Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fun fact. US math curriculum was reevaluated and rewritten in 1957 following the launch of Sputnik by UsSr. Advanced topics such as inequalities and linear algebra were introduced so that US can compete with Russian mathematicians. Now that the space race is over we can dumb down the curriculum. Russia teaches both Algebra and Geometry concurrently to all kids from grade 7 through 11.

This is done in the UK too. It seems more intuitive than switching back and forth between Algebra and Geometry from year to year.

I can't speak for the UK, and there may be some sense in teaching Algebra and Geometry concurrently, but anyone citing the Russian model needs to note that the Russian model is one that winnows kids at several points. Kids are tracked beginning in Form 1, and the amazing math and science instruction that people like to highlight is available primarily to those kids who were placed in the "top groups" at 6 years old. Needless to say, that tracking process is not perfect, as it is subject to both corruption and cheating, not to mention that it ignores kids who did not have access to early enrichment.

Basically, we don't have this system in the United States because it is fundamentally not how Americans view public education.

/a Russian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How having an almost perfect record in Math in 4th Grade connects to learning loss during the pandemic has not been announced.

This is the truly bothersome point for me. It’s because they said so. Or it’s because of some unshared information about how well, or not, students are doing in Algebra. Or it’s about some new educational studies about acceleration. I would like to hear how any of these lines in the sand connect to learning loss. If on Day 1 Principals, teachers, parents and students had been told “All As or else” many would have approached things differently this year; or at least would have been given the option of deciding whether it was worth the pandemic energy to them.

Math acceleration can be important to families for any number of reasons; there’s no reason to limit it as a scarce resource. Guaranteed it is not the reason MCPS kids are underperforming on standardized tests. Admin should leave it be.

This is weird. It is one thing to say that students are behind due to COVID, it is another to the-evaluate who should be in the class at a big picture level. Continuing on has never been a “thing” before. AND MCPS proposed getting rid of a Accelerated math in general earlier in the year, but changed course because parents freaked, so they promised it would continue. This seems like using COVID to shrink the accelerated numbers. If there’s a legitimate reason and evidence based plan to narrow access to acceleration, MCPS should expose it to some sunlight. Otherwise they look arbitrary, and like they’re hiding the ball with parents.

I absolutely think this is what is going on here. They are looking for a different way to get rid of the differentiation. The standard is so arbitrary and applying it in the "middle" of the curriculum makes no sense - unless you look at it through this lens.

I remember asking why there was no more enrichment after our school transitioned to Benchmark at the beginning of last year and was told that it was already above grade level so there was no need for additional enrichment.

And yet some schools have ELC! I’m sure some schools will figure out a way around this mandate and other schools will not. Lovely equity in MCPS.

The lack of uniformity in access to ELC is absolutely maddening. The "pilot" started years ago. It should be at all schools. They are using the pandemic as an excuse not to do so.

Yes! Very good point 2 of our 5 cluster Elementary schools have it. Ours does not. Very equitable. I’d love to know why they bother marking my kid as above grade level for reading. How can you tell? And what difference does it make if there is no enrichment?

The ELC has separate classes, so the kids who get it aren't just in pull-outs. The entire class is advanced and doing the same thing. So even if non-ELC schools use some of the same materials, it's definitely not the same thing as what the kids who have ELC get.

PP here - yes my kids friends are in it at other schools. Its hypocritical that it isn't in every school at this point. I don't understand what MCPS is doing - I came from an area of the country that used outcome based education and stayed on a concept until every child in the class understood it. It simply doesn't work, my brother was so bored he started causing issues in the classroom and he wasn't the only one. Differentiation is necessary at both ends of the spectrum. Kids learn at different rates, there is no good or bad in that as long as you are serving all groups of kids equitably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How having an almost perfect record in Math in 4th Grade connects to learning loss during the pandemic has not been announced.

This is the truly bothersome point for me. It’s because they said so. Or it’s because of some unshared information about how well, or not, students are doing in Algebra. Or it’s about some new educational studies about acceleration. I would like to hear how any of these lines in the sand connect to learning loss. If on Day 1 Principals, teachers, parents and students had been told “All As or else” many would have approached things differently this year; or at least would have been given the option of deciding whether it was worth the pandemic energy to them.

Math acceleration can be important to families for any number of reasons; there’s no reason to limit it as a scarce resource. Guaranteed it is not the reason MCPS kids are underperforming on standardized tests. Admin should leave it be.

This is weird. It is one thing to say that students are behind due to COVID, it is another to the-evaluate who should be in the class at a big picture level. Continuing on has never been a “thing” before. AND MCPS proposed getting rid of a Accelerated math in general earlier in the year, but changed course because parents freaked, so they promised it would continue. This seems like using COVID to shrink the accelerated numbers. If there’s a legitimate reason and evidence based plan to narrow access to acceleration, MCPS should expose it to some sunlight. Otherwise they look arbitrary, and like they’re hiding the ball with parents.

I absolutely think this is what is going on here. They are looking for a different way to get rid of the differentiation. The standard is so arbitrary and applying it in the "middle" of the curriculum makes no sense - unless you look at it through this lens.

I remember asking why there was no more enrichment after our school transitioned to Benchmark at the beginning of last year and was told that it was already above grade level so there was no need for additional enrichment.

What is happening with math now, aside from everyone in 4/5 bombarding their principal with questions because of this thread?

[Anonymous]

What is happening with math now, aside from everyone in 4/5 bombarding their principal with questions because of this thread?


Exactly what has been posted on this thread is what is happening. I am not sure what you are asking. As soon as we are done with Map testing and the 4th quarter Performance Matters testing, schools will notify parents about their child's 5th-grade math placement. Unless your child meets the 3 criteria, your letter will say Math 5. I'm not sure what else you are asking or if you had another question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How having an almost perfect record in Math in 4th Grade connects to learning loss during the pandemic has not been announced.

This is the truly bothersome point for me. It’s because they said so. Or it’s because of some unshared information about how well, or not, students are doing in Algebra. Or it’s about some new educational studies about acceleration. I would like to hear how any of these lines in the sand connect to learning loss. If on Day 1 Principals, teachers, parents and students had been told “All As or else” many would have approached things differently this year; or at least would have been given the option of deciding whether it was worth the pandemic energy to them.

Math acceleration can be important to families for any number of reasons; there’s no reason to limit it as a scarce resource. Guaranteed it is not the reason MCPS kids are underperforming on standardized tests. Admin should leave it be.

This is weird. It is one thing to say that students are behind due to COVID, it is another to the-evaluate who should be in the class at a big picture level. Continuing on has never been a “thing” before. AND MCPS proposed getting rid of a Accelerated math in general earlier in the year, but changed course because parents freaked, so they promised it would continue. This seems like using COVID to shrink the accelerated numbers. If there’s a legitimate reason and evidence based plan to narrow access to acceleration, MCPS should expose it to some sunlight. Otherwise they look arbitrary, and like they’re hiding the ball with parents.

I absolutely think this is what is going on here. They are looking for a different way to get rid of the differentiation. The standard is so arbitrary and applying it in the "middle" of the curriculum makes no sense - unless you look at it through this lens.

I remember asking why there was no more enrichment after our school transitioned to Benchmark at the beginning of last year and was told that it was already above grade level so there was no need for additional enrichment.

And yet some schools have ELC! I’m sure some schools will figure out a way around this mandate and other schools will not. Lovely equity in MCPS.

The lack of uniformity in access to ELC is absolutely maddening. The "pilot" started years ago. It should be at all schools. They are using the pandemic as an excuse not to do so.

Yes! Very good point 2 of our 5 cluster Elementary schools have it. Ours does not. Very equitable. I’d love to know why they bother marking my kid as above grade level for reading. How can you tell? And what difference does it make if there is no enrichment?

The ELC has separate classes, so the kids who get it aren't just in pull-outs. The entire class is advanced and doing the same thing. So even if non-ELC schools use some of the same materials, it's definitely not the same thing as what the kids who have ELC get.

PP here - yes my kids friends are in it at other schools. Its hypocritical that it isn't in every school at this point. I don't understand what MCPS is doing - I came from an area of the country that used outcome based education and stayed on a concept until every child in the class understood it. It simply doesn't work, my brother was so bored he started causing issues in the classroom and he wasn't the only one. Differentiation is necessary at both ends of the spectrum. Kids learn at different rates, there is no good or bad in that as long as you are serving all groups of kids equitably.

It depends on the school and grade. For 4/5 we had three classes in the grade. There was one compacted math, two regular math. They took the highest achieving kids and the parents who they knew would complain and filled in the spots with the rest.

[Anonymous]

Can any teachers/admins here confirm that a FALL 2020 90% MAP-M score is acceptable for meeting this new MAP-M piece of the requirements?

[Anonymous]

What are the criteria for a 3rd grader this year to go into 4/5 next year? Are they making that super tight to effectively eliminate it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How having an almost perfect record in Math in 4th Grade connects to learning loss during the pandemic has not been announced.

This is the truly bothersome point for me. It’s because they said so. Or it’s because of some unshared information about how well, or not, students are doing in Algebra. Or it’s about some new educational studies about acceleration. I would like to hear how any of these lines in the sand connect to learning loss. If on Day 1 Principals, teachers, parents and students had been told “All As or else” many would have approached things differently this year; or at least would have been given the option of deciding whether it was worth the pandemic energy to them.

Math acceleration can be important to families for any number of reasons; there’s no reason to limit it as a scarce resource. Guaranteed it is not the reason MCPS kids are underperforming on standardized tests. Admin should leave it be.

This is weird. It is one thing to say that students are behind due to COVID, it is another to the-evaluate who should be in the class at a big picture level. Continuing on has never been a “thing” before. AND MCPS proposed getting rid of a Accelerated math in general earlier in the year, but changed course because parents freaked, so they promised it would continue. This seems like using COVID to shrink the accelerated numbers. If there’s a legitimate reason and evidence based plan to narrow access to acceleration, MCPS should expose it to some sunlight. Otherwise they look arbitrary, and like they’re hiding the ball with parents.

I absolutely think this is what is going on here. They are looking for a different way to get rid of the differentiation. The standard is so arbitrary and applying it in the "middle" of the curriculum makes no sense - unless you look at it through this lens.

I remember asking why there was no more enrichment after our school transitioned to Benchmark at the beginning of last year and was told that it was already above grade level so there was no need for additional enrichment.

And yet some schools have ELC! I’m sure some schools will figure out a way around this mandate and other schools will not. Lovely equity in MCPS.

The lack of uniformity in access to ELC is absolutely maddening. The "pilot" started years ago. It should be at all schools. They are using the pandemic as an excuse not to do so.

Yes! Very good point 2 of our 5 cluster Elementary schools have it. Ours does not. Very equitable. I’d love to know why they bother marking my kid as above grade level for reading. How can you tell? And what difference does it make if there is no enrichment?

The ELC has separate classes, so the kids who get it aren't just in pull-outs. The entire class is advanced and doing the same thing. So even if non-ELC schools use some of the same materials, it's definitely not the same thing as what the kids who have ELC get.

PP here - yes my kids friends are in it at other schools. Its hypocritical that it isn't in every school at this point. I don't understand what MCPS is doing - I came from an area of the country that used outcome based education and stayed on a concept until every child in the class understood it. It simply doesn't work, my brother was so bored he started causing issues in the classroom and he wasn't the only one. Differentiation is necessary at both ends of the spectrum. Kids learn at different rates, there is no good or bad in that as long as you are serving all groups of kids equitably.

It depends on the school and grade. For 4/5 we had three classes in the grade. There was one compacted math, two regular math. They took the highest achieving kids and the parents who they knew would complain and filled in the spots with the rest.
Our ES did that. There was nothing that MCPS did that could have enraged me more. We had to pay for outside tutoring just to stay on grade level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:90% is 238 or higher for the end of 4th grade Map.

Where are you seeing that? It doesn't seem to equate to the scores I've seen. I'm looking at my older child's MAP on parentvue and it says a 236 was 95% for spring of 4th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, and if my uncoordinated 9th grader isn't allowed onto the varsity soccer team it will impact her chances of being selected for a Division I scholarship.

Except my kid isn't on the path for a D1 scholarship and I need to accept that in the same way that PP needs to accept that their 60th percentil math kid is not on their way to MIT and therefore not taking Linear Algebra in 12th is a moot point.

I'd like to thank whoever posted this for the best laugh I had all day.

(takes a bow)

But I'm serious! Not every kid is headed for Cal's math program and that's fine. It's one thing to advocate for your child to reach their potential. It's another to completely delude yourself about what your child's potential is.

No one is suggesting that my kid is going to MIT - least of all me. But if they thrive in 4/5 math, get straight As, and are viewed as doing well, then explain to me why my kid should be cut out because of one standardized test during the pandemic. It’s not like my child was struggling and it’s not like math is subjective, so no, detailing her at the mid point is bullsh*t. Not to mention that we’re a Title I school where only one class is 4/5 and many of my daughters classmates were in the care of siblings and friends over the last year, struggling to submit work online and all of the other challenges Kidd faced when their parents had to work out of the home but can’t afford a nanny or pod. They will hear from me.

[Anonymous]

I'd also note that last year the District wide mean for 6th graders was a 219, and going back a couple years (since I don't have fresh data), the District wide mean for kids in the fall of 7th grade was 226 (which includes the kids that are already in Algebra, which is Math 8).
So a kid that scores in the 220-225 range is already doing better that the average kid that has COMPLETED completed Math 5/6. Given that, it's a little ridiculous to say that kids need a 238 just to get INTO Math 5/6. 219 or 2220 seems like a much fairer cut-off than 238, if they want to use a cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fun fact. US math curriculum was reevaluated and rewritten in 1957 following the launch of Sputnik by UsSr. Advanced topics such as inequalities and linear algebra were introduced so that US can compete with Russian mathematicians. Now that the space race is over we can dumb down the curriculum. Russia teaches both Algebra and Geometry concurrently to all kids from grade 7 through 11.

This is done in the UK too. It seems more intuitive than switching back and forth between Algebra and Geometry from year to year.

I can't speak for the UK, and there may be some sense in teaching Algebra and Geometry concurrently, but anyone citing the Russian model needs to note that the Russian model is one that winnows kids at several points. Kids are tracked beginning in Form 1, and the amazing math and science instruction that people like to highlight is available primarily to those kids who were placed in the "top groups" at 6 years old. Needless to say, that tracking process is not perfect, as it is subject to both corruption and cheating, not to mention that it ignores kids who did not have access to early enrichment.

Basically, we don't have this system in the United States because it is fundamentally not how Americans view public education.

/a Russian

There is no tracking in Russia at all. All kids start school at 7 and continue for 11 years. Everyone is on the same track unless they are in private school or special schools with math/physics emphasis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is happening with math now, aside from everyone in 4/5 bombarding their principal with questions because of this thread?

Exactly what has been posted on this thread is what is happening. I am not sure what you are asking. As soon as we are done with Map testing and the 4th quarter Performance Matters testing, schools will notify parents about their child's 5th-grade math placement. Unless your child meets the 3 criteria, your letter will say Math 5. I'm not sure what else you are asking or if you had another question.

I think the question is: Is MCPS going to announce the math curriculum change they have been talking about announcing for months or a pandemic recovery plan or anything? Or are they too busy focusing on how to mess with 4th Graders in math 4/5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:90% is 238 or higher for the end of 4th grade Map.

Where are you seeing that? It doesn't seem to equate to the scores I've seen. I'm looking at my older child's MAP on parentvue and it says a 236 was 95% for spring of 4th grade.

The 2020 NWEA norms say 230 is a spring 99%ile for 4th Grade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is happening with math now, aside from everyone in 4/5 bombarding their principal with questions because of this thread?

Exactly what has been posted on this thread is what is happening. I am not sure what you are asking. As soon as we are done with Map testing and the 4th quarter Performance Matters testing, schools will notify parents about their child's 5th-grade math placement. Unless your child meets the 3 criteria, your letter will say Math 5. I'm not sure what else you are asking or if you had another question.

I think the question is: Is MCPS going to announce the math curriculum change they have been talking about announcing for months or a pandemic recovery plan or anything? Or are they too busy focusing on how to mess with 4th Graders in math 4/5?

Our MS said no changes but the names of the classes may change with the new curriculum. So there will be AIM or AIM equivalent. Kids who weren't in compacted math are allowed in AIM if wanting to try it or ready.