6th grade pre-algebra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is the curriculum and two years will not change things. You can get a math tutor for under $10 an hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is the curriculum and two years will not change things. You can get a math tutor for under $10 an hour.

Of course two years would change things -- if they made sure it covered the missing curricular standards. It would allow those opting for the Calc path to do so even if they are not highly capable of ingesting all of current PreCalc plus those curricular standards in an accelerated, one-year manner -- current Honors PreCalc is one of the harder courses even before adding more to it. Some students would do well taking one of the three non-Calc post IA pathways, instead, but we shouldn't be slotting everyone not super-highly-Math-attuned into those unless they want them.

A rather minor curricular fix , when the curriculum already is in flux anyway, s better than telling folks that the quality of their public education experience will depend on access, financial or otherwise, to resources outside of the domain of that public education.

I mean, it's not as if there won't always be some element of that, but why would a system dedicated to equity set things up more that way when they could make it otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is the curriculum and two years will not change things. You can get a math tutor for under $10 an hour.

Of course two years would change things -- if they made sure it covered the missing curricular standards. It would allow those opting for the Calc path to do so even if they are not highly capable of ingesting all of current PreCalc plus those curricular standards in an accelerated, one-year manner -- current Honors PreCalc is one of the harder courses even before adding more to it. Some students would do well taking one of the three non-Calc post IA pathways, instead, but we shouldn't be slotting everyone not super-highly-Math-attuned into those unless they want them.

A rather minor curricular fix, when the curriculum is already in flux anyway, is better than telling folks that the quality of their public education experience will depend on access, financial or otherwise, to resources outside the domain of that public education.

I mean, it's not as if there won't always be some element of that, but why would a system dedicated to equity set things up more that way when they could make it otherwise?

The quality of the curriculum is more important. My kids calc teacher used random material and didn't use a textbook. It was a huge struggle. Other classes like precal used textbooks and it was much better. Some kids also just need that 1-2 support. It makes sense to keep things as they are but add additional classes for non-math kids to allow them to graduate and stop at Algebra 2. If you aren't stem, there is really no need for calc.

There is nothing equitable about math in MCPS. The disparities between the schools is huge, especially post calc classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is the curriculum and two years will not change things. You can get a math tutor for under $10 an hour.

Of course two years would change things -- if they made sure it covered the missing curricular standards. It would allow those opting for the Calc path to do so even if they are not highly capable of ingesting all of current PreCalc plus those curricular standards in an accelerated, one-year manner -- current Honors PreCalc is one of the harder courses even before adding more to it. Some students would do well taking one of the three non-Calc post IA pathways, instead, but we shouldn't be slotting everyone not super-highly-Math-attuned into those unless they want them.

A rather minor curricular fix, when the curriculum is already in flux anyway, is better than telling folks that the quality of their public education experience will depend on access, financial or otherwise, to resources outside the domain of that public education.

I mean, it's not as if there won't always be some element of that, but why would a system dedicated to equity set things up more that way when they could make it otherwise?

The quality of the curriculum is more important. My kids calc teacher used random material and didn't use a textbook. It was a huge struggle. Other classes like precal used textbooks and it was much better. Some kids also just need that 1-2 support. It makes sense to keep things as they are but add additional classes for non-math kids to allow them to graduate and stop at Algebra 2. If you aren't stem, there is really no need for calc.

There is nothing equitable about math in MCPS. The disparities between the schools is huge, especially post calc classes.

Ok. It sounds like you think that fixing the curriculum is more important, but more important than...? It doesn't sound like anything you said means students should have to rely on supports outside of the school system to be successful within it.

They are adding additional pathways. Three of them. One can call those "for non-Math kids," but that isn't right. Calc simply can be the path that a student wants to pursue, "Math kid"/STEM-major-bound or not. The Data and Statistical Reasoning path may appeal to some of those STEM-seeking students. Each path should be supported by and within the system.

Aside, in case you hadn't seen: Algebra/Geometry/Algebra 2 are going away, to be replaced by Integrated Algebra 1 & 2. The curricular standards lost in going from a 3-year progression to a 2-year progression are the subject of the discussion around a need to re-incorporate those skipped concepts in at least the Calc pathway, which would tend to rely on them, but where the progression doesn't have a place for that, whereas, e.g., there may be whole classes covering needed material in, say, Stats to support that Data/Stats path, given the material now to be skipped in IA 1 & 2.

[Anonymous]

My kid was in AMP 7 in 6th grade. Did not find it challenging and slept in Math class. Breezed through Algebra in 7th grade.

So if your kid is in compacted Math, push for them to be in the highest track available in middle school next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in AMP 7 in 6th grade. Did not find it challenging and slept in Math class. Breezed through Algebra in 7th grade.

So if your kid is in compacted Math, push for them to be in the highest track available in middle school next year

Did your kid get a 4 on the Algebra MCAP? If so that's great. But there is so much grade inflation that there are definitely kids breezing through these classes thinking they do well but then getting a 3 or sometimes even a 2 on the MCAP.

[Anonymous]

Marylands math course change is ridiculous. Yes they should have gone to integrated math. No they shouldn’t have shortened it by a year because all the things after actually are understood more when you have the full foundation. If they wanted to shave off half a year and introduce more financial and practical application of math with the integration, I could have supported that.

Whether every school should offer MBC is questionable, but this idea of bringing all the college level courses down to HS level is ridiculous. Just do like other countries and be done with HS by 16 and then let students decide want to pursue for the 1-2extra years, be it vocational, exploratory or focused (that’s how the IB diploma actually works btw). Then teach those courses at the appropriate level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in AMP 7 in 6th grade. Did not find it challenging and slept in Math class. Breezed through Algebra in 7th grade.

So if your kid is in compacted Math, push for them to be in the highest track available in middle school next year

Did your kid get a 4 on the Algebra MCAP? If so that's great. But there is so much grade inflation that there are definitely kids breezing through these classes thinking they do well but then getting a 3 or sometimes even a 2 on the MCAP.

Getting a 3 on MCAP is fine. It signifies the student is proficient. Some of these students are getting 3’s but only a few points away from a 4. Stop diminishing the MCAP 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not one of the PPs but understand the challenge being brought up. If all the data is not available yet, then either no MS should be making placement decision or all MS should be making placement decision about some students. For example, maktbe the students who are still waiting on decision are those whose available showed them on the cusp and so schools want to see MCAP scores and grades before deciding. That would make sense. But the process should be the same across all schools.
In fact those on the cusp could be notified and told when the decision will be made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in AMP 7 in 6th grade. Did not find it challenging and slept in Math class. Breezed through Algebra in 7th grade.

So if your kid is in compacted Math, push for them to be in the highest track available in middle school next year

Did your kid get a 4 on the Algebra MCAP? If so that's great. But there is so much grade inflation that there are definitely kids breezing through these classes thinking they do well but then getting a 3 or sometimes even a 2 on the MCAP.

Maybe at your school but we aren’t seeing grade inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marylands math course change is ridiculous. Yes they should have gone to integrated math. No they shouldn’t have shortened it by a year because all the things after actually are understood more when you have the full foundation. If they wanted to shave off half a year and introduce more financial and practical application of math with the integration, I could have supported that.

Whether every school should offer MBC is questionable, but this idea of bringing all the college level courses down to HS level is ridiculous. Just do like other countries and be done with HS by 16 and then let students decide want to pursue for the 1-2extra years, be it vocational, exploratory or focused (that’s how the IB diploma actually works btw). Then teach those courses at the appropriate level.

Many of our kids take advanced math. Why is that an issue? Two years is ok for nonstem kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was me. The “it” was the timing, since the PP had not received a letter at all and we had. I don’t know who makes the decisions. I think there is some element of recommendation from the the teachers, based on comments from a friend’s parents who are asking questions about their child’s placement. But I honestly don’t know. It would be nice if there was more transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marylands math course change is ridiculous. Yes they should have gone to integrated math. No they shouldn’t have shortened it by a year because all the things after actually are understood more when you have the full foundation. If they wanted to shave off half a year and introduce more financial and practical application of math with the integration, I could have supported that.

Whether every school should offer MBC is questionable, but this idea of bringing all the college level courses down to HS level is ridiculous. Just do like other countries and be done with HS by 16 and then let students decide want to pursue for the 1-2extra years, be it vocational, exploratory or focused (that’s how the IB diploma actually works btw). Then teach those courses at the appropriate level.

Completely agree. I think what will happen is that across MD kids on the calc track will really struggle, and then MD will change again and go to a three-year integrated math sequence, whih is what other states have. Or they will require districts to add a bridge class for the students on the calc track to take before pre-calc. But MCPS could get ahead of this. They could create that bridge class now, knowing that students already struggle with pre-calc with three years to prepare, and that they will struggle even more with two years--especially those who don't supplement. However, the math team in central office has not vision or leadership, so it is not going to happen until the state mandates it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in AMP 7 in 6th grade. Did not find it challenging and slept in Math class. Breezed through Algebra in 7th grade.

So if your kid is in compacted Math, push for them to be in the highest track available in middle school next year

Did your kid get a 4 on the Algebra MCAP? If so that's great. But there is so much grade inflation that there are definitely kids breezing through these classes thinking they do well but then getting a 3 or sometimes even a 2 on the MCAP.

Maybe at your school but we aren’t seeing grade inflation.

There is grade inflation throughout MCPS, even with the changes they implemented this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was me. The “it” was the timing, since the PP had not received a letter at all and we had. I don’t know who makes the decisions. I think there is some element of recommendation from the the teachers, based on comments from a friend’s parents who are asking questions about their child’s placement. But I honestly don’t know. It would be nice if there was more transparency.

Appreciate the clarification. Absolutely, there should be greater transparency.