Compacted Math- FYI

[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.

Yes, it is.

[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.

PP here. I agree with that. For those currently in 4/5, they should either lower the percentile or allow their current teacher to make the determination. But 90th for current 3rd graders does seem reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. There are SO MANY advantages that some families have over others based on what they do outside school. Did you read to your child a ton when they were younger? Do you read in front of them? Do you have time to go over homework? Supervise them during DL to make sure that they are not goofing off? Of course some people are paying for tutoring. Others have parents who are very good at math and can help. Same with reading--some are getting tutors, doing Outschool classes, having involved parents. Whether you get acceleration in ELA/CES is also based on the MAP scores this year. The reason is that the test analyzes mastery of the material, so is a good proxy for whether a child is ready for acceleration.

[Anonymous]

I think the MAP score is the only objective measure they have. My DC’s compacted 4/5 doesn’t allow any retakes of assessments so there isn’t consistency across the county with grading. He has B’s which are fine with me, but that is without retaking anything. An A at one school is not the same at another. I’m also fine with him doing Math 5 next year. His MAP percentile went from the 90th to 80th over the course of this year so I know there are gaps to fill. I hope that they keep the criteria consistent and don’t bend to parental pressure. With a more rigid criteria, there will be many students not moving on, so those who don’t get into 5/6 won’t feel singled out that they couldn’t handle the increased pace. This will also have more high achieving kids in Math 5 which will lead to more enrichment. And thank you to the posters pointing out that calculus in 12th is a fine path for most kids. I didn’t realized that staying in the compacted track would mean calculus in 11th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. There are SO MANY advantages that some families have over others based on what they do outside school. Did you read to your child a ton when they were younger? Do you read in front of them? Do you have time to go over homework? Supervise them during DL to make sure that they are not goofing off? Of course some people are paying for tutoring. Others have parents who are very good at math and can help. Same with reading--some are getting tutors, doing Outschool classes, having involved parents. Whether you get acceleration in ELA/CES is also based on the MAP scores this year. The reason is that the test analyzes mastery of the material, so is a good proxy for whether a child is ready for acceleration.

And for all the reasons you suggest, standardized tests are the height of inequity. That inequity serves those who want to exclude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just left a meeting and was told that very few kids currently enrolled in Compacted 4/5 would move on to Compacted 5/6. There are strict guidelines coming from the county level and principals are not allowed around it. These include MAP scores and scores from performance matters testing. It sounds like around 30 total kids countywide will move on.

Compacted 4/5 will be decided on the county level. Don't expect many to get in.

A baseline MAP-M of roughly 220 is recommended moving to 5/6 so if few rising 5th graders have the scores ...

[Anonymous]

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

It's curious that the MS magnet lottery had a lower cutoff of 85%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's curious that the MS magnet lottery had a lower cutoff of 85%.

In today's MCPS the cutoff for Compacted Math is higher than magnet admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It's curious that the MS magnet lottery had a lower cutoff of 85%.

In today's MCPS the cutoff for Compacted Math is higher than magnet admissions.

They didn't use the same cutoff in all the schools. So in some schools magnet math cut-off was 85% and in others it was 98/99%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP here. There are SO MANY advantages that some families have over others based on what they do outside school. Did you read to your child a ton when they were younger? Do you read in front of them? Do you have time to go over homework? Supervise them during DL to make sure that they are not goofing off? Of course some people are paying for tutoring. Others have parents who are very good at math and can help. Same with reading--some are getting tutors, doing Outschool classes, having involved parents. Whether you get acceleration in ELA/CES is also based on the MAP scores this year. The reason is that the test analyzes mastery of the material, so is a good proxy for whether a child is ready for acceleration.

And for all the reasons you suggest, standardized tests are the height of inequity. That inequity serves those who want to exclude.

+1 A lot of folks don't get it, because it is what we grew up with, but the whole system of standardized testing was designed to keep people out of elite institutions. It might seem innocuous to give analogies about sailboats, but think about it for a minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 A lot of folks don't get it, because it is what we grew up with, but the whole system of standardized testing was designed to keep people out of elite institutions. It might seem innocuous to give analogies about sailboats, but think about it for a minute.

I think you're conflating math the language portions of standardized testing.

[Anonymous]

Math is improved by exposure to math like language is improved by exposure to language. It's just easier to make the leap in a language example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 A lot of folks don't get it, because it is what we grew up with, but the whole system of standardized testing was designed to keep people out of elite institutions. It might seem innocuous to give analogies about sailboats, but think about it for a minute.

I think you're conflating math the language portions of standardized testing.

No, PP. Please read up on the inherent inequities of standardized testing which include all topics. As others have noted, to succeed in getting the highest scores, particularly in this year, kids supplement classroom teaching through tutoring and/or parental instruction and/or special programs to enhance their scores. In addition, there are clearly parents, who know the drill; they know to prep because they know that these tests essentially cement a track for students from which many opportunities will be determined or denied. Not all parents have this insight or are as savvy. They don’t know the system.

Kids in lower SES groups are disadvantaged in this system. And in this year, when so many kids were doing DL at home while a parent had to work simultaneously or - as many kids in my DC’s Title I elementary school - were left in the care of an older sibling, sometimes not much older than the student (middle school or high school) these kids were especially left behind. Now we have the county suddenly raising the bar mid flight for kids who given the hard work and graded they put in, are earning As but may not have done as well on the MAP because they didn’t have the advantages of a parent or other resources to fill the gaps that math 4/5 didn’t cover in class. It’s outrageous. Sure, you want to start 3rd graders with a 90th threshold, then start that next year when - hopefully - kids will have a chance to regain any lost ground. The only people who support this nonsense are those who feel superior by excluding kids; it’s an ego boost. If a kid is getting As in 4/5 and thriving, they earn a spot in a 5/6 class. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 A lot of folks don't get it, because it is what we grew up with, but the whole system of standardized testing was designed to keep people out of elite institutions. It might seem innocuous to give analogies about sailboats, but think about it for a minute.

I think you're conflating math the language portions of standardized testing.

No, PP. Please read up on the inherent inequities of standardized testing which include all topics. As others have noted, to succeed in getting the highest scores, particularly in this year, kids supplement classroom teaching through tutoring and/or parental instruction and/or special programs to enhance their scores. In addition, there are clearly parents, who know the drill; they know to prep because they know that these tests essentially cement a track for students from which many opportunities will be determined or denied. Not all parents have this insight or are as savvy. They don’t know the system.

Kids in lower SES groups are disadvantaged in this system. And in this year, when so many kids were doing DL at home while a parent had to work simultaneously or - as many kids in my DC’s Title I elementary school - were left in the care of an older sibling, sometimes not much older than the student (middle school or high school) these kids were especially left behind. Now we have the county suddenly raising the bar mid flight for kids who given the hard work and graded they put in, are earning As but may not have done as well on the MAP because they didn’t have the advantages of a parent or other resources to fill the gaps that math 4/5 didn’t cover in class. It’s outrageous. Sure, you want to start 3rd graders with a 90th threshold, then start that next year when - hopefully - kids will have a chance to regain any lost ground. The only people who support this nonsense are those who feel superior by excluding kids; it’s an ego boost. If a kid is getting As in 4/5 and thriving, they earn a spot in a 5/6 class. Period.

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Let me introduce a relevant example of situations I am familiar with.

Kid A: Parents strictly enforce screen time limits, with no screen time allowed on weekdays. Purchased Beast Academy workbooks and require kid to complete an extra problem set each week. Parents check homework every day. In compacted math.

Kid B: Parents allow kid to play Minecraft 1-2 hours a day. No one checks on completion of homework. Not in compacted math.

Kid A is Black and parents are middle class. Kid B is white and parents are wealthy. Keeping in mind that these are real people that I know, I would love for you to explain to me how Kid A’s Black parents are committing inequality against Kid B. That extra work is producing results. Particularly with math, outside of the true geniuses, the kids that put in the work get the results and the standardized tests are a measure of the work that is put in. It is not inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 A lot of folks don't get it, because it is what we grew up with, but the whole system of standardized testing was designed to keep people out of elite institutions. It might seem innocuous to give analogies about sailboats, but think about it for a minute.

I think you're conflating math the language portions of standardized testing.

No, PP. Please read up on the inherent inequities of standardized testing which include all topics. As others have noted, to succeed in getting the highest scores, particularly in this year, kids supplement classroom teaching through tutoring and/or parental instruction and/or special programs to enhance their scores. In addition, there are clearly parents, who know the drill; they know to prep because they know that these tests essentially cement a track for students from which many opportunities will be determined or denied. Not all parents have this insight or are as savvy. They don’t know the system.

Kids in lower SES groups are disadvantaged in this system. And in this year, when so many kids were doing DL at home while a parent had to work simultaneously or - as many kids in my DC’s Title I elementary school - were left in the care of an older sibling, sometimes not much older than the student (middle school or high school) these kids were especially left behind. Now we have the county suddenly raising the bar mid flight for kids who given the hard work and graded they put in, are earning As but may not have done as well on the MAP because they didn’t have the advantages of a parent or other resources to fill the gaps that math 4/5 didn’t cover in class. It’s outrageous. Sure, you want to start 3rd graders with a 90th threshold, then start that next year when - hopefully - kids will have a chance to regain any lost ground. The only people who support this nonsense are those who feel superior by excluding kids; it’s an ego boost. If a kid is getting As in 4/5 and thriving, they earn a spot in a 5/6 class. Period.

I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. Let me introduce a relevant example of situations I am familiar with.

Kid A: Parents strictly enforce screen time limits, with no screen time allowed on weekdays. Purchased Beast Academy workbooks and require kid to complete an extra problem set each week. Parents check homework every day. In compacted math.

Kid B: Parents allow kid to play Minecraft 1-2 hours a day. No one checks on completion of homework. Not in compacted math.

Kid A is Black and parents are middle class. Kid B is white and parents are wealthy. Keeping in mind that these are real people that I know, I would love for you to explain to me how Kid A’s Black parents are committing inequality against Kid B. That extra work is producing results. Particularly with math, outside of the true geniuses, the kids that put in the work get the results and the standardized tests are a measure of the work that is put in. It is not inequality.

I think it's great for whoever wants to put in extra work outside school in math. It seems like the parents have a lot to do with it; and when we generalize, which I think we have to in this situation, a lot of the kids who aren't doing the extra work aren't doing it because their parents are poor and struggling. How many kids of their own volition would rather do Khan Academy? It's mostly parental push. Plus, shouldn't the school teach the accelerated math? Taking the course should be enough, right?