6th grade pre-algebra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.

MC doesn't want kids from Calc BC directly to MVC as they want you to take calc with them. MCPS doesn't tell you this when you choose your math path. MVC is only at select schools so the only option is AP stat's. MCPS needs to offer MVC at all schools.

In many schools there are not enough students to form a class. They should offer it virtually though if it’s not at a school.

If there are very few at a school, then absolutely they should be offering it virtually. And nobody should be dissuading students from accessing them for reasons of cohort size/school resource management.

But they also should be trying to encourage equitable participation by affording extra resources to schools which haven't typically offered those classes when they have fewer students than they usually would need to hold a class but more than a handful. In the greater scheme of things, the virtuous cycle of interest/adoption it would create might be more cost effective than many other equity-aiming initiatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of geometry on the SAT? It seems like a bad idea to remove geometry content from the curriculum for students planning to take the SAT...

I think it’ll be fine for SATs - the parts they slimmed down are more for Calc kids who will be doing proofs etc. But hopefully MCPS beefs up Precalc.

Maryland's verion of IA also appears to skimp on proofs, trig and prob/stats to pare down enough to do the rest in 2 years at standard pacing. Trig may not have much real-life applicability for many, but proofs/logic and prob/stats are really useful life tools.

The non-calc path kids probably can pick up some of the stats bit in later years, but it might still leave out logic/proofs, and the stats employed for the two non-stats-specific paths, there, might well leave out the probability theory behind stats that helps support associated critical thinking for that reasoning/analysis they'd be learning.

For calc path kids, and we know that nearly all of the higher-end-college-aspiring folk will be pushing their kids that way (in addition to those choosing it because they truly are interested in STEM), re-integrating all of that in a precalc class will be overly burdensome. Leaving it to the APs would be detrimental, as well. MCPS doesn't seem to have an answer, here, except to let enough kids fail to handle it well in the first couple of post-IA years, say, "I told you so -- you should have chosen one of the other pathways," and expect future cohorts to be dissuaded by that experience.

Glass half-empty view here, to be sure. But these, along with what-do-I-do-(at any/all high schools, not just the privileged)-with-my-two-years-after-calc should be things MCPS is addressing fully and with clarity before jumping in.

MCPS is depending on the calc kids supplementing, which many will.

That's a great way to increase the equity divide. SMH...

[Anonymous]

When and how were 5th graders notified of math placement for next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When and how were 5th graders notified of math placement for next year?

We haven’t been notified, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When and how were 5th graders notified of math placement for next year?

Ask their math teacher. The decision has been made by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When and how were 5th graders notified of math placement for next year?

Ask their math teacher. The decision has been made by now.

Not all the data are in. Some decisions at some schools may be pending.

[Anonymous]

OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of geometry on the SAT? It seems like a bad idea to remove geometry content from the curriculum for students planning to take the SAT...

I think it’ll be fine for SATs - the parts they slimmed down are more for Calc kids who will be doing proofs etc. But hopefully MCPS beefs up Precalc.

Maryland's verion of IA also appears to skimp on proofs, trig and prob/stats to pare down enough to do the rest in 2 years at standard pacing. Trig may not have much real-life applicability for many, but proofs/logic and prob/stats are really useful life tools.

The non-calc path kids probably can pick up some of the stats bit in later years, but it might still leave out logic/proofs, and the stats employed for the two non-stats-specific paths, there, might well leave out the probability theory behind stats that helps support associated critical thinking for that reasoning/analysis they'd be learning.

For calc path kids, and we know that nearly all of the higher-end-college-aspiring folk will be pushing their kids that way (in addition to those choosing it because they truly are interested in STEM), re-integrating all of that in a precalc class will be overly burdensome. Leaving it to the APs would be detrimental, as well. MCPS doesn't seem to have an answer, here, except to let enough kids fail to handle it well in the first couple of post-IA years, say, "I told you so -- you should have chosen one of the other pathways," and expect future cohorts to be dissuaded by that experience.

Glass half-empty view here, to be sure. But these, along with what-do-I-do-(at any/all high schools, not just the privileged)-with-my-two-years-after-calc should be things MCPS is addressing fully and with clarity before jumping in.

MCPS is depending on the calc kids supplementing, which many will.

That's a great way to increase the equity divide. SMH...

You can get tutors cheaply online but they need to use textbooks and fix all the math curriculum and not just leave it up to the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

There is no such thing as equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of geometry on the SAT? It seems like a bad idea to remove geometry content from the curriculum for students planning to take the SAT...

I think it’ll be fine for SATs - the parts they slimmed down are more for Calc kids who will be doing proofs etc. But hopefully MCPS beefs up Precalc.

Maryland's verion of IA also appears to skimp on proofs, trig and prob/stats to pare down enough to do the rest in 2 years at standard pacing. Trig may not have much real-life applicability for many, but proofs/logic and prob/stats are really useful life tools.

The non-calc path kids probably can pick up some of the stats bit in later years, but it might still leave out logic/proofs, and the stats employed for the two non-stats-specific paths, there, might well leave out the probability theory behind stats that helps support associated critical thinking for that reasoning/analysis they'd be learning.

For calc path kids, and we know that nearly all of the higher-end-college-aspiring folk will be pushing their kids that way (in addition to those choosing it because they truly are interested in STEM), re-integrating all of that in a precalc class will be overly burdensome. Leaving it to the APs would be detrimental, as well. MCPS doesn't seem to have an answer, here, except to let enough kids fail to handle it well in the first couple of post-IA years, say, "I told you so -- you should have chosen one of the other pathways," and expect future cohorts to be dissuaded by that experience.

Glass half-empty view here, to be sure. But these, along with what-do-I-do-(at any/all high schools, not just the privileged)-with-my-two-years-after-calc should be things MCPS is addressing fully and with clarity before jumping in.

MCPS is depending on the calc kids supplementing, which many will.

That's a great way to increase the equity divide. SMH...

You can get tutors cheaply online but they need to use textbooks and fix all the math curriculum and not just leave it up to the teachers.

Or they could make for two versions of the Calc path, one that takes two years before Calc and the other that accelerates the same content (like PreAlgebra), to ensure the elements that will be missing from IA will be covered within the curriculum. Relying on outside supplementation is a much greater equity wedge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

Whether you find out your kid's math placement in April vs May vs June is a huge equity problem?

(I mean, yeah, it's not great if a middle school puts it off until the last week of school in case there truly was an error in placement that you want to argue against. But honestly you could make the case that that's better for equity because you're not giving the highly involved parents months to argue their kid should be up a level, and any kid who is truly placed too low should be spotted in the first month of school and bumped up anyway.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

Whether you find out your kid's math placement in April vs May vs June is a huge equity problem?

(I mean, yeah, it's not great if a middle school puts it off until the last week of school in case there truly was an error in placement that you want to argue against. But honestly you could make the case that that's better for equity because you're not giving the highly involved parents months to argue their kid should be up a level, and any kid who is truly placed too low should be spotted in the first month of school and bumped up anyway.)

Not so much the when (though differential timing still might present a bit of a problem, as you note), but the lack of clear equivalent treatment of student identification across schools such that equivalent placement would be dependent on equivalent ability assessment and not on where a student lived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

Whether you find out your kid's math placement in April vs May vs June is a huge equity problem?

(I mean, yeah, it's not great if a middle school puts it off until the last week of school in case there truly was an error in placement that you want to argue against. But honestly you could make the case that that's better for equity because you're not giving the highly involved parents months to argue their kid should be up a level, and any kid who is truly placed too low should be spotted in the first month of school and bumped up anyway.)

Not so much the when (though differential timing still might present a bit of a problem, as you note), but the lack of clear equivalent treatment of student identification across schools such that equivalent placement would be dependent on equivalent ability assessment and not on where a student lived.

Not sure if you are the PP but PP was replying to a post which said that they had already gotten the letter but the timing might vary based on your MS, and claiming that was a huge equity issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. We received a letter from the middle school. It may depend which middle school you go to.

And that is a huge equity problem.

Whether you find out your kid's math placement in April vs May vs June is a huge equity problem?

(I mean, yeah, it's not great if a middle school puts it off until the last week of school in case there truly was an error in placement that you want to argue against. But honestly you could make the case that that's better for equity because you're not giving the highly involved parents months to argue their kid should be up a level, and any kid who is truly placed too low should be spotted in the first month of school and bumped up anyway.)

Not so much the when (though differential timing still might present a bit of a problem, as you note), but the lack of clear equivalent treatment of student identification across schools such that equivalent placement would be dependent on equivalent ability assessment and not on where a student lived.

Not sure if you are the PP but PP was replying to a post which said that they had already gotten the letter but the timing might vary based on your MS, and claiming that was a huge equity issue.

That depended on what the "it" was in the "it may depend on which middle school" comment, which was not made as a reply to a specific post, where there were multiple issues raised prior, including in the OP's original post. Timing depends? Not as big a problem. Placement depends? Bigger problem.