MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calling out the crazy "1-4-5" and 2-3-4" slide. What happens when a Group 1 kid wants to move up to Group 2?

I think it's just a mistake and MCPS won't admit it.

I'm sad no one called out all the bad math on the Canva decorative image.

That's the Silver-haired vixen Stewart.

[Anonymous]

This is confusing AF. I’m so glad my kids are in MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Are we going to talk about that we cluster math kids into these groups 5 levels total, 3 levels per class, then we're going to have the "smart class" and the "dumb class" in the same grade?

That's going to make English/science look different.

Sounds like tracking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lowering expectations is deciding a kid's math potential at grade 3

But that doesn't happen. Kids move up or down based on performance and readiness.

[Anonymous]

Stewart calling out lack of data for before/after Covid comparison.

The "Grade 10/11/10" typo is back on display.

MCPS lady is talking up the groups idea, which is OK, but ignoring the possibility that you could have the groups within Compacted Math!

Stewart also mentioning the absence of Precalc->CalcBC

[Anonymous]

No they don't. Math is cumulative and that is bs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lowering expectations is deciding a kid's math potential at grade 3

I don't know if you are trolling or just don't know what's up.

Under the current system, a child who was "missed" in the first round of identification can:

* be recommended for Math 5/6 in 5th grade even if they did not do Math 4/5

* be recommended for IM in 6th grade even if they did not do Math 5/6

* Choose to take Geometry and Pre-Calculus in a single year to "catch up" to the advanced track in 9th grade

* Choose to take Calculus BC after Pre-Calculus

There are on- and off-ramps and pretending they are not makes me wonder if you've ever even seen the mathways.

[Anonymous]

"MCPS is an outlier for how early we accelerate."

Gosh, I wonder why that is? Is it related to the outlier academic performance in our county ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lowering expectations is deciding a kid's math potential at grade 3

I don't know if you are trolling or just don't know what's up.

Under the current system, a child who was "missed" in the first round of identification can:

* be recommended for Math 5/6 in 5th grade even if they did not do Math 4/5

* be recommended for IM in 6th grade even if they did not do Math 5/6

* Choose to take Geometry and Pre-Calculus in a single year to "catch up" to the advanced track in 9th grade

* Choose to take Calculus BC after Pre-Calculus

There are on- and off-ramps and pretending they are not makes me wonder if you've ever even seen the mathways.

+100

[Anonymous]

I still totally cannot picture how a teacher teaches 3-levels of math in one classroom. Isn't it reducing the education for every student?

[Anonymous]

Stewart: "Some of our highly gifted kids are 2E (gifted + disabled in some way), but not labelled as such".

MCPS Niki Porter: "We are not taking Algebra in 7 way, and some ealrier"

MCPS lady: "We do course-advance students during the year" Huh? but you didn't say that's going to happen in future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still totally cannot picture how a teacher teaches 3-levels of math in one classroom. Isn't it reducing the education for every student?

YES

[Anonymous]

Montoya up!

[Anonymous]

I'm so happy the board seems to be pushing back on this. But MCPS is going to implement this regardless.

[Anonymous]

I doubt the theoretical "math pathways" are really that accessible or used.

What tiny percentage of kids use them to move up?

Sounds like if anything kids need to use them to move down, but don't