State set to keep MS math minutes requirement that will likely cut electives (but delaying it a year)

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Maybe you need reading comprehension classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Maybe you need reading comprehension classes.

It all depends on the details, which are not currently publicly available. The main concerns seem to be about second hand information based on unofficial verbal guidance relayed from central office to teachers. It would not be the first time central office intentionally tried to create a panic among teachers in order to get them to advocate for what central office wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Maybe you need reading comprehension classes.

It all depends on the details, which are not currently publicly available. The main concerns seem to be about second hand information based on unofficial verbal guidance relayed from central office to teachers. It would not be the first time central office intentionally tried to create a panic among teachers in order to get them to advocate for what central office wants.

What are you even talking about? Teachers have brains and can think for themselves.It's not a panic. No one wants to see important programs get cut due to 15 additional minutes of math per day. Do you not realize how something seemingly insignificant can have REAL significant consequences across an entire school? No one needs central office to think for them. It's better to be proactive now, even if the information ultimately turns out to be incorrect, than to wait and discover later that the concerns were valid and that we failed to act when we had the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Well, how do you map that out to middle school schedules? What do you cut? For many people 60 minutes sounds fine until you get to the details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

That sounds good to me. Math is important.

[Anonymous]

Good. American math scores suck. Too many kids graduate high school without math skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

That sounds good to me. Math is important.

DP.

Sure. But so is ELA. And Social Studies. And Science. And foreign language. And PE/Health. And an ability to broaden/stretch into an elective at that age.

There's seven subjects, right there, not six. And seven 60-minute periods with lunch and transition time is not compatible with any likely MS schedule. As noted, before, an 8-period A/B block schedule might still work, especially with a presumption of a similar 60-minute English requirement being on its way, alternating one block between the two subjects to cover the extra instruction while preserving current timing for access to seven subjects, overall.

There are many, still, who are doing fine with current timing/pacing, if not always current instructional practice, which can vary with both teacher and peer group. The data MCPS has provided in their charts leaves out analysis that would show this, and their verbally delivered conclusions with regard to eventual difficulty have been tenuous and self-serving. MSDE has used similar state-wide observances, but even they don't take the conclusions as far as MCPS has.

Telling everyone across the state, good at Math/quick on the uptake or not, that they should be instructed for 60 minutes through 8th grade in the subject was a poorly considered band-aid to underperformance on newer state tests, where fidelity to curricular compliance, on the one hand, and remedial identifications/directed intetventions, on the other, would be more effective. However, they have deemed the latter to be inherently inequitable in practice, and LEAs such as MCPS, long having adopted the same philosophy, have been loath to dissuade the state from its current path, only now pushing back due to the clear operational difficulties that will ensue with MS scheduling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

That sounds good to me. Math is important.

You're honestly delusional if you think this is going to actually help.

[Anonymous]

More doesn't mean better. Anyone who has spent time in a classroom in the last decade knows this.

MCPS needs to stop with the pacing guide and give students the time to actual master the concept rather than pushing everything so fast just to say they covered the material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

That sounds good to me. Math is important.

DP.

Sure. But so is ELA. And Social Studies. And Science. And foreign language. And PE/Health. And an ability to broaden/stretch into an elective at that age.

There's seven subjects, right there, not six. And seven 60-minute periods with lunch and transition time is not compatible with any likely MS schedule. As noted, before, an 8-period A/B block schedule might still work, especially with a presumption of a similar 60-minute English requirement being on its way, alternating one block between the two subjects to cover the extra instruction while preserving current timing for access to seven subjects, overall.

There are many, still, who are doing fine with current timing/pacing, if not always current instructional practice, which can vary with both teacher and peer group. The data MCPS has provided in their charts leaves out analysis that would show this, and their verbally delivered conclusions with regard to eventual difficulty have been tenuous and self-serving. MSDE has used similar state-wide observances, but even they don't take the conclusions as far as MCPS has.

Telling everyone across the state, good at Math/quick on the uptake or not, that they should be instructed for 60 minutes through 8th grade in the subject was a poorly considered band-aid to underperformance on newer state tests, where fidelity to curricular compliance, on the one hand, and remedial identifications/directed intetventions, on the other, would be more effective. However, they have deemed the latter to be inherently inequitable in practice, and LEAs such as MCPS, long having adopted the same philosophy, have been loath to dissuade the state from its current path, only now pushing back due to the clear operational difficulties that will ensue with MS scheduling.

I would be fine with cutting time out of social studies and foreign language for more math time.

[Anonymous]

These naep proficiency percentages are unacceptable. Even 50% proficiency rate would be unacceptable.

We don't need foreign language to be taught in school. Families that want that can do it outside or school. We need much higher percentage of students proficient in math.

[Anonymous]

I’m wonder if MS math teachers will stop assigning homework, or allow it to be completed in class. If so, there wouldn’t really be any additional time for math, just less time for other subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with 60 minutes of math? Good Idea.

Because the way that middle school schedules work, it would mean cutting a period out of the day for other subjects (probably electives)-- either going to a 6 period day or doing double-period math.

That sounds good to me. Math is important.

DP.

Sure. But so is ELA. And Social Studies. And Science. And foreign language. And PE/Health. And an ability to broaden/stretch into an elective at that age.

There's seven subjects, right there, not six. And seven 60-minute periods with lunch and transition time is not compatible with any likely MS schedule. As noted, before, an 8-period A/B block schedule might still work, especially with a presumption of a similar 60-minute English requirement being on its way, alternating one block between the two subjects to cover the extra instruction while preserving current timing for access to seven subjects, overall.

There are many, still, who are doing fine with current timing/pacing, if not always current instructional practice, which can vary with both teacher and peer group. The data MCPS has provided in their charts leaves out analysis that would show this, and their verbally delivered conclusions with regard to eventual difficulty have been tenuous and self-serving. MSDE has used similar state-wide observances, but even they don't take the conclusions as far as MCPS has.

Telling everyone across the state, good at Math/quick on the uptake or not, that they should be instructed for 60 minutes through 8th grade in the subject was a poorly considered band-aid to underperformance on newer state tests, where fidelity to curricular compliance, on the one hand, and remedial identifications/directed intetventions, on the other, would be more effective. However, they have deemed the latter to be inherently inequitable in practice, and LEAs such as MCPS, long having adopted the same philosophy, have been loath to dissuade the state from its current path, only now pushing back due to the clear operational difficulties that will ensue with MS scheduling.

I would be fine with cutting time out of social studies and foreign language for more math time.

Ugh.

Too many high school graduates would have a hard time finding a foreign country on a map. People need to be aware of their world to be informed voters and active members of their communities. Social studies is underrated. I would argue that among math, science, ELA, and social studies — high school level social studies is of the most critical daily use (apart from career choices, which of course vary).