Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.

But... But... Someone on DCUM said it was true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.

But... But... Someone on DCUM said it was true!

Sadly, it is true. Ask your elementary school's principal after their 12:30pm meeting tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.

Who discussed? What's the next step?

[Anonymous]

Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The guidance I'm aware of came out for students currently in 4th grade and enrolled in Math 4/5 about if they take Math 5 next year or move on to 5/6. The reason given was the loss of instructional time over the past year + to cover almost two years of content.

There was a score for Fall and a score for Spring, I understood from what I heard that students could meet either the Fall or the Spring score, plus they had to have grades or a teacher advocacy AND strong scores on the district assessments. So it wasn't just MAP-M.

Since the spring MAP window is still open, it doesn't seem that the number of students who will qualify could be known at this point.

I also heard there will be new guidance for identifying students currently in 3rd grade, but I don't think that was shared yet. It sounds like schools wont be making those decisions but they will come from Central Office like the CES list does.

I think this is key. There is that other thread about how some 40% of the math curriculum was not taught this year due to DL.

We all know that there is also grade inflation.

Quite frankly, I wish they would do this with all MSer, too. DD is in Algebra 7th grade, and I'm concerned that she is missing content. I'm making her review Algebra over the summer. I think there are a lot of kids out there who have big black holes in their math understanding this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

shouldn't this be symetrical? If an extremely high MAP-M takes you to compacted math then shouldn't an extremely low MAP-M result in remedial math?

In considering the real consequences, this will result in 99%ile MAP-M kids required to work at the same pace as potentially 20%ile MAP-M but more likely a 50%ile MAP-M. How does Johnny with his hand raised all day spouting out the answers help either Johnny or Steven who is struggling with the foundational concepts?

[Anonymous]

When will MCPS release info publicly? It is hard to complain by saying that there is a DCUM rumor (which I have no doubt is true, given MCPS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.

Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.

Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.

[Anonymous]

I can’t speak to whether this is true, but want to say it is possible for kids to not do compacted math, and still go into the “advanced” track in MS. My son did this, as did several of his classmates (his ES principal refused to allow any compacted math the year he would have started it, for reasons that were never clear to me). His 5th grade teacher said he (and others) clearly needed the higher level math and she, and I, spoke with the 6th grade curriculum lead and he put them into the higher math. I was really nervous, but he barely missed a step and did just fine. I don’t know how all the kids did, but it is possible and might be something to explore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.

Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.

Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.

215 for spring MAP-M 3rd grade would Make complete sense. 251 for even 4th spring MAP-M makes zero sense as it even cuts off some kids in 99th percentile. Maybe they will clarify this to principals tomorrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the fourth graders in CM will finish 1/2 of 5th grade math this year and then start it over again at a slower pace next year?

Likely so. remember MCPS is trying really hard to close the achievement gap!

[Anonymous]

But for the 3rd grade CES rejection letter, No, I mean the in-lottery-but-not-selected letter, it said my 3rd grade kid will be in ELC and compact math for 4th grade.

If not, does MCPS lie to us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.

Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.

Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.

215 for spring MAP-M 3rd grade would Make complete sense. 251 for even 4th spring MAP-M makes zero sense as it even cuts off some kids in 99th percentile. Maybe they will clarify this to principals tomorrow?

250s is middle school. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But for the 3rd grade CES rejection letter, No, I mean the in-lottery-but-not-selected letter, it said my 3rd grade kid will be in ELC and compact math for 4th grade.

If not, does MCPS lie to us?

CES has nothing to do with compacted math. ELC yes if your school offers it, but there is no promise related to Math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.

Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.

So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.

Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.

215 for spring MAP-M 3rd grade would Make complete sense. 251 for even 4th spring MAP-M makes zero sense as it even cuts off some kids in 99th percentile. Maybe they will clarify this to principals tomorrow?

250s is middle school. Makes no sense.

Whiplashing the district again - from everyone can and should have the opportunity to accelerate to hardly anyone should have the opportunity to accelerate. Let the students and their parents decide!