MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you all know how it used to be, DS was split out based on testing for accelerated math in 1st grade, then compacted math, then acceleration through middle school and high school.

Today he’s at an Ivy studying for a PhD.

Guess what, some kids actually are gifted not just privileged.

What point are you making? That we are screwing kids now more than ever? What does that have to do with privilege?

My kid is VERY smart (highest MAP our school has ever seen) and there was still no acceleration until 4th grade. The enrichment they got in class was nothing. The teachers are struggling and just trying to make it through the day. And it sounds like there will be even less for my younger kids.

Now I’m really curious what their MAP score is!

[Anonymous]

Just a heads up on Sheila Berlinger: She’s still at MCPS through June 1. If you have questions, NOW is the time to ask her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been seeing that state guidance indicated those with a MCAP score of 4 should be accelerated. When will those scores be available for those in 3rd grade? Wouldn't we need them now to be able to advocate for class placement? I think they still have some testing dates coming up though.

It’s pretty hard to get a 4 on mcaps. I just pulled up my kid’s most recent report. He did get a 4, and it said only 3 percent of kids in the state did. The school average was just barely a low 3 and it’s a pretty well performing school. This kid has never gotten a MAP score below 99th percentile in his entire life.

And that’s about the right percentage of students that should continue being accelerated further.

If kids that were getting 4’s previously start were accelerated and then started getting 3’s, particular in the mid to high range, then they are at the correct level. This is not a decline in math ability or scoring but appropriate leveling.

I have a HUGE issue with making acceleration decisions based on one single test/data point. MCPS is terrible about this. This is literally the opposite of adding on and off ramps. It’s closing the highway.

No this does not close the highway. Kids who score 4 on MCAP getting guaranteed acceleration shouldn’t mean they are the only ones who receive acceleration. It just means thats one group you know likely needs more acceleration. Some kids who score 3 may be close and should be accelerated and some may need the challenge. That needs to be evaluated by other data points. That said, as all these kids go further along in math, I would expect to see only 3-5% continue to get 4 on MCAP. Meaning most don’t need further acceleration they should remain on their current path.

[Anonymous]

Saving myself a 45 page read - can someone simplify what is happening? So there is no more compacted math and teachers will need to differentiate in groups, based on testing, who would get more advanced teaching — all in the same class period and same classroom? No support? Phasing out compact math next 2 years for grades 4 and 5 only… current third grader starts in this new format?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saving myself a 45 page read - can someone simplify what is happening? So there is no more compacted math and teachers will need to differentiate in groups, based on testing, who would get more advanced teaching — all in the same class period and same classroom? No support? Phasing out compact math next 2 years for grades 4 and 5 only… current third grader starts in this new format?

Pretty much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been seeing that state guidance indicated those with a MCAP score of 4 should be accelerated. When will those scores be available for those in 3rd grade? Wouldn't we need them now to be able to advocate for class placement? I think they still have some testing dates coming up though.

It’s pretty hard to get a 4 on mcaps. I just pulled up my kid’s most recent report. He did get a 4, and it said only 3 percent of kids in the state did. The school average was just barely a low 3 and it’s a pretty well performing school. This kid has never gotten a MAP score below 99th percentile in his entire life.

And that’s about the right percentage of students that should continue being accelerated further.

If kids that were getting 4’s previously start were accelerated and then started getting 3’s, particular in the mid to high range, then they are at the correct level. This is not a decline in math ability or scoring but appropriate leveling.

I have a HUGE issue with making acceleration decisions based on one single test/data point. MCPS is terrible about this. This is literally the opposite of adding on and off ramps. It’s closing the highway.

No this does not close the highway. Kids who score 4 on MCAP getting guaranteed acceleration shouldn’t mean they are the only ones who receive acceleration. It just means thats one group you know likely needs more acceleration. Some kids who score 3 may be close and should be accelerated and some may need the challenge. That needs to be evaluated by other data points. That said, as all these kids go further along in math, I would expect to see only 3-5% continue to get 4 on MCAP. Meaning most don’t need further acceleration they should remain on their current path.

You must be new to MCPS. They won’t look at other data points or do a holistic review to try to get the right placement.

Also, I completely disagree that the MCAP is some amazingly useful and representative test that accurately predicts which students are ready for acceleration. It’s relatively new, written by the state, not nationally used, not adaptive, and hasn’t historically aligned super well with the MCPS curriculum. And it’s being rewritten and our curriculum are also changing. So no, I don’t think that a test with these characteristics is an ideal tool when we have others.

I also disagree that only the top 3 to 5 percent of learners should have the opportunity for acceleration. In a grade of 100 kids you actually only think 3 or 5 kids are working above grade level??! And that the school should give them their own class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been seeing that state guidance indicated those with a MCAP score of 4 should be accelerated. When will those scores be available for those in 3rd grade? Wouldn't we need them now to be able to advocate for class placement? I think they still have some testing dates coming up though.

It’s pretty hard to get a 4 on mcaps. I just pulled up my kid’s most recent report. He did get a 4, and it said only 3 percent of kids in the state did. The school average was just barely a low 3 and it’s a pretty well performing school. This kid has never gotten a MAP score below 99th percentile in his entire life.

And that’s about the right percentage of students that should continue being accelerated further.

If kids that were getting 4’s previously start were accelerated and then started getting 3’s, particular in the mid to high range, then they are at the correct level. This is not a decline in math ability or scoring but appropriate leveling.

I have a HUGE issue with making acceleration decisions based on one single test/data point. MCPS is terrible about this. This is literally the opposite of adding on and off ramps. It’s closing the highway.

No this does not close the highway. Kids who score 4 on MCAP getting guaranteed acceleration shouldn’t mean they are the only ones who receive acceleration. It just means thats one group you know likely needs more acceleration. Some kids who score 3 may be close and should be accelerated and some may need the challenge. That needs to be evaluated by other data points. That said, as all these kids go further along in math, I would expect to see only 3-5% continue to get 4 on MCAP. Meaning most don’t need further acceleration they should remain on their current path.

You must be new to MCPS. They won’t look at other data points or do a holistic review to try to get the right placement.

Also, I completely disagree that the MCAP is some amazingly useful and representative test that accurately predicts which students are ready for acceleration. It’s relatively new, written by the state, not nationally used, not adaptive, and hasn’t historically aligned super well with the MCPS curriculum. And it’s being rewritten and our curriculum are also changing. So no, I don’t think that a test with these characteristics is an ideal tool when we have others.

I also disagree that only the top 3 to 5 percent of learners should have the opportunity for acceleration. In a grade of 100 kids you actually only think 3 or 5 kids are working above grade level??! And that the school should give them their own class?

There are many more than 3-5 kids above grade level, and they deserve challenge and enrichment, which MCPS sucks at so parents demand acceleration for, like, the top 15-25% of kids instead because MCPS can actually do that.

But do more than the top 5% of kids really need to be in Algebra at age 12 and Pre-Calc at age 14? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saving myself a 45 page read - can someone simplify what is happening? So there is no more compacted math and teachers will need to differentiate in groups, based on testing, who would get more advanced teaching — all in the same class period and same classroom? No support? Phasing out compact math next 2 years for grades 4 and 5 only… current third grader starts in this new format?

It doesn’t say current grade 4/5 are getting phased out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been seeing that state guidance indicated those with a MCAP score of 4 should be accelerated. When will those scores be available for those in 3rd grade? Wouldn't we need them now to be able to advocate for class placement? I think they still have some testing dates coming up though.

It’s pretty hard to get a 4 on mcaps. I just pulled up my kid’s most recent report. He did get a 4, and it said only 3 percent of kids in the state did. The school average was just barely a low 3 and it’s a pretty well performing school. This kid has never gotten a MAP score below 99th percentile in his entire life.

And that’s about the right percentage of students that should continue being accelerated further.

If kids that were getting 4’s previously start were accelerated and then started getting 3’s, particular in the mid to high range, then they are at the correct level. This is not a decline in math ability or scoring but appropriate leveling.

I have a HUGE issue with making acceleration decisions based on one single test/data point. MCPS is terrible about this. This is literally the opposite of adding on and off ramps. It’s closing the highway.

No this does not close the highway. Kids who score 4 on MCAP getting guaranteed acceleration shouldn’t mean they are the only ones who receive acceleration. It just means thats one group you know likely needs more acceleration. Some kids who score 3 may be close and should be accelerated and some may need the challenge. That needs to be evaluated by other data points. That said, as all these kids go further along in math, I would expect to see only 3-5% continue to get 4 on MCAP. Meaning most don’t need further acceleration they should remain on their current path.

You must be new to MCPS. They won’t look at other data points or do a holistic review to try to get the right placement.

Also, I completely disagree that the MCAP is some amazingly useful and representative test that accurately predicts which students are ready for acceleration. It’s relatively new, written by the state, not nationally used, not adaptive, and hasn’t historically aligned super well with the MCPS curriculum. And it’s being rewritten and our curriculum are also changing. So no, I don’t think that a test with these characteristics is an ideal tool when we have others.

I also disagree that only the top 3 to 5 percent of learners should have the opportunity for acceleration. In a grade of 100 kids you actually only think 3 or 5 kids are working above grade level??! And that the school should give them their own class?

They look at other data points already. MCAP should not be tied to curriculum because every district can choose their own. MCAP should be aligned with the math standards for the grade and some above. I’m not sure why you disagree about the 3-5% number as research has shown this is percentage of truly gifted persons. As students go up in math, I would expect that only truly gifted math students or those who do more than the norm to prepare are going to continue to score the highest on MCAP. And that’s perfectly fine. Student scoring 3’s which denotes proficient should be the expectation.

Once a student is accelerated the first time, that becomes their normal path. Yes it’s an accelerated path for the district generally, but it’s no longer an accelerated path for the student.

Kid 1- Gets accelerated into 4/5. Scores a mid to high 4 on MCAP. This student may need acceleration.

Kid 2- Gets accelerated into 4/5. Scores a mid to mid 3 on MCAP. This student doesn’t require further acceleration they are on the correct path.

In this situation both kids are doing above grade level work. But only one is still in need of acceleration beyond their current path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saving myself a 45 page read - can someone simplify what is happening? So there is no more compacted math and teachers will need to differentiate in groups, based on testing, who would get more advanced teaching — all in the same class period and same classroom? No support? Phasing out compact math next 2 years for grades 4 and 5 only… current third grader starts in this new format?

You got it.

[Anonymous]

My kids have now graduated from college, but I’m not surprised to hear this. We had ours in MCPS through elementary school, and as they moved toward middle school, we increasingly felt that the very gifted students and students with significant needs were receiving substantial resources, while our kids were doing fine but were not being particularly challenged.

We ultimately pulled our daughter for high school and our son for middle school and moved them to private school. We have not regretted that decision. We also recognize that we were fortunate to have that option, but it came at a significant cost. At a point when we should be close to retirement, we now have several more years of work ahead of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have now graduated from college, but I’m not surprised to hear this. We had ours in MCPS through elementary school, and as they moved toward middle school, we increasingly felt that the very gifted students and students with significant needs were receiving substantial resources, while our kids were doing fine but were not being particularly challenged.

We ultimately pulled our daughter for high school and our son for middle school and moved them to private school. We have not regretted that decision. We also recognize that we were fortunate to have that option, but it came at a significant cost. At a point when we should be close to retirement, we now have several more years of work ahead of us.

Very gifted students in MCPS receive no attention unless they luck out with one of the CES/magnet lotteries.

[Anonymous]

Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.