5th Grade Map-M Scores

[Anonymous]

My 6th grader was in AMP 7+ this year, started out with Bs and is now earning As. But this is not a kid who needs precal as a sophomore, which is where this pathway leads.

If I want to pull DC off this crazy math train, where do they go? Math 8 as a 7th grader followed by Algebra 1 as an 8th grader?

I was a good math student when I was young but the highest math I have needed since leaving HS has been what I needed to help DC with their homework. If students aren't looking at STEM careers I feel strongly that there should be an off-ramp.

[Anonymous]

Repeat AMP 7+.

Math 8 will be bad for your kid.

[Anonymous]

But how do you know what your child's career will be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is AIM no longer an option? It’s not listed on mcps website

AIM is an option for 6th graders only.
IM (for 7th graders) is gone.

AIM (and IM) are being phased out. AMP7+ is the replacement. Each presents some possible curricular gap between Math 5/6 and Algebra, but AMP7+ is from the same curriculum as the current Algebra, and the compaction, there, which is paired with AMP6+ for those beginning acceleration in MS or slowing down a bit from Math 5/6 in elementary, moves modules around such that much of the spiral (concept repetition from grade to grade with additional depth as one goes) is only covered once, so that one doesn't really miss the first half of the 7th curriculum by going from 5/6 straight to 7+. If the class can get through the body of 7+ more quickly than the expected pace, the teacher can use time to cover any of the remaining gaps.

The spiral tends to make those not too important in the first place, but overacceleration vs. underlying ability, which might come with heavily pushed prep/exposure to achieve a certain MAP RIT score, can make those gaps harder to overcome with the expected aplomb, and a few have then had difficulty with certain parts of Algebra, despite the standard pace of that required course being slower than any of the acceleration that may have preceded it.

Some schools are putting AIM students in 7+ to help with scheduling (6th and 7th graders can be placed together), but AIM is still the official class offered to 6th graders per central office. And 6th graders moving to 7+ will miss the first half of 7th grader standards so should supplement over the summer.

Not really so. MCPS correspondence on the matter is not AIM-focused. Middle schools have been given the latitude to offer 7+ in lieu of AIM, and have been encouraged to do so due to its greater curricular continuity (see above/please read before responding). 7+ does not miss the first half of 7th -- the compaction of both 6+ and 7+ rearranges the modules (again, see above; the vendor has a curricular guide to the specific order and standards covered). Neither 5/6 nor Algebra are from the old C2.0, of which AIM has been a holdover, and there are elements of now-curricular-standard pre-Algebra that C2.0 AIM never covered (those were in C2.0 Algebra). Some teachers might be able to back-fill, of course.

Some of the reason a school might keep AIM is logistics (teachers require training for AMP7+, but may already be trained for AIM) and some might be community adherence, whether from misinterpretation of the curriculum, dedication to the thought of two years of study in one (despite ending up in the I same path to Algebra), a rare offering of AIM in 5th by a feeder ES (where switching to 7+ may, again, not garner the training allowance required from MCPS, but the already-AIM-trained teacher remains), or some other reason.

7+ is not compaction if 6th and 7th. It is compaction of second half of 7th and all of 8th. Kids moving from 5/6 directly into 7+ miss the first half of 7th.

No -- The sentence to which you refer is not saying 7+ is compaction of 6th and 7th. It is saying that taking 7+ does not "miss the first half of 7th" in that those going from Math 5/6 directly to AMP 7+ don't really miss the first half of 7th, as often misunderstood. They miss things, but the compaction of the pair of AMP 6+ and AMP 7+ mixes modules across all three years of 6th-7th-8th covered curriculum. Parts of what are seen in the first half of the standard Math 7 might be seen in 6+ or might be seen in 7+. Parts of 8th might be mixed between the two, though much more likely to be in 7+. It's not a straight-line acceleration of the 6th/7th/8th material.

With the spiral, the items missed by going from Math 5/6 to AMP7+ might be covered in any extra time in a manner similar to that in which the missing parts of AIM (with respect to the new Algebra curriculum) might be covered.

Might is the key word here. The problem is I haven’t heard that a full review has been done to ensure a seamless transition between 5/6 to AMP 7+.. Foundational and application skills are important at this level. Particularly when accelerating into Algebra and upper math. I suggest people Khan Academy or something else this summer to review and do some beginning 7th grade modules to ensure their kids are not missing content.

Agreed. Until and unless MCPS modifies the courses to close gaps between Math 5/6 and Algebra for students taking either AMP7+ or AIM in 6th grade, those gaps for each should be communicated to families, along with recommendations for outside reading/homework/etc. that would cover them (e.g., Khan Academy). Summer review packets have been and should remain a relative staple for all transitions, whether to cover gaps or to prevent learning loss. Compliance in completing them is variable, however.

Another +1. Whether sixth graders take 7+ or AIM, they are missing content. 7+ missed 7th grade content and AIM 8th grade content. Those entering 7+ should be doing 7th grade during the summer before 6th grade; those doing AIM should complete 8th grade content in the summer after AIM.

MCPS is doing these kids a disservice by not communicating this to them.

Pacing Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mfGdYIfFUyP_0o7FOXDDHRq7PQOyQf0Ivq9p2Z8Dvko/edit

I thought geometry was now Illustrative Mathematics and not 2.0. Is is actually still 2.0?

Algebra uses the IM Book.

Like most MS/HS courses, Geometry is a mishmash of packets.

[Anonymous]

I would put him in algebra 1 and see how he does. You can slow it down later if need be. An option is also to do AP Calc AB junior and AP stats senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is AIM no longer an option? It’s not listed on mcps website

AIM is an option for 6th graders only.
IM (for 7th graders) is gone.

AIM (and IM) are being phased out. AMP7+ is the replacement. Each presents some possible curricular gap between Math 5/6 and Algebra, but AMP7+ is from the same curriculum as the current Algebra, and the compaction, there, which is paired with AMP6+ for those beginning acceleration in MS or slowing down a bit from Math 5/6 in elementary, moves modules around such that much of the spiral (concept repetition from grade to grade with additional depth as one goes) is only covered once, so that one doesn't really miss the first half of the 7th curriculum by going from 5/6 straight to 7+. If the class can get through the body of 7+ more quickly than the expected pace, the teacher can use time to cover any of the remaining gaps.

The spiral tends to make those not too important in the first place, but overacceleration vs. underlying ability, which might come with heavily pushed prep/exposure to achieve a certain MAP RIT score, can make those gaps harder to overcome with the expected aplomb, and a few have then had difficulty with certain parts of Algebra, despite the standard pace of that required course being slower than any of the acceleration that may have preceded it.

Some schools are putting AIM students in 7+ to help with scheduling (6th and 7th graders can be placed together), but AIM is still the official class offered to 6th graders per central office. And 6th graders moving to 7+ will miss the first half of 7th grader standards so should supplement over the summer.

Not really so. MCPS correspondence on the matter is not AIM-focused. Middle schools have been given the latitude to offer 7+ in lieu of AIM, and have been encouraged to do so due to its greater curricular continuity (see above/please read before responding). 7+ does not miss the first half of 7th -- the compaction of both 6+ and 7+ rearranges the modules (again, see above; the vendor has a curricular guide to the specific order and standards covered). Neither 5/6 nor Algebra are from the old C2.0, of which AIM has been a holdover, and there are elements of now-curricular-standard pre-Algebra that C2.0 AIM never covered (those were in C2.0 Algebra). Some teachers might be able to back-fill, of course.

Some of the reason a school might keep AIM is logistics (teachers require training for AMP7+, but may already be trained for AIM) and some might be community adherence, whether from misinterpretation of the curriculum, dedication to the thought of two years of study in one (despite ending up in the I same path to Algebra), a rare offering of AIM in 5th by a feeder ES (where switching to 7+ may, again, not garner the training allowance required from MCPS, but the already-AIM-trained teacher remains), or some other reason.

7+ is not compaction if 6th and 7th. It is compaction of second half of 7th and all of 8th. Kids moving from 5/6 directly into 7+ miss the first half of 7th.

No -- The sentence to which you refer is not saying 7+ is compaction of 6th and 7th. It is saying that taking 7+ does not "miss the first half of 7th" in that those going from Math 5/6 directly to AMP 7+ don't really miss the first half of 7th, as often misunderstood. They miss things, but the compaction of the pair of AMP 6+ and AMP 7+ mixes modules across all three years of 6th-7th-8th covered curriculum. Parts of what are seen in the first half of the standard Math 7 might be seen in 6+ or might be seen in 7+. Parts of 8th might be mixed between the two, though much more likely to be in 7+. It's not a straight-line acceleration of the 6th/7th/8th material.

With the spiral, the items missed by going from Math 5/6 to AMP7+ might be covered in any extra time in a manner similar to that in which the missing parts of AIM (with respect to the new Algebra curriculum) might be covered.

Might is the key word here. The problem is I haven’t heard that a full review has been done to ensure a seamless transition between 5/6 to AMP 7+.. Foundational and application skills are important at this level. Particularly when accelerating into Algebra and upper math. I suggest people Khan Academy or something else this summer to review and do some beginning 7th grade modules to ensure their kids are not missing content.

Agreed. Until and unless MCPS modifies the courses to close gaps between Math 5/6 and Algebra for students taking either AMP7+ or AIM in 6th grade, those gaps for each should be communicated to families, along with recommendations for outside reading/homework/etc. that would cover them (e.g., Khan Academy). Summer review packets have been and should remain a relative staple for all transitions, whether to cover gaps or to prevent learning loss. Compliance in completing them is variable, however.

Another +1. Whether sixth graders take 7+ or AIM, they are missing content. 7+ missed 7th grade content and AIM 8th grade content. Those entering 7+ should be doing 7th grade during the summer before 6th grade; those doing AIM should complete 8th grade content in the summer after AIM.

MCPS is doing these kids a disservice by not communicating this to them.

Pacing Guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mfGdYIfFUyP_0o7FOXDDHRq7PQOyQf0Ivq9p2Z8Dvko/edit

I thought geometry was now Illustrative Mathematics and not 2.0. Is is actually still 2.0?

Algebra uses the IM Book.

Like most MS/HS courses, Geometry is a mishmash of packets.

I thought the MCCPTA curriculum committee said in a meeting this year that some schools are piloting IM for geometry. 2.0 is so bad they should move all schools to IM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would put him in algebra 1 and see how he does. You can slow it down later if need be. An option is also to do AP Calc AB junior and AP stats senior year.

Bad advice. If kid is struggling now then time to get off the accelerated path. Why would you rush through math to only take the easier classes at the end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would put him in algebra 1 and see how he does. You can slow it down later if need be. An option is also to do AP Calc AB junior and AP stats senior year.

Bad advice. If kid is struggling now then time to get off the accelerated path. Why would you rush through math to only take the easier classes at the end? [

He's not struggling; PP said he is getting As. PP just generally thinks this level of acceleration isn't needed; the kid is not struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would put him in algebra 1 and see how he does. You can slow it down later if need be. An option is also to do AP Calc AB junior and AP stats senior year.

Bad advice. If kid is struggling now then time to get off the accelerated path. Why would you rush through math to only take the easier classes at the end?

He's not struggling; PP said he is getting As. PP just generally thinks this level of acceleration isn't needed; the kid is not struggling.

[Anonymous]

Holy shi t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what the threshold for Algebra 1 is at Eastern? We have a 5th grader with 260 MAP-M going to the Humanities magnet. TIA!

That not good enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 6th grader was in AMP 7+ this year, started out with Bs and is now earning As. But this is not a kid who needs precal as a sophomore, which is where this pathway leads.

If I want to pull DC off this crazy math train, where do they go? Math 8 as a 7th grader followed by Algebra 1 as an 8th grader?

I was a good math student when I was young but the highest math I have needed since leaving HS has been what I needed to help DC with their homework. If students aren't looking at STEM careers I feel strongly that there should be an off-ramp.

There are plenty of off ramps. Your DC can take Math 8 next year. Can take on level math in HS instead of honors. Can do Cal cAb followed by Calc BC. Depends when you want to slow down and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But how do you know what your child's career will be?

PP. I don't. But I do know that DC has had zero curiosity about anything scientific from the time they were a toddler. No dinosaurs, no experiments, no telescopes, no how the human body works, no fun facts, no weather, no animals, no robotics, no coding, no building toys ... you name it, they've ignored it. Lots of other robust, healthy interests, but not STEM.

[Anonymous]

My kid is in compacted Math and got 262. Her teacher told her it was one of the higher scores.

[Anonymous]

PP here. I forgot to complete my post. What track will be good for her in 6th grade next year?