Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

DC's MAP-R went through the roof after I made them study the dictionary!

Did you start from A and made your way through, or random choice of words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

That’s insane. MAP scores don’t mean anything, after CES and compacted math decisions are made. Why do you even pay attention to them? The school doesn’t.

Apparently the school does; they are using MAP scores to determine math tracking that will have implications later on for students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

Read again. I said AFTER compacted math and CES. So if your kid is in third or fourth grade, knock yourself out. But after that young she stop paying attention to MAP scores. They just don’t matter.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

That’s insane. MAP scores don’t mean anything, after CES and compacted math decisions are made. Why do you even pay attention to them? The school doesn’t.

Apparently the school does; they are using MAP scores to determine math tracking that will have implications later on for students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

That’s insane. MAP scores don’t mean anything, after CES and compacted math decisions are made. Why do you even pay attention to them? The school doesn’t.

Apparently the school does; they are using MAP scores to determine math tracking that will have implications later on for students

Read again. I said AFTER compacted math selection and CES. After fourth grade, MAP scores just don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

DP - they also use them to determine middle school math placement. I know someone this year not allowed to go into AIM because MAP score was not high enough--taking Math 7 instead, which is super easy for him.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

That’s insane. MAP scores don’t mean anything, after CES and compacted math decisions are made. Why do you even pay attention to them? The school doesn’t.

Apparently the school does; they are using MAP scores to determine math tracking that will have implications later on for students

Read again. I said AFTER compacted math selection and CES. After fourth grade, MAP scores just don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Read again. I said AFTER compacted math selection and CES. After fourth grade, MAP scores just don’t matter.

MAP sores are considered for magnet middle school invitations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read again. I said AFTER compacted math selection and CES. After fourth grade, MAP scores just don’t matter.

MAP sores are considered for magnet middle school invitations.

Agreed- they are important in 3rd (for CES and compacted math decisions) in 4th for continued compacted math selection and in 5th for Middle School Magnet selection and middle school math placement.

[Anonymous]

This is so ridiculous... Rewarding parents obsessed with pushing.kids outside of school.

[Anonymous]

To follow up, my kid got in with fall 91st and spring 96th percentiles. These were lower than the original RIT scores mentioned. Didn't have to talk to principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To follow up, my kid got in with fall 91st and spring 96th percentiles. These were lower than the original RIT scores mentioned. Didn't have to talk to principal.

Is this got in for 4/5 or 5/6? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is so ridiculous... Rewarding parents obsessed with pushing.kids outside of school.

There are so many ways that MCPS has failed our kids this year and every year. This is just icing on the cake.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone heard about 4/5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard about 4/5?

Not us.

[Anonymous]

My child is a current 4/5 and we were notified child will continue with 5/6. What this thread also makes me wonder is how/whether the class will be different because they are allowing fewer students? Is it just the same, but offered to fewer? And if so, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To follow up, my kid got in with fall 91st and spring 96th percentiles. These were lower than the original RIT scores mentioned. Didn't have to talk to principal.

Is this got in for 4/5 or 5/6? Thanks.

Got into 5/6.