Who should do Compacted Math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should not working to get into Compacted Math. They should either be math loving kids who are excelling and need the acceleration or kids who for whatever reason are grasping the concepts easily and new enrichment/accleration.

As others mentioned thinking ahead and paying attention to how kids are doing each year is critical. Because what seems easy in 4th grade, starts to really become a lot of necessary concepts to grasp and have solid foundation of each year.

As someone else noted the criteria for entry and staying is becoming stricter, because MCPS wants to see kids doing well all the way through, particularly in Alg1 and Alg2. This means Profecieny or Distinguished on the MCAP.

Almost no one gets Distinguished on MCAP, not even kids winning national extra curricular math recognition a year or two above grade level.

MCAP scale is ridiculous and opaque

That's why they are looking to replace MCAP in 2026-2027.
MCAP is a terrible test.

The test is fine. I've taken a sample test. The scoring is woo.

Agree. That said only about 25% of kids are being listed as Proficient state wide when exiting ES and scores on District assessments weren’t necessarily stellar so I can see why MCPS is making the CM standard stricter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should not working to get into Compacted Math. They should either be math loving kids who are excelling and need the acceleration or kids who for whatever reason are grasping the concepts easily and new enrichment/accleration.

As others mentioned thinking ahead and paying attention to how kids are doing each year is critical. Because what seems easy in 4th grade, starts to really become a lot of necessary concepts to grasp and have solid foundation of each year.

As someone else noted the criteria for entry and staying is becoming stricter, because MCPS wants to see kids doing well all the way through, particularly in Alg1 and Alg2. This means Profecieny or Distinguished on the MCAP.

Almost no one gets Distinguished on MCAP, not even kids winning national extra curricular math recognition a year or two above grade level.

MCAP scale is ridiculous and opaque

That's why they are looking to replace MCAP in 2026-2027.
MCAP is a terrible test.

Do you have a source that the state is replacing MCAP? -DP

[Anonymous]

The reason there are so many threads on this is that it's a really difficult thing to figure out!

I'll tell you my experience, but it won't make people happy because it adds ambiguity and runs counter to the typical advice not to push your borderline kid into it because it will drag down the class.

My kid was not recommended for compacted math for 4th grade. DH and I went in and spoke to an administrator about why not and found out that her scores were borderline but below the threshold. (For reference, she had kind of struggled in 2nd but done well in 3rd; she has a July bday so youngish for grade).

We were given the option to put her into it and decided to try it. She thrived. Did well in compacted math but more importantly, has had high As in MS and now has an A as a sophomore in honors pre-calc.

I'm so glad we took the leap to challenge her. She literally never had trouble in compacted math or anything after (so far). Will probably do BC calc as a junior.

A lot of the compacted math decision is just readiness. There's kind of a tipping point on various math (and also reading) concepts, and once kids get past the tipping point, they just 'get' it. People will tell you there are routes to move up a level even if you don't start out in compacted math. I don't know about those, but I'm guessing they take some assertiveness on the part of the parent so I'm pleased with the route we took.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason there are so many threads on this is that it's a really difficult thing to figure out!

I'll tell you my experience, but it won't make people happy because it adds ambiguity and runs counter to the typical advice not to push your borderline kid into it because it will drag down the class.

My kid was not recommended for compacted math for 4th grade. DH and I went in and spoke to an administrator about why not and found out that her scores were borderline but below the threshold. (For reference, she had kind of struggled in 2nd but done well in 3rd; she has a July bday so youngish for grade).

We were given the option to put her into it and decided to try it. She thrived. Did well in compacted math but more importantly, has had high As in MS and now has an A as a sophomore in honors pre-calc.

I'm so glad we took the leap to challenge her. She literally never had trouble in compacted math or anything after (so far). Will probably do BC calc as a junior.

A lot of the compacted math decision is just readiness. There's kind of a tipping point on various math (and also reading) concepts, and once kids get past the tipping point, they just 'get' it. People will tell you there are routes to move up a level even if you don't start out in compacted math. I don't know about those, but I'm guessing they take some assertiveness on the part of the parent so I'm pleased with the route we took.

Nearly everyone gets an A in these classes. How’s that “more important” to you than anything else?

[Anonymous]

I have a 7th grader who was in CM and a 5th grader who is in it now. While I don't regret CM for elementary school, I totally regret the track it put my 7th grader on for math in MS (and high school as a result). He's in Algebra now and last year's AIM class was just so ridiculously fast-paced. They missed so much and were rushed through all of it. I will ask for my 5th grader to be in AMP 6+ instead -- it's a more reasonable pace and the HS outcome is far less daunting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason there are so many threads on this is that it's a really difficult thing to figure out!

I'll tell you my experience, but it won't make people happy because it adds ambiguity and runs counter to the typical advice not to push your borderline kid into it because it will drag down the class.

My kid was not recommended for compacted math for 4th grade. DH and I went in and spoke to an administrator about why not and found out that her scores were borderline but below the threshold. (For reference, she had kind of struggled in 2nd but done well in 3rd; she has a July bday so youngish for grade).

We were given the option to put her into it and decided to try it. She thrived. Did well in compacted math but more importantly, has had high As in MS and now has an A as a sophomore in honors pre-calc.

I'm so glad we took the leap to challenge her. She literally never had trouble in compacted math or anything after (so far). Will probably do BC calc as a junior.

A lot of the compacted math decision is just readiness. There's kind of a tipping point on various math (and also reading) concepts, and once kids get past the tipping point, they just 'get' it. People will tell you there are routes to move up a level even if you don't start out in compacted math. I don't know about those, but I'm guessing they take some assertiveness on the part of the parent so I'm pleased with the route we took.

Nearly everyone gets an A in these classes. How’s that “more important” to you than anything else?

Who keeps the myth up. No nearly everyone does not get A's in math and certainly not Honors Pre-Cal which is known to be a difficult course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compacted skips over lessons and has less homework for each lesson because of the faster pace. If your kid does not have a good foundation, this may not be ideal, and kid will likely struggle in higher level math; if your kid is already accelerated, then it is fine.

Compacted doesn’t really skip over lessons as much as it just teaches a concept at a higher level the first time through and has less spiraling. So whereas the regular curriculum may have do a new concept every two days and review on the fifth day, compacted math might do a new lesson or two every day.

This is not true; 5/6 math for example, right now in module 6, skips three entire topics (Topics C, E, and F), and 4 lessons from the topics it does cover. The county allows 10 days for this module. All of the modules skips some lessons, combine others, and the pacing is fast. My experience is that many kids can handle the content/curriculum, but the pacing is what's hard for them, especially because there isn't as much "spiraling" as the on-grade level classes.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there's fast-teaching and there's skipping concepts, both apply to compacted math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, there's fast-teaching and there's skipping concepts, both apply to compacted math.

The spiral nature of the curriculum, even across the two vendors for 5/6, allows for minimal concept-skipping with the compaction, especially when viewed over the entire course of expected study prior to Algebra rather than viewed as a single year's content. MCPS spent considerable effort (well, considerable in the realm of that afforded to curriculum, anyway) to make that happen, as the purchased curriculum didn't offer such elementary acceleration out of the box.

The concept gap can happen more when moving from 5/6 in 5th to 7+ in 6th. Some schools have taken measures to address that. Parkland, for instance, has a rejiggered AIM based on the Illustrative Math AMP 7+ curriculum (instead of the old C 2.0 curriculum that left its own gaps with the newer IM Algebra course), but that additionally squeezes in the gap content back in and makes an attempt to "go deeper." Their terming it "AIM," though, is something of a misnomer -- it's better than the C2.0 AIM, but some parents and staff cling to that name as if it is a gold standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason there are so many threads on this is that it's a really difficult thing to figure out!

I'll tell you my experience, but it won't make people happy because it adds ambiguity and runs counter to the typical advice not to push your borderline kid into it because it will drag down the class.

My kid was not recommended for compacted math for 4th grade. DH and I went in and spoke to an administrator about why not and found out that her scores were borderline but below the threshold. (For reference, she had kind of struggled in 2nd but done well in 3rd; she has a July bday so youngish for grade).

We were given the option to put her into it and decided to try it. She thrived. Did well in compacted math but more importantly, has had high As in MS and now has an A as a sophomore in honors pre-calc.

I'm so glad we took the leap to challenge her. She literally never had trouble in compacted math or anything after (so far). Will probably do BC calc as a junior.

A lot of the compacted math decision is just readiness. There's kind of a tipping point on various math (and also reading) concepts, and once kids get past the tipping point, they just 'get' it. People will tell you there are routes to move up a level even if you don't start out in compacted math. I don't know about those, but I'm guessing they take some assertiveness on the part of the parent so I'm pleased with the route we took.

Nearly everyone gets an A in these classes. How’s that “more important” to you than anything else?

Who keeps the myth up. No nearly everyone does not get A's in math and certainly not Honors Pre-Cal which is known to be a difficult course.

+1

[Anonymous]

My mathy kid is grown now, so I don’t know what the current version of compacted math is like. Moreover, from my general experience, I suspect it varies significantly due to teacher differences.

Whether or not you decide to pursue compacted math, my advice is to encourage your son’s interest in math, but to aim for enrichment, rather than acceleration. This might look like logic puzzles, Problems of the Week, tooics that aren’t covered in the standard curriculum, etc., not to mention real-life applications. I wrote a lengthy post in May about supplementing math for a 3rd grader, and since I’ve had problems with broken links when I try to copy posts, I’ll just link to the previous thread.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1203214.page

Programming is also great for kids who like math. The child from the other thread was already doing Python, but I generally recommend Scratch for beginners. Scratch was designed by MIT to teach kids how to program and is free.
https://scratch.mit.edu/parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, there's fast-teaching and there's skipping concepts, both apply to compacted math.

The spiral nature of the curriculum, even across the two vendors for 5/6, for minimal concept-skipping with the compaction, especially when viewed over the entire course of expected study prior to Algebra rather than viewed as a single year's content. MCPS spent considerable effort (well, considerable in the realm of that afforded to curriculum, anyway) to make that happen, as the purchased curriculum didn't offer such elementary acceleration out of the box.

The concept gap can happen more when moving from 5/6 in 5th to 7+ in 6th. Some schools have taken measures to address that. Parkland, for instance, has a rejiggered AIM based on the Illustrative Math AMP 7+ curriculum (instead of the old C 2.0 curriculum that left its own gaps with the newer IM Algebra course), but that additionally squeezes in the gap content back in and makes an attempt to "go deeper." Their terming it "AIM," though, is something of a misnomer -- it's better than the C2.0 AIM, but some parents and staff cling to that name as if it is a gold standard.

+1. Our MS is doing the same for the compacted 6th graders now in AIM They start with a module(s) to get in the missed 7th grade content and then begin using the AMP7+ and go deeper.

[Anonymous]

Agreed with PPs that what happens in grade 6 is where things get tricky. My 7th grader is having a _much_ easier time with algebra than they did with whatever was contained in whatever they did in grade 6 (I think it was AMP 7 something - anyway, it was hard).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, there's fast-teaching and there's skipping concepts, both apply to compacted math.

The spiral nature of the curriculum, even across the two vendors for 5/6, allows for minimal concept-skipping with the compaction, especially when viewed over the entire course of expected study prior to Algebra rather than viewed as a single year's content. MCPS spent considerable effort (well, considerable in the realm of that afforded to curriculum, anyway) to make that happen, as the purchased curriculum didn't offer such elementary acceleration out of the box.

The concept gap can happen more when moving from 5/6 in 5th to 7+ in 6th. Some schools have taken measures to address that. Parkland, for instance, has a rejiggered AIM based on the Illustrative Math AMP 7+ curriculum (instead of the old C 2.0 curriculum that left its own gaps with the newer IM Algebra course), but that additionally squeezes in the gap content back in and makes an attempt to "go deeper." Their terming it "AIM," though, is something of a misnomer -- it's better than the C2.0 AIM, but some parents and staff cling to that name as if it is a gold standard.

5/6 doesn’t use Illustrative math. It is all Eureka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, there's fast-teaching and there's skipping concepts, both apply to compacted math.

The spiral nature of the curriculum, even across the two vendors for 5/6, allows for minimal concept-skipping with the compaction, especially when viewed over the entire course of expected study prior to Algebra rather than viewed as a single year's content. MCPS spent considerable effort (well, considerable in the realm of that afforded to curriculum, anyway) to make that happen, as the purchased curriculum didn't offer such elementary acceleration out of the box.

The concept gap can happen more when moving from 5/6 in 5th to 7+ in 6th. Some schools have taken measures to address that. Parkland, for instance, has a rejiggered AIM based on the Illustrative Math AMP 7+ curriculum (instead of the old C 2.0 curriculum that left its own gaps with the newer IM Algebra course), but that additionally squeezes in the gap content back in and makes an attempt to "go deeper." Their terming it "AIM," though, is something of a misnomer -- it's better than the C2.0 AIM, but some parents and staff cling to that name as if it is a gold standard.

5/6 doesn’t use Illustrative math. It is all Eureka.

The 5/6 compaction I have seen from 2 years ago through this year has utilized modules from Eureka 5th & Illustrative Math 6th. It could be all Eureka in some schools, I suppose, with the lack of strict standardization across MCPS, but that would have schools and central duplicating the effort to create the compaction. It also might create greater discontinuity with the various middle school Illustrative Math options, whether 6+, 7 or 7+, though it might be that common core results in there being little difference.