Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

I'm guessing a lot of parents will be taking the the MAP-R for their kids...

[Anonymous]

If the scores reflect that students didn’t have the chance to cover all the topics tested in the MAP it suggests that students who did well were receiving outside instruction and/or have a natural aptitude that transcends formal instruction. If they were receiving outside / supplemental instruction, good for them. But that obviously creates an equity issue and seems patently unfair to children who did well in the topics covered and May, in fact, have the ability to be in the 90th percentile, but didn’t have the outside support (perhaps because parents can’t provide or weren’t aware of the criticality of that support) to overcome what wasn’t covered in class. Either way, MCPS doing this after a year of remote learning stinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing a lot of parents will be taking the the MAP-R for their kids...

I mean, apparently if you’re not, you’re not doing parenting right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would also be helpful if someone would identify the Central Office person that is in charge of this, so s/he can receive feedback and not just the poor principals who are in the middle of this mess. Is it Nicki Hazel, Associate Superintendent, [e-mail] ??

I think I saw her talking about it at one of the BOE meetings, but am not 100% sure.

Agreed. I am not blaming our principal or teacher - this is a central office decision and they will absolutely hear from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the scores reflect that students didn’t have the chance to cover all the topics tested in the MAP it suggests that students who did well were receiving outside instruction and/or have a natural aptitude that transcends formal instruction. If they were receiving outside / supplemental instruction, good for them. But that obviously creates an equity issue and seems patently unfair to children who did well in the topics covered and May, in fact, have the ability to be in the 90th percentile, but didn’t have the outside support (perhaps because parents can’t provide or weren’t aware of the criticality of that support) to overcome what wasn’t covered in class. Either way, MCPS doing this after a year of remote learning stinks.

Please raise your concern to the Board of Ed and/or the Assistant super listed above. They are trying to do this in secret, and shedding light and raising voices is the only way to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to the teachers who have posted on this thread to help shed light on secretive actions of MCPS central administration. Ultinaey, they can make justified educational choices, but they should do it in public, not behind closed doors and with a strong evidentiary foundation when it can have serious impact on trajectory if kids.

[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.

I agree with most everything here except I disagree that outside work improving scores is a problem for the MAP-M.

It’s a rather object test that measures knowledge/attainment. Where you get that knowledge from should not be a concern. I know kids that kid to watch Khan Academy videos for fun. I think it’s better, specifically for math, to place students at the proper level.

I usually am very critical and circumspect about MCPS, but in this case I think they are making the right call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the scores reflect that students didn’t have the chance to cover all the topics tested in the MAP it suggests that students who did well were receiving outside instruction and/or have a natural aptitude that transcends formal instruction. If they were receiving outside / supplemental instruction, good for them. But that obviously creates an equity issue and seems patently unfair to children who did well in the topics covered and May, in fact, have the ability to be in the 90th percentile, but didn’t have the outside support (perhaps because parents can’t provide or weren’t aware of the criticality of that support) to overcome what wasn’t covered in class. Either way, MCPS doing this after a year of remote learning stinks.

I honestly do not understand or comprehend the suggestion that “outside instruction” is an equity problem.

[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.

MCPS is looking down the road. A child who is scoring in the 70th percentile in 4th grade is probably not going to be ready for Algebra in 7th. Kids who are scoring in 90th percentile and up are not doing so based on prepping - they have mastered the material and are ready for the next thing. Yes, maybe some are getting tutoring but the kids getting PREPPED are in the 99th percentile. The kids in the 91st or so, who are ready for 5/6? Those are just kids who have mastered the work in front of them.

Folks are being very myopic on this thread. If MCPS holds itself to this standard, a lot of kids are going to be in Math 5 next year rather than 5/6. That means they will enter middle school with a strong grounding to prepare them for Pre-Algebra in 7th and Algebra in 8th. That is a perfectly acceptable track and is, in fact, the "advanced" track in many other parts of the country. Why not take that extra year and do Algebra in 8th with the rest of the United States?

Don't let your ego about your kid being "one of the smart ones" get in the way of an actual math track that will give them the grounding they need to succeed down the road in middle and high school.

90th percentile seems reasonable, but what OP originally posted was off-the-charts, and that is what people seemed to be reacting to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS is looking down the road. A child who is scoring in the 70th percentile in 4th grade is probably not going to be ready for Algebra in 7th. Kids who are scoring in 90th percentile and up are not doing so based on prepping - they have mastered the material and are ready for the next thing. Yes, maybe some are getting tutoring but the kids getting PREPPED are in the 99th percentile. The kids in the 91st or so, who are ready for 5/6? Those are just kids who have mastered the work in front of them.

Folks are being very myopic on this thread. If MCPS holds itself to this standard, a lot of kids are going to be in Math 5 next year rather than 5/6. That means they will enter middle school with a strong grounding to prepare them for Pre-Algebra in 7th and Algebra in 8th. That is a perfectly acceptable track and is, in fact, the "advanced" track in many other parts of the country. Why not take that extra year and do Algebra in 8th with the rest of the United States?

Don't let your ego about your kid being "one of the smart ones" get in the way of an actual math track that will give them the grounding they need to succeed down the road in middle and high school.

90th percentile seems reasonable, but what OP originally posted was off-the-charts, and that is what people seemed to be reacting to.

As a point of entry, I don't think it is unreasonable, but as a point of continuation, I don't think they should use.a strict test of all As, all 4s/5s and and 90 %. It causes bad consequences for some good students that would do very well continuing on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the scores reflect that students didn’t have the chance to cover all the topics tested in the MAP it suggests that students who did well were receiving outside instruction and/or have a natural aptitude that transcends formal instruction. If they were receiving outside / supplemental instruction, good for them. But that obviously creates an equity issue and seems patently unfair to children who did well in the topics covered and May, in fact, have the ability to be in the 90th percentile, but didn’t have the outside support (perhaps because parents can’t provide or weren’t aware of the criticality of that support) to overcome what wasn’t covered in class. Either way, MCPS doing this after a year of remote learning stinks.

I honestly do not understand or comprehend the suggestion that “outside instruction” is an equity problem.

Sure it is. If you have money, time, resources, and an insider perspective of how these tests really work and what they dictate (your child’s opportunities and educational track), then you are at an advantage that those who don’t have the aforementioned aren’t. That’s an equity problem.

Moreover, our teachers present MAP tests as some benign pulse check on student progress, not a tool that literally determines your child’s educational opportunities. That’s a transparency problem, particularly when in my DC’s case we’ve been told how magnificently he’s doing in compacted math and that he has an aptitude for math. So why is he merely at 68th percentile despite getting As in every math subject covered this year? If his low score is a result of the fact, which apparently it is, that the school didn’t flag that some of the MAP content wasn’t covered in class and so parents should make it up outside of school - that’s inherently a disadvantage.

I’m confident my kid isn’t alone. The PPs who are crowing about how excluding kids make sense just enjoy being exclusionary; their kids are in. They enjoy that others are left out - even kids who could succeed and thrive at math 5/6 if given the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS is looking down the road. A child who is scoring in the 70th percentile in 4th grade is probably not going to be ready for Algebra in 7th. Kids who are scoring in 90th percentile and up are not doing so based on prepping - they have mastered the material and are ready for the next thing. Yes, maybe some are getting tutoring but the kids getting PREPPED are in the 99th percentile. The kids in the 91st or so, who are ready for 5/6? Those are just kids who have mastered the work in front of them.

Folks are being very myopic on this thread. If MCPS holds itself to this standard, a lot of kids are going to be in Math 5 next year rather than 5/6. That means they will enter middle school with a strong grounding to prepare them for Pre-Algebra in 7th and Algebra in 8th. That is a perfectly acceptable track and is, in fact, the "advanced" track in many other parts of the country. Why not take that extra year and do Algebra in 8th with the rest of the United States?

Don't let your ego about your kid being "one of the smart ones" get in the way of an actual math track that will give them the grounding they need to succeed down the road in middle and high school.

90th percentile seems reasonable, but what OP originally posted was off-the-charts, and that is what people seemed to be reacting to.

As a point of entry, I don't think it is unreasonable, but as a point of continuation, I don't think they should use.a strict test of all As, all 4s/5s and and 90 %. It causes bad consequences for some good students that would do very well continuing on track.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS is looking down the road. A child who is scoring in the 70th percentile in 4th grade is probably not going to be ready for Algebra in 7th. Kids who are scoring in 90th percentile and up are not doing so based on prepping - they have mastered the material and are ready for the next thing. Yes, maybe some are getting tutoring but the kids getting PREPPED are in the 99th percentile. The kids in the 91st or so, who are ready for 5/6? Those are just kids who have mastered the work in front of them.

Folks are being very myopic on this thread. If MCPS holds itself to this standard, a lot of kids are going to be in Math 5 next year rather than 5/6. That means they will enter middle school with a strong grounding to prepare them for Pre-Algebra in 7th and Algebra in 8th. That is a perfectly acceptable track and is, in fact, the "advanced" track in many other parts of the country. Why not take that extra year and do Algebra in 8th with the rest of the United States?

Don't let your ego about your kid being "one of the smart ones" get in the way of an actual math track that will give them the grounding they need to succeed down the road in middle and high school.

I don´t think I hear a lot of concern about kids being the ¨smart ones¨ on this thread. I hear concern about kids who are doing the work who will be set back on their track based on testing. Nobody likes a cut score, because everyone´s circumstances are different. Also, MCPS is using the pandemic to change philosophy about acceleration. They have gone from ¨the more the merrier, let´s put all of College Gardens into 4/5¨ to performance based measures - ¨we will cut you from the course if you don´t perform." We just want kids to learn the math, right?

I really don't think this is a dramatic change, though. It only feels that way because we were all prepped by a troll to expect a cut-off of 251 so everyone was watching the thread and freaking out. What MCPS is saying this year is not that different than what MCPS said the year my oldest started compacted math. High MAP scores + good grades in the existing math class. I can't remember the exact cut-off for compacted, but I do think it matters a lot that the curriculum has been dramatically scaled back this year. A child getting As on a reduced curriculum just isn't ready to pick up the 5/6 curriculum next year as though nothing happened.

I also think MCPS may be realizing they made a mistake with the College Gardens approach. That cohort is this year's 7th graders unless I'm mistaken. That's just about the right time for MCPS to figure out that the "more is better" approach has produced some kids who are not ready for Algebra because they lack the foundational skills.

What is the College Gardens approach?

[Anonymous]

Is the cutoff 90th percentile nationwide or 90th percentile for MCPS (which would be a higher nationwide cutoff)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS is looking down the road. A child who is scoring in the 70th percentile in 4th grade is probably not going to be ready for Algebra in 7th. Kids who are scoring in 90th percentile and up are not doing so based on prepping - they have mastered the material and are ready for the next thing. Yes, maybe some are getting tutoring but the kids getting PREPPED are in the 99th percentile. The kids in the 91st or so, who are ready for 5/6? Those are just kids who have mastered the work in front of them.

Folks are being very myopic on this thread. If MCPS holds itself to this standard, a lot of kids are going to be in Math 5 next year rather than 5/6. That means they will enter middle school with a strong grounding to prepare them for Pre-Algebra in 7th and Algebra in 8th. That is a perfectly acceptable track and is, in fact, the "advanced" track in many other parts of the country. Why not take that extra year and do Algebra in 8th with the rest of the United States?

Don't let your ego about your kid being "one of the smart ones" get in the way of an actual math track that will give them the grounding they need to succeed down the road in middle and high school.

90th percentile seems reasonable, but what OP originally posted was off-the-charts, and that is what people seemed to be reacting to.

An earlier PP explained that. The guidance changed between Thursday and Friday. For all we know, it was this board that helped change it. There was a 12:30 meeting and at that meeting it was determined that the numbers were unreasonable and new guidelines would be presented by the end of the day. If things could be changed that quickly, it seems like one person is making all decisions (normally it takes forever for any decisions to be made). I think this should be brought to the BOE or at least be more considered by more impacted groups such as principals, teachers, and parents.