High MAP-M/compacted math eligibility-- how much of it is exposure/supplementation?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP. You sound kind of dumb to assume this SAHM’s kids aren’t the smartest or are borderline. And that borderline is a bad thing. Hope your kids are smarter than you. |
Anonymous
My kid didn't get any extra enrichment in math and was always scoring 95th-99th percentile in math and was placed in compacted. Our school did use reflect in 3rd grade to gets kids to learn their math facts, but that was it. I think it depends on the kid. Mine just seems to "get" math -- I have no idea where it comes from because I took logic in college for my quantitative requirement instead of taking math! |
Anonymous
She said herself her kids aren’t geniuses! So I don’t know why she thinks she’s qualified to opinion on how “the smartest” kids learn. That’s what I was responding to. Nor did I in any way say it’s bad to be on the borderline for the compacted math criteria. It’s just a fact - there are kids who are not going to be 85 percentile no matter what their parents do and kids who are going to be easily eligible no matter what their parents do. If you can’t possibly imagine that then that’s fine but maybe don’t brag about making your preschoolers do homework and think that’s why they aren’t afraid of learning new concepts (as if any kids are afraid of learning new concepts, WTAF). |
Anonymous
Which MAP test score is used for compacted math placement? Is it the end of the year third grade one? Or the winter one? |
Anonymous
+1 When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.) What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents. |
Anonymous
Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling. All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive! |
Anonymous
+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher). |
Anonymous
The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead. |
Anonymous
I have 2 kids, with the same wealthy privilege and special opportunities and classes that proletariat like you will never get. Guess what? One of them is 2 years more advanced than the other (age-adjusted), due to indifferences in ability and interest and effort in the subject. |
Anonymous
The point, and it's clear you do not wish it acknowledged, is that identification via MAP does not carry as much fidelity to the primary intent of such curricular programming -- provision of accelerated instruction to the highly able -- as other identification paradigms that incorporate a more ability-focused metric than simply relying on the more exposure-sensitive MAP, especially as best practices as expressed by MAP's NWEA creators suggest that this is the case. Continuing use of a MAP litmus, then, disproportionately under-identifies students with that ability but with lower than average resource levels, whether from teacher attention deficit due to a lack of a manageable in-school cohort, from a lack of effective access to outside enrichment or from a similar cause. Nobody, I think, is suggesting that those not as highly able but advanced due to such fortune of resource circumstance be excluded from acceleration, if desired. Instead, the thrust is to ensure that those with ability but with lesser resource circumstance are not disproportionately excluded from that which would tend to meet their need, turning a vicious cycle of underperformance vs. ability -> under-identification -> under-placement -> lesser learning opportunity -> underperformsnce vs. ability (again) into a more virtuous (or at least less vicious) one. Favoring the opposite might rightly be characterized as opportunity hoarding. |
Anonymous
Your kids are different, and with different interests, no joke? It doesn't follow that two children with similar interests and abilities will have the same identification outcome/access to publicly provided academic programming whether or not they have equivalent access to resources. And that's the point, too -- the system should be identifying and offering such programming to each of those two of putatively equivalent ability/interest on an equivalent basis. |
Anonymous
Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc. |
Anonymous
+1 It's additional exposure, not genius. With my older kid I did much more supplementation at home, and their math scores showed it. With my younger one, I haven't had the time, and their math scores show it. It's too bad that people conflate MAP scores with being gifted in math and that MCPS makes placement decisions based upon it. This is not what MAP was designed to do. |
Anonymous
A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level." The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small. Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks. Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217. 85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics. If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion. |
Anonymous
"Gifted" is 99+% ile, performing well 2+ years above grade level, getting scores that a average student never achieve, even in high school. Compacted Math 85%ile is not gifted; it is learning the grade level material well, which includes a collection of topics that are also in the next grade level standard because math curriculum "spirals", adding complexity and variation and combination to core topics, not just constantly adding new topics. |