Math cluster letter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

No. Every MS has their own process for determining who goes into what class between ES and MS. Many schools put all kids coming from compacted math in the highest option available for 6th graders regardless of grades, test scores or teacher recs

With apologies to the PP who was asking about rising 5th, the MS placement process is supposed to be more strictly defined centrally going forward, even if the local school implements that (comms or otherwise). While that should lower some aspects of variability across schools, those standards are going to tighten, with fewer, overall, being placed in PreAlgebra, and with discouragement, if not proscription, of adding in students on the margin to create manageable class sizes. We'll have to see if they institute this in 27-28 a bit differently from 28-29, since the higher end of the earlier incoming 6th-grade class will have covered 6th standards more fully in compacted 5/6 while the higher end of the following ones will have had less comprehensive acceleration into 6th standards with the on grade level-based cluster model.

Given the measures they have on hand to make determinations, it may well be that we again end up with a situation where lots of kids in better off areas get placed highly due to the synthesis of greater outside enrichment and the higher performing large cohort to which their ES's then could direct teaching resources, while few from other areas are highly placed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

They don't want to push your child into 5/6 if you think they have struggled. Otherwise, they are placing all the 4/5 kids in 5/6 for this coming year only so that they close out the sequence, transitioning to the in-class cluster model for future years (and beginning with this year's rising 4th graders). Unless they have some clear documentation of struggle, themselves, in which case they should be reaching out to you to discuss that possibly unexpected placement decision.

I’ve heard some schools are pushing more kids down to the slower track. It seems so inconsistent across the district

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

No. Every MS has their own process for determining who goes into what class between ES and MS. Many schools put all kids coming from compacted math in the highest option available for 6th graders regardless of grades, test scores or teacher recs

With apologies to the PP who was asking about rising 5th, the MS placement process is supposed to be more strictly defined centrally going forward, even if the local school implements that (comms or otherwise). While that should lower some aspects of variability across schools, those standards are going to tighten, with fewer, overall, being placed in PreAlgebra, and with discouragement, if not proscription, of adding in students on the margin to create manageable class sizes. We'll have to see if they institute this in 27-28 a bit differently from 28-29, since the higher end of the earlier incoming 6th-grade class will have covered 6th standards more fully in compacted 5/6 while the higher end of the following ones will have had less comprehensive acceleration into 6th standards with the on grade level-based cluster model.

Given the measures they have on hand to make determinations, it may well be that we again end up with a situation where lots of kids in better off areas get placed highly due to the synthesis of greater outside enrichment and the higher performing large cohort to which their ES's then could direct teaching resources, while few from other areas are highly placed.

Seems to me this push for equity is going to end up with even more inequitable access… and then they’re going to declare that because of that, no one gets acceleration. It’s a perpetuating cycle where gifted kids — regardless of their socioeconomic background — are going to be left behind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

We missed this week's school. Do every rising 5th graders in compacted math 4/5 get a letter for math placement for 5th grade? Well DC has been 99% on MAP M.

[Anonymous]

“…they have been clustered in a cohort to receive:

Grade-level instruction consistent with consistent acceleration rade level instruction with consistent acceleration and placed in a small group cohort with like learners.”

What does this even mean???

The word “consistent” is there three times. Who wrote this??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“…they have been clustered in a cohort to receive:

Grade-level instruction consistent with consistent acceleration rade level instruction with consistent acceleration and placed in a small group cohort with like learners.”

What does this even mean???

The word “consistent” is there three times. Who wrote this??

Classic MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

They don't want to push your child into 5/6 if you think they have struggled. Otherwise, they are placing all the 4/5 kids in 5/6 for this coming year only so that they close out the sequence, transitioning to the in-class cluster model for future years (and beginning with this year's rising 4th graders). Unless they have some clear documentation of struggle, themselves, in which case they should be reaching out to you to discuss that possibly unexpected placement decision.

I’ve heard some schools are pushing more kids down to the slower track. It seems so inconsistent across the district

They're effectively tightening criteria for the highest cohort, so there will be fewer than have been in compacted. On the flip side, there's supposed to be some greater consistency with the central-supplied criteria (though there's another post about that).

And there are five formal clusters/groupings instead of the current two in the general sense (on-level and compacted)/three when including remedial supports. This, itself, may hold promise but be highly variably difficult to implement successfully across schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

They don't want to push your child into 5/6 if you think they have struggled. Otherwise, they are placing all the 4/5 kids in 5/6 for this coming year only so that they close out the sequence, transitioning to the in-class cluster model for future years (and beginning with this year's rising 4th graders). Unless they have some clear documentation of struggle, themselves, in which case they should be reaching out to you to discuss that possibly unexpected placement decision.

I’ve heard some schools are pushing more kids down to the slower track. It seems so inconsistent across the district

I mean, if they actually can get enrichment right (which is a *huge* if), they absolutely *should* be shrinking the number of accelerated kids. Some schools have way, way too many kids in compacted. I heard someone say that there's a school with like half of the kids in compacted math, which is nuts. If some schools have been selecting a narrow group and some schools have been selecting a really broad group, then yeah, there's going to be differences throughout the district on how many get bumped down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

They don't want to push your child into 5/6 if you think they have struggled. Otherwise, they are placing all the 4/5 kids in 5/6 for this coming year only so that they close out the sequence, transitioning to the in-class cluster model for future years (and beginning with this year's rising 4th graders). Unless they have some clear documentation of struggle, themselves, in which case they should be reaching out to you to discuss that possibly unexpected placement decision.

I’ve heard some schools are pushing more kids down to the slower track. It seems so inconsistent across the district

I mean, if they actually can get enrichment right (which is a *huge* if), they absolutely *should* be shrinking the number of accelerated kids. Some schools have way, way too many kids in compacted. I heard someone say that there's a school with like half of the kids in compacted math, which is nuts. If some schools have been selecting a narrow group and some schools have been selecting a really broad group, then yeah, there's going to be differences throughout the district on how many get bumped down.

As a parent of older kids now in high school, I do think the criteria they were using for compacted math ended up including a lot of kids who probably shouldn’t have been on that track. But I don’t love dropping kids down based on a single data point, and I don’t love making permanent decisions based on testing performed on 9 year olds. I also don’t love the huge inconsistencies across the district and I don’t believe in using local norming to negatively recalculate scores. It’s really designed to boost kids with barriers not create ways to gatekeep. I also think calculus in 10th grade is insanity. What a mess this all is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can folks who are reporting on their child's placement (either rising 4th or 5th graders) please also share their MAP percentile?

Rising 5th grader going into Math 5/6, 98th percentile MAP M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“…they have been clustered in a cohort to receive:

Grade-level instruction consistent with consistent acceleration rade level instruction with consistent acceleration and placed in a small group cohort with like learners.”

What does this even mean???

The word “consistent” is there three times. Who wrote this??

We’re doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone with a rising 5th grader currently in compacted math get a letter noting their student will return to grade level math next year?

I got a letter saying my rising 5th grader will be in Math 5/6, but there was also an option to check for returning to Math 5. Maybe this happens every year when they evaluate which math class students should take next year after current year performance?

They don't want to push your child into 5/6 if you think they have struggled. Otherwise, they are placing all the 4/5 kids in 5/6 for this coming year only so that they close out the sequence, transitioning to the in-class cluster model for future years (and beginning with this year's rising 4th graders). Unless they have some clear documentation of struggle, themselves, in which case they should be reaching out to you to discuss that possibly unexpected placement decision.

I’ve heard some schools are pushing more kids down to the slower track. It seems so inconsistent across the district

I mean, if they actually can get enrichment right (which is a *huge* if), they absolutely *should* be shrinking the number of accelerated kids. Some schools have way, way too many kids in compacted. I heard someone say that there's a school with like half of the kids in compacted math, which is nuts. If some schools have been selecting a narrow group and some schools have been selecting a really broad group, then yeah, there's going to be differences throughout the district on how many get bumped down.

As a parent of older kids now in high school, I do think the criteria they were using for compacted math ended up including a lot of kids who probably shouldn’t have been on that track. But I don’t love dropping kids down based on a single data point, and I don’t love making permanent decisions based on testing performed on 9 year olds. I also don’t love the huge inconsistencies across the district and I don’t believe in using local norming to negatively recalculate scores. It’s really designed to boost kids with barriers not create ways to gatekeep. I also think calculus in 10th grade is insanity. What a mess this all is.

A lot to agree with, here. With the PP's caveat about the big if of MCPS getting it right and schools implementing if faithfully, the new elementary model should help a bit.

The 5-cluster paradigm is going all the way from 3rd grade to 5th in 27-28 (only 4th this coming year as a transition away from compacted so that they don't start with the old one and then shift to the new one for 5th). Cluster placement is supposed to be revisited quarterly. The more tracked (disfavored word, nowadays) effect is not happening until placement in 6th grade (outside of presumably rare grade advancement outside of the in-grade clustering paradigm).

How they use the multiple metrics to determine ES cluster and MS class placement is going to be key. Sliding heuristic, as they seem to have indicated? Holds promise. Multiple strict gates? Not so much.

Local norming, and the whole magnet model, would have been better if they ever got to use the plan from 7 years ago, where only the real outliers from a school would get pulled into a magnet, with schools with large cohorts of high performers delivering magnet instruction within the school and students without a peer cohort not being left behind, getting magnet instruction with those from other schools at the regional centers. Of course, the pandemic had them scrap that, and the relatively low locally-normed bar that resulted, paired with the lottery, was a completely different proposition. They should have gone back to that earlier plan, but were so busy with recovery that they let it stay in place.

Calc proper in 10th is really a stretch for anyone not at the level of a SMCS magnet (not that they have to be in SMCS, itself). Even half of those kids now do three semesters of Algebra 2/PreCalc combo that gets them to their Calc-equivalent class in middle of 10th. MCPS really should be heavily favoring a 2-year PreCalc-ish standard, with an option for a one-year course with appropriate guidance/warning, but with consideration of the student's preference, for those coming from Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 because of the standards that will be missing, there, from the current Algebra/Geometry/Algebra 2 classes. That's for the kids going for the Calc path post-IA. The other paths would seem better aligned, but they are still being formulated, and I'm sure many will be choosing the Calc path because of the presumed college-bound bent.

[Anonymous]

Is the letter from the school or from MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“…they have been clustered in a cohort to receive:

Grade-level instruction consistent with consistent acceleration rade level instruction with consistent acceleration and placed in a small group cohort with like learners.”

What does this even mean???

The word “consistent” is there three times. Who wrote this??

We’re doomed.

How can you say that?

The letter states, “This new model is designed to make learning math more effective and fair for all students.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“…they have been clustered in a cohort to receive:

Grade-level instruction consistent with consistent acceleration rade level instruction with consistent acceleration and placed in a small group cohort with like learners.”

What does this even mean???

The word “consistent” is there three times. Who wrote this??

We’re doomed.

How can you say that?

The letter states, “This new model is designed to make learning math more effective and fair for all students.”

“We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought.”

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

"...new, delicious Soylent Green: The 'miracle food'..."

"Happy Hunger Games!"