rumor about compact math true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a nice 3 year experiment. I hope they return the higher level math to all kids at the HGC. When my kids attended the HGC centers several years ago they were advanced in all subjects including math and science.

There are a couple of kids at HGCs that really shouldn't be in advanced math. They are struggling. Not all kids are advanced in every subject, and considering HGC is mostly a language arts/humanities type program, it makes sense to track the advanced math separately.

It's only been a Humanties program for a couple years. Three and 1/2 years ago it was a highly gifted for all subjects magnet. Quietly without any notice when MCPS added compact math they sort of renamed the HGC as humanities programs.

Must have been more than 3.5 years ago because my child was in HGC and is now in MS and we were told that at the open house. They said it had always been a humanities program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W school kids get an Executive education

No, a magnate education.

Ha -- I see what you did there.

[Anonymous]

I think one emphasis in this memo which no one has mentioned is the critical one: better teacher training. It doesn't matter how many kids are in CM if the teachers cannot teach it well. We need better trained math teachers and a program to attract math and other related majors to become teachers.

[Anonymous]

Teacher training was emphasized in the BOE meeting

[Anonymous]

has anyone clarified for sure whether the only school with compacted math next year is Beverly Farms? my son deserves a shot too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:has anyone clarified for sure whether the only school with compacted math next year is Beverly Farms? my son deserves a shot too.

This joke is getting old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think one emphasis in this memo which no one has mentioned is the critical one: better teacher training. It doesn't matter how many kids are in CM if the teachers cannot teach it well. We need better trained math teachers and a program to attract math and other related majors to become teachers.

I was struck by the fact that they were talking about Algebra and Algebra 2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a nice 3 year experiment. I hope they return the higher level math to all kids at the HGC. When my kids attended the HGC centers several years ago they were advanced in all subjects including math and science.

Doubt that is happening. That would increase the gap!

For the record I do believe the math and science at HGC are better than home school, if only for the peer group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that was a nice 3 year experiment. I hope they return the higher level math to all kids at the HGC. When my kids attended the HGC centers several years ago they were advanced in all subjects including math and science.

Doubt that is happening. That would increase the gap!

For the record I do believe the math and science at HGC are better than home school, if only for the peer group.

I agree. My child's 4th grade teacher told us that there was no way she could just teach the regular science curriculum to this group. And even though math was "the same" the school has a full time advanced math teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one emphasis in this memo which no one has mentioned is the critical one: better teacher training. It doesn't matter how many kids are in CM if the teachers cannot teach it well. We need better trained math teachers and a program to attract math and other related majors to become teachers.

I was struck by the fact that they were talking about Algebra and Algebra 2!

Yes, because Algebra 2 is a hot mess at the moment. The memo mentions Curriculum-At-A-Glance guides have been completed for the secondary courses. Hopefully they will be published soon, because this is all I can find for the courses my kids happen to be in and both just say under construction for everything beyond November. Not sure how the course could even be run with out at least the guiding principles worked out but apparently someone has it all written up now.

IM: [url]http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/whiteoakms/departments/math/2015%20IM%20At-a-Glance.pdf
[/url]
Alg 2: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/whiteoakms/departments/math/2015%20Algebra%202%20At-a-Glance.pdf

Everything I see in the memo directly contradicts compacted math rumors. The emphasis seems to be allow more access to compacted math allow more access to middle school pathways that bring acceleration. Re-evalute frequently and make sure no one is being limited arbitrarily.

[Anonymous]

The memo includes this statement:

...Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) mathematics milestone data for the past three years indicate a decline in performance for students across grade levels, with strategic challenges demonstrated in elementary school achievement...

Even though the emphasis of the discussion that follows is entirely about achievement gap, the statement sounds like all students have been getting worse over the past three years based on MAP scores and data even before considering PARCC results. 2.0 has been around long enough that many of these ES students haven't seen anything else yet performance is declining. Sounds like it's time to question whether there's any deeper understanding coming out of 2.0.

[Anonymous]

8:17 Doesn't "getting worse" depend on the assessment?

For example, MCPS starts curriculum 2.0 in math before the PARCC tests are finished. 3rd Graders in MCPS don't touch a particular topic, which it turns out is tested on PARCC! (Surprise!!) Doesn't that mean that everyone in 3rd Grade (unless tutored outside) will do worse because of a curriculum deficiency at MCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:17 Doesn't "getting worse" depend on the assessment?

For example, MCPS starts curriculum 2.0 in math before the PARCC tests are finished. 3rd Graders in MCPS don't touch a particular topic, which it turns out is tested on PARCC! (Surprise!!) Doesn't that mean that everyone in 3rd Grade (unless tutored outside) will do worse because of a curriculum deficiency at MCPS?

PARCC isn't the only way to assess whether things have gotten worse. MAP-M hasn't changed, so that would be a good indicator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:17 Doesn't "getting worse" depend on the assessment?

For example, MCPS starts curriculum 2.0 in math before the PARCC tests are finished. 3rd Graders in MCPS don't touch a particular topic, which it turns out is tested on PARCC! (Surprise!!) Doesn't that mean that everyone in 3rd Grade (unless tutored outside) will do worse because of a curriculum deficiency at MCPS?

PARCC isn't the only way to assess whether things have gotten worse. MAP-M hasn't changed, so that would be a good indicator.

Yes, I'm 8:17. What I thought was interesting was that clearly MCPS has measures for comparing over the last three years even though as parents we mostly look at the PARCC and say there's no comparing apples and oranges we just have to keep waiting and trust things are working. I think it is referring to MAP scores and possibly less formal measuers as well. Here's the full paragraph, they are referring to measures other than PARCC but only the PARCC scores seem to be publicly available:

Meanwhile, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) mathematics milestone data for the past three years indicate a decline in performance for students across grade levels, with strategic challenges demonstrated in elementary school achievement, success in Algebra 1 by Grade 8, and success in Algebra 2 by Grade 11. In addition, the recent PARCC results (attached) also reveal disturbing achievement gaps. We know we must address these trends with urgency both in the short- and long-term to ensure that more of our students are prepared for college and careers upon high school graduation.

[Anonymous]

At the elementary level, the report posted by the OP of this thread did refer to MAP-M data (and Map-P, too), but only to say the achievement gap was worsening, not that overall performance was worsening. However, given the changing demographics I suppose that means that the overall district performance is harmed. Sounds like the proposed solution is three-fold: (1) easier access to compacted math, (2) closer tracking (EMAT), and (3) more teacher training.