Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

^^ repeating not treating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were just told that only about 1/3rd of the kids in Compacted Math 4/5 will be in 5/6 in our school and we'll find out the placement for our kid next week. To be honest, I can't even say that I'm enamored with the "Compacted Math is just skipping over random topics in Regular Math" way of going about things, but it's basically the only advanced option offered at our school ("enrichment" before 4th grade basically meant random math puzzles a few times a year and kiddo was extremely bored). They also made it sound like it's not a big deal if the kids are in Regular Math, but it seems like Compacted Math is the only option to take 2 years of AP Calc in HS (I didn't do all my education in the US so I have a hard time keeping track of all the various Algebra, Precalc etc classes, plus they've been changing a bunch recently). I don't think it's a tragedy if you don't do this (and things are changing quickly anyway) and I know a number of people who were successful in STEM with just Calc AB, but it sure helps a ton take Calc BC if you go the STEM route! I also refuse to believe that you have to be some kind of genius to be in Calc BC. They're making it sound like "Compacted Math was just supposed to be for a very few brilliant kids and there are too many kids who can't handle it in it now." It's true that 3/4 of our school was in Compacted Math, but it sucks that for most of them there won't be any kind of intermediate option in 5th grade.

It was kind of funny because one school official on the call kept blaming the pandemic for it (because they didn't cover 2 whole geometry modules! gasp!) while another one basically said upfront that it was because MCPS wants to phase it out.

FYI: Students don't take two years of calc in high school. They take either AB or BC. (BC moves faster and covers more material.) If they take it in junior year, then they take another class senior year (like AP stats).

Actually students are encouraged to take both.

If you take both you are treating content. BC covers all of AB plus some new topics. And the BC exam had an AB sub-component. BC is two semesters of college calc, and AB is one. But if you take AB there is no way I know of to take just the new content jn BC—the first semester of BC will be entirely review.

+1. Some schools even have sections where AB and BC are being taught concurrently in the same classroom, with the BC students getting extra topics/assignments.

[Anonymous]

Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like central office has finalized plans for next year through the release of the math recovery plan. Here is what they say for ES:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pQ2LrngCxEBRl1F-I73j0CHjsRPfF2zs2TXwBvWNVGs/edit

It sounds like central office is identifying students who should be in 4/5 and 5/6 next year, will send it to the schools, and the schools will potentially add more students to the list. Then we will be notified mid-month, so I would think after the school year is over. The document does not provide information on what cutoffs they are using.

Our ES contacted us last week to say our 4/5 child was recommended for Math 5 next year. Our teacher gave the following "MCPS guidance" for moving to 5/6: The average range of a spring MAP-M score for a rising 5/6 student is 230 or higher. Students must score above 85% on Eureka assessments. Students must receive As in MP1, MP2, and MP3.

She cited the difficulty of condensing Eureka, and repeated that DC would still be "on track to take Algebra in 8th grade" (no kidding). I followed up and her message focused on: pandemic/out of our control/there was nothing more any of us could have done to avoid this + ambivalence about the compacted math program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like central office has finalized plans for next year through the release of the math recovery plan. Here is what they say for ES:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pQ2LrngCxEBRl1F-I73j0CHjsRPfF2zs2TXwBvWNVGs/edit

It sounds like central office is identifying students who should be in 4/5 and 5/6 next year, will send it to the schools, and the schools will potentially add more students to the list. Then we will be notified mid-month, so I would think after the school year is over. The document does not provide information on what cutoffs they are using.

Our ES contacted us last week to say our 4/5 child was recommended for Math 5 next year. Our teacher gave the following "MCPS guidance" for moving to 5/6: The average range of a spring MAP-M score for a rising 5/6 student is 230 or higher. Students must score above 85% on Eureka assessments. Students must receive As in MP1, MP2, and MP3.

She cited the difficulty of condensing Eureka, and repeated that DC would still be "on track to take Algebra in 8th grade" (no kidding). I followed up and her message focused on: pandemic/out of our control/there was nothing more any of us could have done to avoid this + ambivalence about the compacted math program.

230 in spring of 4th grade is the 90th percentile, which aligns with what others have said. In the past, they were letting kids in who were lower percentiles -- 80th and above -- so there should be substantially fewer kids being allowed to go on now, since it's a bell curve. I do know from talking to central office that these guidelines still allow the principal/teachers to pull other students in who demonstrate that they can handle the content but were not identified for 5/6 by central office. If you think your child does, you might schedule a conference to discuss the possibility of allowing him or her to continue on with compacted next year.

[Anonymous]

Oh, in our case they definitely did not tell us the exact cutoffs for the guidelines but emphasized school flexibility in deciding. I kind of get it that they don't want a ton of angry parents. My son scored 232 in the spring but had a B in MP1 and is probably headed to a B in MP4. He basically doesn't check his work or explain stuff fully and his teacher does not allow retakes. Really hoping he goes to 5/6 next year, as he was super bored before 4th grade (and even now he complains of boredom.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A other teacher who heard this today. And we were also told Bc Eureka doesn’t lend itself to small group instruction, that there would not be daily small group for accelerating kids who did not make the compacted math

That is awful

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

She was quite close then! You should definitely ask if they can consider her. Not in an accusatory way, but it never hurts to try. We were specifically told that we can contest the decision since in the end its up to the school.

[Anonymous]

Have those of you with rising 5th graders received confirmation either way? It bothers me more that we haven’t been communicated at our ES about determinations and we’re literally four school days away from the end of the year.

[Anonymous]

They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.

That’s so cowardly and such a slap in the face to parents and students. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.

Principals are there all summer, folks!

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.[/quote]

Principals are there all summer, folks! [/quote]

But the teachers who could provide the best additional context to support a child's appeal -- or help a family see otherwise -- may not be. Meanwhile, the administrators presently will be making decisions on cohorts for the fall, and it might be difficult to unwind and reorganize the associated staffing, etc., if considerable flexibility is not built in.

MCPS has espoused, but not guaranteed, at least one class at each ES.
Though they now have released significant documentation about the recovery plan, they have remained mute on the specifics of their determination of ability/readiness. They are required by statute to provide enrichment, but that does not mean they are required to provide acceleration, and the amount of on-grade-level enrichment offered and its delivery vary from school to school, or even class to class, possibly dependent on the ability of teachers, but more likely dependent on the needs of other students. Those who were able to demonstrate readiness for CM next year might not have classmates identified by MCPS/their school in the proper numbers to ensure the offering of CM (or of an additional class, depending on the numbers).

This leaves parents/guardians uncertain not only about the assessment of their children, but also about whether identified needs properly will be met.
Avenues of advocacy & appeal are, at best, unfamiliar (*), and might be hampered not only by the limited access to teachers over the summer, but also by the greater difficulty during this time in coordinating with other parents/guardians if, for example, a group effort is required to open a CM cohort in the first place. With MCPS considering a smaller population in Compacted Math classes due to learning loss, parents/guardians rightly might be concerned.

At the same time, families should be cognizant of the considerable effort both MCPS, local schools and teachers are dedicating not only to this, which is not a trivial nut to crack, but to other matters made pressing by the pandemic - greater-than-normal staffing changes, fall reopening and a summer school aimed at recovery.

* -- It is recommended first to speak with the current teacher, then with the school administration (GT Liaison or Principal), then with the MCPS Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI).

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.[/quote]

Principals are there all summer, folks! [/quote]

But the teachers who could provide the best additional context to support a child's appeal -- or help a family see otherwise -- may not be. Meanwhile, the administrators presently will be making decisions on cohorts for the fall, and it might be difficult to unwind and reorganize the associated staffing, etc., if considerable flexibility is not built in.

MCPS has espoused, but not guaranteed, at least one class at each ES.
Though they now have released significant documentation about the recovery plan, they have remained mute on the specifics of their determination of ability/readiness. They are required by statute to provide enrichment, but that does not mean they are required to provide acceleration, and the amount of on-grade-level enrichment offered and its delivery vary from school to school, or even class to class, possibly dependent on the ability of teachers, but more likely dependent on the needs of other students. Those who were able to demonstrate readiness for CM next year might not have classmates identified by MCPS/their school in the proper numbers to ensure the offering of CM (or of an additional class, depending on the numbers).

This leaves parents/guardians uncertain not only about the assessment of their children, but also about whether identified needs properly will be met.
Avenues of advocacy & appeal are, at best, unfamiliar (*), and might be hampered not only by the limited access to teachers over the summer, but also by the greater difficulty during this time in coordinating with other parents/guardians if, for example, a group effort is required to open a CM cohort in the first place. With MCPS considering a smaller population in Compacted Math classes due to learning loss, parents/guardians rightly might be concerned.

At the same time, families should be cognizant of the considerable effort both MCPS, local schools and teachers are dedicating not only to this, which is not a trivial nut to crack, but to other matters made pressing by the pandemic - greater-than-normal staffing changes, fall reopening and a summer school aimed at recovery.

* -- It is recommended first to speak with the current teacher, then with the school administration (GT Liaison or Principal), then with the MCPS Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI).[/quote]

Thank you PP, but of course, in the land of non-communication that is MCPS, no parent actually has been given the instructions you cite! This is a plan they shared with "interest groups" to get those groups off their backs.

Let's face it folks: MCPS wants to get rid of acceleration that will lead to Algebra in 7th. Parents got upset when they forthrightly stated this plan, so they chose death by 1000 cuts, instead. Cowardly; if they had the evidence to support the change they seek, they should have presented it and stood by it. MCPS wants to go with a model that acceleration is Algebra in 8th. The basis for this is an unsubstantiated claim that a lot of 7th graders don't pass the Algebra MCAP. (When you compare MS to HS numbers, the MS kids rock the MCAP).