-to-end-algebra-tracking-shows-promise/2018/06

If your middle school is eliminating AIM6, they are going rogue.

Maybe i missed something. I re-read that edweek article but it does not say anything about AP participation and scores increase. It said "fewer are receiving D’s and F’s in Algebra 1. About a third more students are ready for calculus, and that pool is more diverse than it’s ever been."

Maybe I should not relate "AP participation and score" with AP score....

And if they do less testing they'll find fewer COVID cases too!

[Anonymous]

Has the actual proposal regarding the math pathway update been published anywhere?

I received a listserv post with questions, and seeking additional comments about the proposal, which is supposed to roll out within 2 weeks, but I can't make heads or tails of it because the proposal was not included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has the actual proposal regarding the math pathway update been published anywhere?

I received a listserv post with questions, and seeking additional comments about the proposal, which is supposed to roll out within 2 weeks, but I can't make heads or tails of it because the proposal was not included.

Our school said there will be AIM next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the actual proposal regarding the math pathway update been published anywhere?

I received a listserv post with questions, and seeking additional comments about the proposal, which is supposed to roll out within 2 weeks, but I can't make heads or tails of it because the proposal was not included.

Our school said there will be AIM next year.

Our school said in February that there will be AIM next year. However there was a recent communication from MCPS that the math course recommendations might change in April.

Would they really make my child who is assigned to AIM for next year and who is getting As in 5/6 math repeat Math 6 next year with kids who didn't take it yet? Makes no sense, but not much of MCPS does these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has the actual proposal regarding the math pathway update been published anywhere?

I received a listserv post with questions, and seeking additional comments about the proposal, which is supposed to roll out within 2 weeks, but I can't make heads or tails of it because the proposal was not included.

Our school said there will be AIM next year.

Our school said in February that there will be AIM next year. However there was a recent communication from MCPS that the math course recommendations might change in April.

Would they really make my child who is assigned to AIM for next year and who is getting As in 5/6 math repeat Math 6 next year with kids who didn't take it yet? Makes no sense, but not much of MCPS does these days.

We were told compacted math kids would do math 7 and then algebra in 8th. Then, we are now told they are having AIM. Either way its pre-algebra.