rumor about compact math true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

You actually seriously think that MCPS changed the entire system-wide math curriculum and philosophy because Joe Blow AP Calc teacher at Sherwood HS complained that some of his kids had bad foundation skills? Really? Seriously? I know this forum likes to slag off MCPS for everything, but really?

No, but I do agree with the PP that the problem of over-acceleration has been over sold. As problems go why should anyone even care? I also don't care why the curriculum was changed, I just want some evidence it's improved something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At today's BOE meeting someone said that they started putting kids in CM who didn't make the cut off but that the school recommended and those students have been doing well.

My understanding is that it's common to put in at least a few kids that don't make the cut-off because they need to round up the numbers to make a class. Like if there are only 20 kids that make the cut-off, but there are 25 kids average per 4th grade class, they'll add in another 5 kids that were close to the cut-off, so that the remaining teachers don't have to have more than 25 kids in their non-compacted math class. I don't know if anyone then tracks whether those kids do better or worse than the kids who were above the cut-off. I'm sure we all know folks who were waitlisted at X school, but graduated near the top of the class.... unfortunately, in any assessment system, there are going to be a lot of clear "yes"s and a lot of clear "no"s and then a fuzzy middle where it's basically sort of random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At today's BOE meeting someone said that they started putting kids in CM who didn't make the cut off but that the school recommended and those students have been doing well.

My understanding is that it's common to put in at least a few kids that don't make the cut-off because they need to round up the numbers to make a class. Like if there are only 20 kids that make the cut-off, but there are 25 kids average per 4th grade class, they'll add in another 5 kids that were close to the cut-off, so that the remaining teachers don't have to have more than 25 kids in their non-compacted math class. I don't know if anyone then tracks whether those kids do better or worse than the kids who were above the cut-off. I'm sure we all know folks who were waitlisted at X school, but graduated near the top of the class.... unfortunately, in any assessment system, there are going to be a lot of clear "yes"s and a lot of clear "no"s and then a fuzzy middle where it's basically sort of random.

That was not the sense of the statement though. It was a purposeful experiment to see if it could be left up to the schools and MCPS has decided that it can be left to the individual schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

You actually seriously think that MCPS changed the entire system-wide math curriculum and philosophy because Joe Blow AP Calc teacher at Sherwood HS complained that some of his kids had bad foundation skills? Really? Seriously? I know this forum likes to slag off MCPS for everything, but really?

No, but I do agree with the PP that the problem of over-acceleration has been over sold. As problems go why should anyone even care? I also don't care why the curriculum was changed, I just want some evidence it's improved something.

There is no data either way that will show you that slowing kids down hurt/helped because standardized tests show only one thing -- can they follow the steps to solve a math problem. These tests cannot show whether a kid has a deep understanding of basic math concepts like fractions and decimals.

However, they found that although some portion of US kids were doing well on the MAP M tests, they were doing poorly on the PISA math test compared to top rated countries. The reason was attributed to the fact that MAP tests don't test how to apply math knowledge, only to follow the steps to solve a math problem, whereas the PISA math test mostly tests math knowledge.

Additionally, a lot of kids who score high on math standardized tests have outside math tutoring. If a child has outside math tutoring even though the child doesn't need the extra help, of course that child will be more advanced than what the school is teaching for that grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Three and a half years ago the HGC had the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum. Whereas now, in contrast, the HGC has the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum.

My DC was in the program. It was different at our HGC.

When my kids were in the HGC (Barnsley) pre 2.0, they did offer acceleration. There was a class for IM. The IM kids then went into Algebra in the 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Three and a half years ago the HGC had the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum. Whereas now, in contrast, the HGC has the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum.

My DC was in the program. It was different at our HGC.

When my kids were in the HGC (Barnsley) pre 2.0, they did offer acceleration. There was a class for IM. The IM kids then went into Algebra in the 6th grade.

It was the same math curriculum -- just a year ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

I agree with the PPs, one teacher complaining wouldn't change *anything*... are you kidding. But, many teachers and many parents complaining, then yea, I see why they changed it.

http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182009/potonew194846_32535.shtml

"The Montgomery County Public Schools math curriculum remains "a mile wide and an inch deep" even as an increasing number of sixth- and seventh-graders begin studying algebra, according to Nancy Feldman, a former long-term substitute teacher in math at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda who now tutors students in math.

"Very few are comfortable with fractions, decimals and percents. That's consistent across the board," Feldman said of students in Algebra 1 and higher courses."

I heard the same thing from another parent of a current HSer.

Changing the pacing, making students wait longer to get to Algebra isn'r necessarily going to solve the problem. If the curriculum isn't teaching the kids what they need, giving them an extra year of something that doesn't work isn't going to magically fix things. I think that's why so many kids are getting turltoring (Kumon, etc.). The key is to fix the curriculum, and you can start by getting rid of calculators in elementary school. I've heard math teachers say it, and I have yet to come across a parent in the math magnet who didn't limit calculator use to some degree (there may be some, I just don't know them).

Curriculum 2.0 may be better, (my kids have managed to mostly stay ahead of it), but from everything I've heard they just made it worse. My general experience with the MCPS curriculum department is that they have strong pedagogical beliefs that control their curriculum decisions more than the subject matter.

[Anonymous]

I find most curriculum 2.0 to be fine except for a few weird things here and there.

IMO the problem is that one size does not fit all. There are kids in holding patterns when they could easily do more and their are kids that are pushed ahead when they need more review.

I volunteer quite a bit at my kids school and from what I see having kids with such varying levels in one class is not doing anyone any favors. The kids that are struggling are not motivated by the top kids. Most of them seem to end up feeling bad about themselves.

[Anonymous]

2.0 math is horrible and the data coming in isn't going to get any better until MCPS gets rid of the staff in the curriculum office and resets the math curriculum. Basically, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

1. Focus on raising achievement for all students. Stop trying to create an artificial band in the middle by inflating the bottom (remember adding extra points to math exams because too many lower performing students failed) and pushing down the top (eliminating acceleration to "lower" the gap").

2. Re-instate rigor and transparent testing. This is math not comparative basket weaving philosophy. Give rigorous unit tests, real grades and students don't move on until they know the material. Students that know the material and pass should be allowed to move on. Tests should be sent home.

3. Remove the mysticism. Math instructions shouldn't be considered a secret family recipe. Send home math homework with clear instructions and examples. Seriously people -how fucking hard would this be? There are many non-math oriented parents who have absolutely no idea what their kids should be doing but with some fucking instructions and one or two examples could easily help the kids.

4. Offer math booster programs in ALL the schools. Math clubs, homework clubs, and bring in upper level students to help with math tutoring. MCPS already requires SSL hours with students running all over the place desperately trying to get hours in.

5. Stop pretending that an education major who has feared math all her life is capable of understanding and teaching math. A one day training class isn't going to resolve a lifetime of math ignorance. For god's sake don't let these people develop math curriculum!

6. Use technology. Adaptive math programs are available everywhere.

[Anonymous]

So an education major can't teach it...but a random HS kid in need of SSL hours is going to fix the problem. Thanks for the suggestions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Three and a half years ago the HGC had the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum. Whereas now, in contrast, the HGC has the same math curriculum as MCPS and the same basic science curriculum.

My DC was in the program. It was different at our HGC.

When my kids were in the HGC (Barnsley) pre 2.0, they did offer acceleration. There was a class for IM. The IM kids then went into Algebra in the 6th grade.

It was the same math curriculum -- just a year ahead.

This is correct. There has never been a separate HGC curriculum for math or science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2.0 math is horrible and the data coming in isn't going to get any better until MCPS gets rid of the staff in the curriculum office and resets the math curriculum. Basically, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

1. Focus on raising achievement for all students. Stop trying to create an artificial band in the middle by inflating the bottom (remember adding extra points to math exams because too many lower performing students failed) and pushing down the top (eliminating acceleration to "lower" the gap").

2. Re-instate rigor and transparent testing. This is math not comparative basket weaving philosophy. Give rigorous unit tests, real grades and students don't move on until they know the material. Students that know the material and pass should be allowed to move on. Tests should be sent home.

3. Remove the mysticism. Math instructions shouldn't be considered a secret family recipe. Send home math homework with clear instructions and examples. Seriously people -how fucking hard would this be? There are many non-math oriented parents who have absolutely no idea what their kids should be doing but with some fucking instructions and one or two examples could easily help the kids.

4. Offer math booster programs in ALL the schools. Math clubs, homework clubs, and bring in upper level students to help with math tutoring. MCPS already requires SSL hours with students running all over the place desperately trying to get hours in.

5. Stop pretending that an education major who has feared math all her life is capable of understanding and teaching math. A one day training class isn't going to resolve a lifetime of math ignorance. For god's sake don't let these people develop math curriculum!

6. Use technology. Adaptive math programs are available everywhere.

You are awesome. This is great -- run for School Board. You give clear, direct instructions.

[Anonymous]

"I find most curriculum 2.0 to be fine except for a few weird things here and there.

IMO the problem is that one size does not fit all. There are kids in holding patterns when they could easily do more and their are kids that are pushed ahead when they need more review. "

+1. The only thing I see wrong w/ DD's math is that it's painstakingly slow & repetitive but without having the volume needed for memorization. She's not being coached thru HW (we do separately) to practice math facts in enough of a pattern to help drill them in. It's just a few questions more focused on concept. The pace of concept introduction is too slow while the level of "drilling" on key memorization facts is not enough.

[Anonymous]

Wait so I'm confused. Is there going to be CM next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2.0 math is horrible and the data coming in isn't going to get any better until MCPS gets rid of the staff in the curriculum office and resets the math curriculum. Basically, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.

1. Focus on raising achievement for all students. Stop trying to create an artificial band in the middle by inflating the bottom (remember adding extra points to math exams because too many lower performing students failed) and pushing down the top (eliminating acceleration to "lower" the gap").

2. Re-instate rigor and transparent testing. This is math not comparative basket weaving philosophy. Give rigorous unit tests, real grades and students don't move on until they know the material. Students that know the material and pass should be allowed to move on. Tests should be sent home.

3. Remove the mysticism. Math instructions shouldn't be considered a secret family recipe. Send home math homework with clear instructions and examples. Seriously people -how fucking hard would this be? There are many non-math oriented parents who have absolutely no idea what their kids should be doing but with some fucking instructions and one or two examples could easily help the kids.

4. Offer math booster programs in ALL the schools. Math clubs, homework clubs, and bring in upper level students to help with math tutoring. MCPS already requires SSL hours with students running all over the place desperately trying to get hours in.

5. Stop pretending that an education major who has feared math all her life is capable of understanding and teaching math. A one day training class isn't going to resolve a lifetime of math ignorance. For god's sake don't let these people develop math curriculum!

6. Use technology. Adaptive math programs are available everywhere.

You are awesome. This is great -- run for School Board. You give clear, direct instructions.

OMG - +1

All things that would be beneficial. And, IMO, none of your suggestions seem like they'd be controversial at all. Seriously - I'd like to see someone arguing that they're bad suggestions.