Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the MAP covers material that may not have been reviewed or discussed this year. They are not being taught for that test.

This is true, and I think MCPS knows this. They seem to be in a position of either "retaining" everyone (i.e.) only letting the 4/5s move to 5 and not 5/6, or trying to find some combo of information to let some students move up to 5/6. If a student does well on the current tests, has As in math, and has a high MAP score, they can probably move on to 5/6 and not be at too great a deficit with what was not taught in 4/5 this year. But if they did well on course content this year, and have a low MAP score, they may struggle next year. It shows that they are good at math, and do well when taught the materials, but may not know as many of the concepts that they should to move onto the next higher compacted level. Of course there are a bunch of what ifs in this - testing circumstances this year, kids who don't do as well on tests to show their knowledge, etc.

Right, but MCPS is not "retaining" anyone in regular 4th Grade Math, they're all moving to 5, with the expectation that the teachers will catch them up on the untaught material over the next couple of years. Why must they retain anyone in 4/5? Even if they don't meet the criteria, they are the stronger math students? Why retain them to repeat some of the 5th grade math, rather than teaching the missing math in 5/6? They don't want to adjust anything about the Eureka curriculum?

I’m not sure my kid, who is finishing 5/6, would have met this criteria last year year. Kid learned the material that was taught this year without major difficulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the MAP covers material that may not have been reviewed or discussed this year. They are not being taught for that test.

This is true, and I think MCPS knows this. They seem to be in a position of either "retaining" everyone (i.e.) only letting the 4/5s move to 5 and not 5/6, or trying to find some combo of information to let some students move up to 5/6. If a student does well on the current tests, has As in math, and has a high MAP score, they can probably move on to 5/6 and not be at too great a deficit with what was not taught in 4/5 this year. But if they did well on course content this year, and have a low MAP score, they may struggle next year. It shows that they are good at math, and do well when taught the materials, but may not know as many of the concepts that they should to move onto the next higher compacted level. Of course there are a bunch of what ifs in this - testing circumstances this year, kids who don't do as well on tests to show their knowledge, etc.

You are speculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the MAP covers material that may not have been reviewed or discussed this year. They are not being taught for that test.

This is true, and I think MCPS knows this. They seem to be in a position of either "retaining" everyone (i.e.) only letting the 4/5s move to 5 and not 5/6, or trying to find some combo of information to let some students move up to 5/6. If a student does well on the current tests, has As in math, and has a high MAP score, they can probably move on to 5/6 and not be at too great a deficit with what was not taught in 4/5 this year. But if they did well on course content this year, and have a low MAP score, they may struggle next year. It shows that they are good at math, and do well when taught the materials, but may not know as many of the concepts that they should to move onto the next higher compacted level. Of course there are a bunch of what ifs in this - testing circumstances this year, kids who don't do as well on tests to show their knowledge, etc.

Right, but MCPS is not "retaining" anyone in regular 4th Grade Math, they're all moving to 5, with the expectation that the teachers will catch them up on the untaught material over the next couple of years. Why must they retain anyone in 4/5? Even if they don't meet the criteria, they are the stronger math students? Why retain them to repeat some of the 5th grade math, rather than teaching the missing math in 5/6? They don't want to adjust anything about the Eureka curriculum?

Yes, that's because only a few bad students failed to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the MAP covers material that may not have been reviewed or discussed this year. They are not being taught for that test.

This is true, and I think MCPS knows this. They seem to be in a position of either "retaining" everyone (i.e.) only letting the 4/5s move to 5 and not 5/6, or trying to find some combo of information to let some students move up to 5/6. If a student does well on the current tests, has As in math, and has a high MAP score, they can probably move on to 5/6 and not be at too great a deficit with what was not taught in 4/5 this year. But if they did well on course content this year, and have a low MAP score, they may struggle next year. It shows that they are good at math, and do well when taught the materials, but may not know as many of the concepts that they should to move onto the next higher compacted level. Of course there are a bunch of what ifs in this - testing circumstances this year, kids who don't do as well on tests to show their knowledge, etc.

Right, but MCPS is not "retaining" anyone in regular 4th Grade Math, they're all moving to 5, with the expectation that the teachers will catch them up on the untaught material over the next couple of years. Why must they retain anyone in 4/5? Even if they don't meet the criteria, they are the stronger math students? Why retain them to repeat some of the 5th grade math, rather than teaching the missing math in 5/6? They don't want to adjust anything about the Eureka curriculum?

Yes, that's because only a few bad students failed to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

NP, which is why parents with an issue with these ¨metrics¨ need to be in touch with the BOE and the central office person, Nikki something mentioned upthread. I think principals are doing the best they can but this is at the end of a long year for them. Try to get the nonsensical rule changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

NP, which is why parents with an issue with these ¨metrics¨ need to be in touch with the BOE and the central office person, Nikki something mentioned upthread. I think principals are doing the best they can but this is at the end of a long year for them. Try to get the nonsensical rule changed.

I just wrote the BOE to voice my support for using actual metrics for things like this. I hate it when they let parents insist that their little genius belongs in advanced math when every indications shows they aren't. They end up having to include these students and ultimately causes the course to be dumbed down. It's like there schools where everyone is in advanced math but advanced math is really just regular math so nboody gets advanced math.

[Anonymous]

I don’t mind actual metrics but the cutoff number they’ve suggested is not tied to actual knowledge of the materials that were supposed to be covered in math 4/5. The score they picked is a score that most kids in math 7 or 8 are not hitting. If they picked a lower number, I would not have trouble with an objective criteria. But this is a fake objective criteria—like saying no one can get into college unless they have a perfect SAT — it’s an impressive score but it’s in no way tried to any criteria to be successful in the course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind actual metrics but the cutoff number they’ve suggested is not tied to actual knowledge of the materials that were supposed to be covered in math 4/5. The score they picked is a score that most kids in math 7 or 8 are not hitting. If they picked a lower number, I would not have trouble with an objective criteria. But this is a fake objective criteria—like saying no one can get into college unless they have a perfect SAT — it’s an impressive score but it’s in no way tried to any criteria to be successful in the course.

Right. Why 90th percentile in fall but leap to 96th percentile for spring map score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind actual metrics but the cutoff number they’ve suggested is not tied to actual knowledge of the materials that were supposed to be covered in math 4/5. The score they picked is a score that most kids in math 7 or 8 are not hitting. If they picked a lower number, I would not have trouble with an objective criteria. But this is a fake objective criteria—like saying no one can get into college unless they have a perfect SAT — it’s an impressive score but it’s in no way tried to any criteria to be successful in the course.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

NP, which is why parents with an issue with these ¨metrics¨ need to be in touch with the BOE and the central office person, Nikki something mentioned upthread. I think principals are doing the best they can but this is at the end of a long year for them. Try to get the nonsensical rule changed.

I just wrote the BOE to voice my support for using actual metrics for things like this. I hate it when they let parents insist that their little genius belongs in advanced math when every indications shows they aren't. They end up having to include these students and ultimately causes the course to be dumbed down. It's like there schools where everyone is in advanced math but advanced math is really just regular math so nboody gets advanced math.

Just because a parent teaches their kid additional information aboutside of class to be get their child a higher score does not make a kid a genius. Your missing the point that this test is dependsnt on what the kids have been exposed to and not necessarily their ability to handle the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

My DD was below the target score I just talked to her conselor and bam she was in the IM so maybe that's their line but it isn't really true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

NP, which is why parents with an issue with these ¨metrics¨ need to be in touch with the BOE and the central office person, Nikki something mentioned upthread. I think principals are doing the best they can but this is at the end of a long year for them. Try to get the nonsensical rule changed.

I just wrote the BOE to voice my support for using actual metrics for things like this. I hate it when they let parents insist that their little genius belongs in advanced math when every indications shows they aren't. They end up having to include these students and ultimately causes the course to be dumbed down. It's like there schools where everyone is in advanced math but advanced math is really just regular math so nboody gets advanced math.

Just because a parent teaches their kid additional information aboutside of class to be get their child a higher score does not make a kid a genius. Your missing the point that this test is dependsnt on what the kids have been exposed to and not necessarily their ability to handle the class.

That's not entirely true. Yes, a kid who knows more material can score higher, but a kid in compacted 5/6 has been exposed to most of it. It's really more about retention and proficiency. People who like to claim that it's just about exposure are mostly making excuses.