Compacted Math- FYI
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This has nothing to do with AIM or middle school classes. This entire thread is about current 4th graders and the new requirements to continue in compacted math for 5th grade. |
Anonymous
It is related since it's also being discussed here and the county uses the same criteria which schools do have some wiggle room on as the Pp stated. |
Anonymous
What are the requirements to get into AIM? I thought they hadn’t been announced yet. Thank you! |
Anonymous
Why is genius in this discussion? Right now, 4/5 and 5/6 are the only way to move a little faster in math. It´s not huge acceleration. It should be open to a pretty broad swath of the ES population because there is NO other enrichment. ¨Here´s an extra worksheet, kid¨"or ¨here are some challenge problems, try them¨ is not enrichment. In classes of almost 30 kids, what else can you expect the teachers to do. Putting limits on continuing into 5/6 math is based on the false premise that enrichment is a possibility for the top of the normal math course. I´m not sure what central office is focused on in promulgating this policy, but it is not the well being of the 4/5 math students who are doing ¨fine.¨ There´s no proof that the fine kids are not going to be prepared for Algebra. And even if they aren´t. if they are taking it in 7th, there´s plenty of time to take it again. |
Anonymous
Ya my 10 year old found compacted 5/6 to be a cakewalk. They were mostly bored and felt they didn't really learn much. They haven't had any outside enrichment beyond what they sought out themselves on Khan Academy. I found them working through quadratics the other week, but this is something they do on their own. I never asked them to do it. I think they just enjoy math and find MCPS to be too slow. |
Anonymous
In the past IM required around 240 MAP-M, but there's some wiggle room. AIM as far as I know just requires being in the magnet lottery which seemed to require A's in compacted and 85% or higher this year on the MAP-M. |
Anonymous
|
This clearly is an important thread. There have been some fair questions, legitimate concerns and honest answers. There has also been some conjecture -- sometimes phrased as certainty. All would benefit from MCPS and local schools being more informative with what they know will be in their plan, what they are considering, when they will make related decisions and how the community can engage with them to provide meaningful input. I know that to be a point of failure across many subjects, often discussed here and elsewhere.
MCPS is faced with a few challenges, here. To begin with, past family interest in acceleration combined with differences in the student population with potential for benefit created a situation whereby there might not be manageable class sizes for separate acceleration. Erring on the side of allowance/accommodation to achieve manageable cohorts within schools, there may have been a sizeable population of children placed in compacted math who were not fully ready for the experience. MCPS has been gathering subsequent performance data to try to figure out where this might have been too much of a push. This is not to say that these children, by and large, couldn't get through it. However, negative effects could include difficulty pacing the class -- where teachers might otherwise have continued on with those students handling the material more easily -- and frustration of the students having difficulty mastering the material, resulting in their being turned off to the subject. With children's brains developing at different paces -- faster at some times in some subjects than in others (a 9th grader who hated writing in elementary school, for instance, could find themselves suddenly much more adept and interested) -- a curriculum system with multiple paths towards high-level performance, with on ramps and off ramps, would be preferable, allowing a student to avoid being "slotted" into a particular track. Per MCPS, this is a current aim. If robust and well communicated, it could alleviate parental concern with a child initially not being placed in an accelerated class (or being returned to standard curriculum). Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year. So, what is happening? Currently, MCPS is looking to build a roadmap for recovery of education. The expectation is that they can bring everything back into line -- correcting for the learning loss -- in two to three years. They don't want to leave out the things missed over the past year-plus, as that is considered foundational to the progression of learning. At the same time, they want the recovery to be be meaningful, with the same course options achieved as would have been the case in the pathways that students may have been on in the past (or expected to pursue prior to the pandemic) for students who can get there. For "normal" acceleration, that means an opportunity to take Geometry in 8th grade and Calculus in 11th. While it is understood that having achieved higher-level math courses is generally better for college admissions, they continue working with admissions officers to identify both preferred profiles across incoming majors, especially STEM, and considerations that colleges may be taking with regard to the effects of the pandemic. The way they see doing that is by using the coming year to ensure foundation. Where student evaluation indicates ability and preparedness, the acceleration option is still open; that was something that MCPS originally was considering dropping, and it was push back from community members earlier this year that kept them from going that route. Where evaluation does not indicate ability and preparedness, the recommendation would be to keep (or return) to the standard path. It doesn't end there, however. They are working into the curriculum the option for steeper learning, allowing a relatively quick on-ramp to the more accelerated path in following years. Options for even greater acceleration in those following years than used to be the case, once foundation is reestablished, again provides an on ramp. Moreover, they will preserve the option to double up math courses at the high school level, such as pairing Geometry with Algebra 2, to again provide an on ramp to Calculus by 11th grade. It also is important to note that the current acceleration option in 4th & 5th grade, Compacted 4/5 & Compacted 5/6, is built from a Eureka curriculum that is not designed for compaction, and the pandemic has made it difficult to spend the time to customize it. The result is that there will be not only a year-and-a-half's worth of subject matter, but also a year-and-a-half's worth of classwork & homework, and that was not the case this year -- even compacted math was abbreviated this year due to the time constraints. MCPS might pursue different options for compaction in the future, building replacement courses, but part of their being careful in placing students who might not be ready into these courses this coming year is the concern that this unusual work burden would be especially rough on those without the full prior foundation. Families are right to be concerned with how their children might be evaluated in this paradigm. The first thing to note is that not all of the metrics to be used have been determined. More on that should be forthcoming at this week's BOE meeting, but guidance might not be finalized until sometime in June. Second, it is very important that the guidance from the central office is just that -- guidance. Local schools are expected to utilize the guidance to help them identify the recommended paths for their students, but they are also supposed to use their familiarity with the capabilities of each student to hone this evaluation. In this regard, there is not supposed to be a firm cutoff based upon any single factor, whether scores or grades. That isn't to say that administrators at some schools wouldn't decide to stick with the MCPS guidance, for convenience or otherwise -- families would then have to ask for accommodation if they believe their child has been mis-evaluated, and it may be important that they have a discussion with the administration before decisions are made to ensure that planning remains flexible. Many will want to know what the evaluation factors and recommended achievement levels will be, and it would have been much better if MCPS had determined this while there was still time for families to adjust their children's approach -- taking advantage of the free tutoring that MCPS has offered, for instance. There's some slack that should be given with all of the moving parts this year, but, again, engagement was lacking, especially for this known hot button issue. While the factors are expected to include scores on Eureka assessments, MAP-M scores and grades, not all of that for all elementary/middle grades has been settled. One thing that might have been a consideration, but isn't currently, is participation in summer school, which is supposed to cover a portion, at least, of the missed material this year. The thing is that of the 19 days available, two will be for assessment, and the 17 remaining are not expected to be enough to cover entirely the missed time during the year. Still, this should be a point of consideration with school administrators for families seeking accommodation for a student who is determined to be a just-below borderline case for acceleration next year. There is, however, the problem of evaluation & determining fall accelerated class capacity concurrently with summer registration. This brings up the silver lining of our experience with virtual instruction this year. We know that MCPS is offering a Virtual Academy next year for families not wishing their children to return to in-person learning. They may be able to leverage the virtual platform not only for that purpose, but also to better ensure the availability of accelerated math classes by creating manageable cohorts of similarly-able students across schools. The flexibility this approach would provide to administrators at local schools should ease the difficult planning tasks for full reopening next year. This approach may facilitate at least one other thing: truly exceptional students -- those who are off the charts -- have for a long time been able to take math classes above the options available to their grade, and that remains the case. In the past, such students would have to be transported to another school (a middle or high school) during the day to take classes with older children. Those real outliers of similar capability might be cohorted virtually across the county to avoid the logistical difficulty and time burden. This, of course, applies to kids in late elementary through middle school. The options for those currently in high school who might have experienced learning loss will have to be a little different, as there are fewer years to recover and class curricula are more stratified. Certainly, there is the possibility of taking classes in the summer. Many of us hope for high achievement. We want commensurate options available to our children. These options should meet their academic need with material that keeps them learning and engaged. They should also try to ensure that students are not overburdened vs. either ability or preparation, and they should be flexible to account for differences in children's development -- no child should be slotted firmly into a particular path based on their third or fourth grade performance. The plans outlined above are, at best, unofficial. They certainly are in flux. However, they do come from recent conversations with a number of MCPS parties. I hope the information at least gives families a bit more focus on that to which they might pay attention and better shapes further conjecture in this thread. Regarding that, I do have a concern about the potential for differential approaches across the elementary and middle schools in the county. While there should be some local flexibility, there really should not be paths available to students at one school that are not available to students at another school, given similar abilities. Parents/guardians still will need to be ready to advocate for their children & communities. That advocacy is often steered towards our local school principals/administration, including our schools' GT Liaisons. As the policy planning is still being hashed out and delivered to them, I would recommend that advocacy communication likewise be addressed to: boe@mcpsmd.org, Jack_Smith@mcpsmd.org & Monifa_B_Mcknight@mcpsmd.org -- The Board of Education, Superintendent and soon-to-be Acting/Interim Superintendent is where decisions will be approved; remember that there is likely to be something put to the BOE at this Tuesday's meeting. Niki_T_Hazel@mcpsmd.org -- The Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instructional Programs is likely to be the one who actually makes the decision, in consultation with the Superintendent in consideration of the above, of course. I would also include the following, with consideration of their roles/limitations on their powers in relation to the decision makers/approvers: Kurshanna_J_Dean@mcpsmd.org -- The Supervisor for Acclerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) is almost certainly the person tasked with coordinating the options and the associated research/considerations relevant to the subject of this thread. Sheila_J_Berlinger@mcpsmd.org -- The Supervisor for Elementary Math is responsible for the design/coordination of overall elementary math curriculum options; for the subject of this thread, she would work hand-in-hand with Ms. Dean. In addition, I would consider copying your local PTA leadership, along with the following MCCPTA (county-wide PTA) leads: president@mccpta.org vpadvocacy@mccpta.org vpeducation@mccpta.org curriculum@mccpta.org gifted@mccpta.org and the area VP & cluster coordinator(s) for your school (see http://www.mccpta.org/mccpta-leaders.html) As has been pointed out in this thread, there are multiple other considerations in play. Funding is certainly among these -- there has been chronic under-funding by the county for two-plus decades versus MCPS requests. One can certainly argue with reason on either side of the larger debates about the best uses of tax dollars, proper role and inefficiencies of government, and the place of equity among important policy considerations, but this under-funded position does mean that there is limited ability to plan and adjust, and we find MCPS being more reactive & less proactive as a result, limiting efficiency and effectiveness. That is before taking into consideration the effects of the pandemic. If we really want things to change, we'll need to do more than advocate on issues like this one. We'll need to elect not just a Board of Education, but also a County Council, that will come up with a different approach -- maybe even a different governance structure -- to provide effective funding and oversight of our school system. MCPS is not perfect. It does have individuals, both at schools and in central offices, who clearly are highly dedicated to doing the best for students; as with any organization, though, there are those who don't do the best job, for one reason or another, and often there are conflicting needs that result in something that is good for some and not good for others. Parents definitely should advocate for their children and community, and should expect more when MCPS makes clear mistakes, as it did earlier when it considered dropping compacted math altogether for at least the first year of recovery. MCPS is often downright terrible with its communications and engagement. That threads like this arise here with great regularity, and that parents are left to rail at BOE meetings, to principals/staff and otherwise to protect the interests of their children, is a direct result of that failure. One last thing. While we all should be willing to go to bat for our kids, we all should also take into consideration the effort that many teachers, local school administrators and MCPS central staff have put in over this difficult pandemic period. Please be considerate, even as we advocate. |
Anonymous
Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this. |
Anonymous
Silly troll -- Trix are for kids! Of course not all fell behind, or fell behind so much that MCPS would keep them from acceleration. Check right in the paragraph you quoted:
|
Anonymous
Just talk to your school. It varies by school. Our school was completely flexible. I've never seen announcements for scores. All kids in compacted math generally go to AIM and some to Algebra depending on the school. Kids in regular math go to Math 6 or AIM/IM depending on the school and student choice. They absolutely have wiggle room |
Anonymous
MCCPTA is a joke. |
Anonymous
Its completely subjective by school. Its typical MCPS where there are not clear cut offs. Our school had three classrooms. They picked one for compacted math. They took the high scores and then filled in to make it a full class. If you wanted your kid in and they didn't make it you had to contact the principal and fight with her (ours made it but know others who fought in). |
Anonymous
May be. Probably doesn't hurt to let them know your opinion. |
Anonymous
| Thanks to 14:38 for a an articulate and insightful post. Lots to think and act on. I appreciate it. |
Anonymous
I have and they don't care. They allowed some pretty terrible things to happen with our PTSA. |