Compacted math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've only encountered two parents who liked the new math curriculum. They happen to be very ditzy. Ironically, they don't like it much now as their kids are having a hard time with math. Perhaps its a coincidence but dislike for math is near universal at our school for the rest of the community. I'm friends with several excellent teachers. They don't like it either but for different reasons than the parents.

Parents that don't like 2.0 focus on how easy it is in the early grades. They teach at home or send kids to math classes. This obscures the real problems in 2.0.

The biggest problem that I see is the lack organization and development of calculation and fluency. Young kids need to build a strong foundation. The problems show up in upper elementary after years of not learning basic math facts. Since the kids don't know their basic tables, their performance is really erratic. In 2.0 they spend all their time learning 4 ways to solve a basic problem. This isn't helpful. You really can't do more complex math if you have to decompose to know 4 X 7 =28. The kids end up needing way too many steps and introduce calculation errors for all the decomposing of basic facts to get to the next step. This confuses them and they miss the whole concept of the more complex problem. The teachers are seeing these problems with kids who don't have outside math classes.

I hear this again and again, but my DC memorized the multiplication table in 3rd grade *in class* (with practices at home), now in compacted math, and never had math classes outside of school.

I'm a math person, so is my DH, both in a STEM field. I think parts of 2.0 math is good, others not so much. I don't like how they spend so much time on a particular type of math problem, but I know that not all kids learn at the same rate. I do like how they are learning how to add using base 10 and the emphasis on place value. It is frustrating to me when I see my 4th grader taking too long doing multi-digit multiplication. I do like, however, how they are learning *why* they carry the number over when doing this type of multiplication vs. how we learned it (by rote with no explanation as to why it was done this way). I just wish they wouldn't so much time on it.

^spend so much time on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you really have made sure that your child knows their math tables addition, subtraction, multiplication and division up to 12 then good for you. In the new curriculum, there is very little indication that kids don't know their tables until they run into problems. The parents see a P on everything and think their kid knows their math facts. The 2.0 assessments are heavily focused on the 2.0 strategies not foundational math skills. A child will present that he knows 4X7=28 because he is expected to show work that breaks it into 2X7 = 14 and 2X7= 14, 14+14=28. The teacher marks him as proficient in multiplication. Later on, the kid really doesn't know that 4X7=28. Parents have no idea. Teacher doesn't know either because she doesn't teach 4th or 5th grade math. In 5th grade, he can only quickly multiply by 2, 3, 5 and maybe 4 so he needs to decompose but there are so many other steps and larger numbers in the problem he is solving that he makes more mistakes.

In 2.0, its even more important to make sure your child knows math facts and traditional math from practice at home then in the previous curriculum.

Alternatively, the teacher does know, because everybody in the class does timed math facts tests every week.

[Anonymous]

If your child was tested on knowing the entire multiplication table without requiring decomposing/composing, arrays, or other 2.0 strategies then your teacher was going rogue and teaching outside the direction of 2.0. (Good for her!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your child was tested on knowing the entire multiplication table without requiring decomposing/composing, arrays, or other 2.0 strategies then your teacher was going rogue and teaching outside the direction of 2.0. (Good for her!)

Curriculum 2.0 says that you're not allowed to do math facts tests?

[Anonymous]

The curriculum clearly states that students in 3rd grade must know their multiplication facts. However, there is no county assessment for that expectation so it is up to the teacher to determine each child's ability. Most schools are using timed tests. Our school has all of the 3rd graders doing xtramath as part of their homework assignment. Regardless, your child does need to learn their facts to be successful later on and 3rd grade teachers should be mindful of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your child was tested on knowing the entire multiplication table without requiring decomposing/composing, arrays, or other 2.0 strategies then your teacher was going rogue and teaching outside the direction of 2.0. (Good for her!)

No. Please stop with the uninformed posts. It's right in the 2.0 math curriculum:

"Multiply and divide within 100.
1.3.B.7 Fluently multiply and divide within 100, using strategies such as the relationship between multiplication and division (e.g., knowing that 8 × 5 = 40, one knows 40 ÷ 5 = 8) or properties of operations. By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers."

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/math/resources/math-topics-indicator-comparison-grade-3.pdf

[Anonymous]

I have only seen 2.0 but most of the curriculum I am OK with. I am not OK with the lack of acceleration prior to grade 4. Finally after 4 painful years my child is enjoying math (HGC + compacted).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have only seen 2.0 but most of the curriculum I am OK with. I am not OK with the lack of acceleration prior to grade 4. Finally after 4 painful years my child is enjoying math (HGC + compacted).

The accelerated math gets a student to algebra in 7th grade and calculus in 11th grade. How much more acceleration do you think is necessary?

[Anonymous]

Would have been nice to get some sort of challenge before 4th grade. Also prior to 2.0 some kids (should only be an handful) were allowed to accelerate 2 years. As we see on this thread here, everyone wants their kid at the top so its no wonder this option was eliminated. Based on MAP-M results there are some kids that could handle a 2 year acceleration.

[Anonymous]

Algebra in 7th grade was the 2 year acceleration under the old system. IM was 8th grade math and algebra was 9th grade math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Algebra in 7th grade was the 2 year acceleration under the old system. IM was 8th grade math and algebra was 9th grade math

I think some people are not happy that K-3 kids aren't accelerated. That was a post by someone. Seems kind of a silly argument, IMO. If the end result gets "on track" kids to Algebra in 8th grade, Calc in 12, I don't see why you would need to push k-3 kids any harder. I know, some parents will claim their kids are bored, blah blah blah.

[Anonymous]

My kid in compacted math and is bused to local middle school. Only 2 kids in his home school tested into compacted math. It is ridiculously subjective and not uniformly graded. No way other schools that place many fewer kids in HGC than DS school can have 20 kids test into Compacted and DS school has two. It is obviously not administered the same. Anyway, benefits my kid since class in so small and I like the morning class so DS can finish homework in school. But do feel bad for the kids that should be in the class with DS.

[Anonymous]

If the end result gets "on track" kids to Algebra in 8th grade, Calc in 12, I don't see why you would need to push k-3 kids any harder. I know, some parents will claim their kids are bored, blah blah blah.

Getting to Calc in grade 12 isn't the point. The problem is that math is so watered down and easy in K-3 that the kids don't learn anything. They are bored, incredibly bored. What is worse is that school is teaching them that math in school is a stupid subject.

There are so many things that they could do to offer acceleration. They could offer an accelerated class with more challenging problems, more challenging math games or projects that use math. They could offer many of the skills like probability and ratios that they dumped out of 2.0 in the accelerated class. If you look on something like IXL you will notice that MCPS only covers a portion of the skills offered for a grade level. These aren't math skills that should be ignored for kids who are interested in math just because the basic or below average kid doesn't need to score high on PARRC with them.

Enrichment is the biggest scam out there. Giving kids a few occasional worksheets is not enrichment.

If you're child was great at reading and loved it then you would be pissed if he was forced to read Biscuit books for 4 years too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Getting to Calc in grade 12 isn't the point. The problem is that math is so watered down and easy in K-3 that the kids don't learn anything. They are bored, incredibly bored. What is worse is that school is teaching them that math in school is a stupid subject.

If your child learned nothing in math in K-3, then your child learned K-3 math elsewhere. Where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If your child learned nothing in math in K-3, then your child learned K-3 math elsewhere. Where?

Not the PP, but my kid learned most of the K-3 curriculum at
a) Montessori preschool
b) on his own - he enjoyed (yes really) doing math workbooks

He just understands math concepts with little/no explanation. He learned very little in K-3 and was never given any different work despite extremely high MAP-P scores and passing every pre-assessment. He is very fluent with math facts so that part is good. The years (yes years) where he was counting blocks and showing hash marks for simple addition, not so much. Painful, really.