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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The emphasis on quantity over quality is infuriating. Adding 15 minutes a day isn’t going to help low performing students succeed in math, but I guess we could take opportunities to excel away from high performers….

[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.

Is MCPS actually pushing back on this? I haven't seen any sign of that so far. Have others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

No, they didn't.

[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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

[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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

My kids are doing fine in math. But we need more kids to be proficient in math. The proficiency percentages are absolutely unacceptable. We are not talking about we need more kids scoring high in math. We are talking about the minimum level of proficient.

[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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

The policy is written to require 300 weekly minutes of math per week. Or 60 cumulative minutes daily. If MSDE is propagating more stringent requirements, that is something tangible that could be advocated against.

[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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

The policy is written to require 300 weekly minutes of math per week. Or 60 cumulative minutes daily. If MSDE is propagating more stringent requirements, that is something tangible that could be advocated against.

DP. Can you demonstrate from the language of the MSDE policy/other available reference material how that 300 minutes weekly would be accomplished within the current start/end bell schedule without sacrificing adequate time for seven subjects in MS? Other than the 8-period block arrangement previously noted, which MCPS doesn't seem to be willing to pursue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

My kids are doing fine in math. But we need more kids to be proficient in math. The proficiency percentages are absolutely unacceptable. We are not talking about we need more kids scoring high in math. We are talking about the minimum level of proficient.

And why should your kids doing fine in math sit in math class for that extra 15 minutes? Why should they lose instructional time for another classs or lose an elective entirely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

The policy is written to require 300 weekly minutes of math per week. Or 60 cumulative minutes daily. If MSDE is propagating more stringent requirements, that is something tangible that could be advocated against.

DP. Can you demonstrate from the language of the MSDE policy/other available reference material how that 300 minutes weekly would be accomplished within the current start/end bell schedule without sacrificing adequate time for seven subjects in MS? Other than the 8-period block arrangement previously noted, which MCPS doesn't seem to be willing to pursue?

I have not found any "other available reference material" on the 60/300 minute math requirement. Alternatives to cutting out an elective have been proposed on this thread and have been roundly dismissed as being contrary to "guidance" which hasn't been linked to. If MCPS doesn't want to pursue an obvious solution, that is on MCPS, not MSDE or the state board, but it doesn't look like anyone wants to lobby MCPS to implement the obvious solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

The policy is written to require 300 weekly minutes of math per week. Or 60 cumulative minutes daily. If MSDE is propagating more stringent requirements, that is something tangible that could be advocated against.

DP. Can you demonstrate from the language of the MSDE policy/other available reference material how that 300 minutes weekly would be accomplished within the current start/end bell schedule without sacrificing adequate time for seven subjects in MS? Other than the 8-period block arrangement previously noted, which MCPS doesn't seem to be willing to pursue?

I have not found any "other available reference material" on the 60/300 minute math requirement. Alternatives to cutting out an elective have been proposed on this thread and have been roundly dismissed as being contrary to "guidance" which hasn't been linked to. If MCPS doesn't want to pursue an obvious solution, that is on MCPS, not MSDE or the state board, but it doesn't look like anyone wants to lobby MCPS to implement the obvious solution.

Is the obvious solution for you the block schedule?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

My kids are doing fine in math. But we need more kids to be proficient in math. The proficiency percentages are absolutely unacceptable. We are not talking about we need more kids scoring high in math. We are talking about the minimum level of proficient.

And why should your kids doing fine in math sit in math class for that extra 15 minutes? Why should they lose instructional time for another classs or lose an elective entirely?

The answer is that MCPS is being stubborn and wants to take an elective away. Nobody is forcing them to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No. Students need a well-rounded education. Some kids just need a reason to go to school in the morning and math isn't usually the inspiration for that. It's classes that interest them which is why electives are so important including world languages. Parents need to do their part at home. I see so many complaints on this board like "school didn't teach my kids times tables, now they are failing. MCPS is the worst."

....when they could have easily helped by reinforcing and practicing at home. Parents USED to do this. Now they expect schools to do everything including raise them, feed them, deal with their social/emotional problems, etc.

My kids are doing fine in math. But we need more kids to be proficient in math. The proficiency percentages are absolutely unacceptable. We are not talking about we need more kids scoring high in math. We are talking about the minimum level of proficient.

Then honestly maybe the kids who are not proficient in math are the ones that need the solution, not everyone. Just like if you are below grade level in English you take an extra reading course instead of starting foreign language.

[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.

based on the published math policy there is zero need to cut out an elective

Go away. If your position is "it's not clear and no one knows for sure that this will be required," then fine, you can believe that. But don't go around correcting people who interpret it differently as if you have some source of higher knowledge.

The policy is written to require 300 weekly minutes of math per week. Or 60 cumulative minutes daily. If MSDE is propagating more stringent requirements, that is something tangible that could be advocated against.

I would do some soul-searching here if I were you. Why are you so obsessed with this? Leaving aside the fact that you keep ignoring the fact that the language in the policy requires that "math courses" be scheduled for 300 minutes per week, you apparently think that "being right on the internet" is worth trying to talk people out of fighting to preserve the middle school experience for their kids. In other words, your self-image is more important to you than the well-being of thousands of kids. Is that really who you want to be, or might you consider stepping away?