Compact math is really not compact math anymore

[Anonymous]

To the above pp. common core isn’t terrible. It’s my understanding that not all states have adopted it. But this is 8th grade math:

https://uk.ixl.com/community/IXL-Math-Common-Core-alignments-8.pdf

It’s more than just defining a function. Kids who complete 8th grade common core math seem like they would be well-prepared for algebra I. But it also seems like gifted kids skip this year of math. Which may be for good reason. I’m in the UK, and I’m not sure where we will end up. I’ve been impressed by common core in 7th and 8th. My 10yo is completing 7th grade right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. We're from England, and thoroughly unimpressed. My kids get home pretty spent and don't want to do Singapore Math or spelling with mum at 5 or 6pm. They do love their summer camps at Landon School and Holton Arms though.

Have you thought about sending your kids there? They have great financial aid. It is night and day to public school.

For $42,975 (Holton Arms) and Landon School ($39,220 - a bargain!) per year for grades 3-6, one would certainly hope so.

I pay $12K a year after financial aid. This includes everything including daily breakfast, snacks, and lunches. No packing lunches and getting fantastic healthy food is a huge burden off my back. Once a week after school music lesson included as well. They also have free proctored homework zone until 4:35pm so I don’t have to pay for after school care. I also save a ton in clothing as a few uniform pieces suffice for the week. Ratios are anywhere from 10-15 kids per teacher. No standardized testing. Teachers that think outside the box. Take classes outside for lessons. Daily PE or sports. Art a few times a week. A greenhouse garden, etc....

We probably pay $5K a year when you figure after-care, weekly private music lesson, and 2 warm meals a day. Well worth it. Daughter is thriving and happy. Her anxiety is completely gone. So we probably would be using that 5K in therapy and meds. Don’t judge. 25% of families are on FA and they are generous.

My brother loves his kids' private school for lots of reasons (not cost, I don't think they get FA). They are beginning to see the other aspect of private school, though. My brother and SIL don't particularly like it. Whether the self-confidence and ability to talk to teachers as equals is considered a positive or negative is up to each person.

I can assure you that talking and working with teachers or any adult is a skill that most kids do not have anymore. I would see that as a positive, especially at college when they are on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I can assure you that talking and working with teachers or any adult is a skill that most kids do not have anymore. I would see that as a positive, especially at college when they are on their own.

Socrates and Confucius probably said much the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can assure you that talking and working with teachers or any adult is a skill that most kids do not have anymore. I would see that as a positive, especially at college when they are on their own.

Socrates and Confucius probably said much the same thing.

Almost certainly. I do want to push back on PP a little bit, though, because she seems to be suggesting that kids coming out of independent schools have better self-advocacy skills by the time they hit college. As someone who works extensively with young adults in that age bracket, I can affirmatively state that's not the case - or at least not in a way that is productive.

Kids coming out of independent schools, and kids coming out of "elite" public schools that are NOT test-in magnets, tend to think every little god-damned thing is negotiable. So, yes, they have advocacy skills, but they have no sense of when to use them because they've apparently been taught that if you argue long enough, you'll get your way as a reward for arguing. If you don't get your way, you can just get your parents involved. It's not only exhausting, but it doesn't work once you hit college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I can assure you that talking and working with teachers or any adult is a skill that most kids do not have anymore. I would see that as a positive, especially at college when they are on their own.

Socrates and Confucius probably said much the same thing.

Almost certainly. I do want to push back on PP a little bit, though, because she seems to be suggesting that kids coming out of independent schools have better self-advocacy skills by the time they hit college. As someone who works extensively with young adults in that age bracket, I can affirmatively state that's not the case - or at least not in a way that is productive.

Kids coming out of independent schools, and kids coming out of "elite" public schools that are NOT test-in magnets, tend to think every little god-damned thing is negotiable. So, yes, they have advocacy skills, but they have no sense of when to use them because they've apparently been taught that if you argue long enough, you'll get your way as a reward for arguing. If you don't get your way, you can just get your parents involved. It's not only exhausting, but it doesn't work once you hit college.

Yes! I teach college and have been befuddled over the last few years when kids come in asking if they can do a 'makeup test' because they got a poor score on the midterm. Now that my kid is in MS I understand! I'm actually not really against this in Middle School--MS grades don't count for anything and I want kids to learn the material, even if a week late. But perhaps it does need to wind down by 12th grade!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

So the parents are the problem, honestly. I don't understand why parents push so hard for compacted math. It's teaching topics that are a year ahead of their grade level, folks. It goes much faster and doesn't go into depth as on grade level math. Even if your kid is borderline, why push it? It cant just be based on MAP scores. Teacher input like it is at our school has a lot to do with it too. So there you have it, it's essentially the parents who are itching to have their kid take on more than what they are capable of that is causing the watering down of compacted math. Let teachers do their jobs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

So the parents are the problem, honestly. I don't understand why parents push so hard for compacted math. It's teaching topics that are a year ahead of their grade level, folks. It goes much faster and doesn't go into depth as on grade level math. Even if your kid is borderline, why push it? It cant just be based on MAP scores. Teacher input like it is at our school has a lot to do with it too. So there you have it, it's essentially the parents who are itching to have their kid take on more than what they are capable of that is causing the watering down of compacted math. Let teachers do their jobs!

Why push your kid into it? Because the choice is between a kid at the 80th percentile learning with kids in the 80-99 percentile, or learning with kids in the 0-79th percentile. There's also the problem that the OTHER parents are also pushing, so compacted is probably not kids who are 80-99 but rather 70-99, meaning grade level is kids at 0-69%.

[Anonymous]

My child's MAP-Ms have been in 99% percentile; she says compacted math is slow and boring. FWIW, half of the grade is in it.

[Anonymous]

Why push your kid into it? Because the choice is between a kid at the 80th percentile learning with kids in the 80-99 percentile, or learning with kids in the 0-79th percentile. There's also the problem that the OTHER parents are also pushing, so compacted is probably not kids who are 80-99 but rather 70-99, meaning grade level is kids at 0-69%.

All of this is true, and I'd add that many schools are poorly represented at the 50-75% range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

So the parents are the problem, honestly. I don't understand why parents push so hard for compacted math. It's teaching topics that are a year ahead of their grade level, folks. It goes much faster and doesn't go into depth as on grade level math. Even if your kid is borderline, why push it? It cant just be based on MAP scores. Teacher input like it is at our school has a lot to do with it too. So there you have it, it's essentially the parents who are itching to have their kid take on more than what they are capable of that is causing the watering down of compacted math. Let teachers do their jobs!

Why push your kid into it? Because the choice is between a kid at the 80th percentile learning with kids in the 80-99 percentile, or learning with kids in the 0-79th percentile. There's also the problem that the OTHER parents are also pushing, so compacted is probably not kids who are 80-99 but rather 70-99, meaning grade level is kids at 0-69%.

So bottom line, schools need to place the child where they see fit. Also, compact math placement is not solely on math placement. It also considers the teacher's feedback on whether or not the child will be able to handle the work at the pace that it goes. So your kid might be in the 80th percentile but he/she may need to take a bit more time to understand the concepts. At our school, kids whose parents insist that they be placed in compacted math even though it wasn't the suggested placement by the school, are given a test by the teacher to evaluate if they are ready for it or not. Majority of the time, the child doesn't do well in that test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the griping is not so much that the track as a whole is slow but that there isn’t enrichment for kids who get the concepts quickly, so these kids are consistently bored and think math is inherently boring. One used to be able to progress through the K-6 curriculum quicker and/or spend more time on more complicated topics that are easier to enrich and less time on addition and subtraction (and counting) which can only be enriched so much. I mean, my third grader who did fractions was still only expected/allowed to identify fractions as pie slices (what fraction is shaded?) and put them on a number line. Enrichment did not even include adding fractions! Adding and subtracting fractions should be acceptable enrichment for a unit on fractions.

This is why true compacted math with more enrichment is needed. Not trying to fit more kids with varying MAP M scores into compact math. Our school did this. How do you have “math groups” of various levels and then put 3-5 different stages of math to form these huge compact math classes in 4/5th.

this is not the case at our previous and current MCPS school at all. Are you saying that kids who should be on grade level math are being placed in compacted math?

YES! I teach compacted math and due to the big push about half of the children in the program should be in on grade level math. It is so frustrating for the teachers, too. We are needing a remedial group that just continues to get further behind due to the fast pace- yet these students would be successful in the on grade level course.

But here is the problem from the parents' perspective. My child had 80th percentile in MAP-M in third grade, and thus was borderline to be put into compacted math. I spoke with the teacher and found out that over half of kids in the grade were put in compacted. The remaining 40%-45% were in grade-level, but that remaining group was scoring, by my guess, anywhere from 25th to 80th percentile in math (technically, it could be those scoring 1%-80% in MAP, but I assume few are at the 1% level). Given the choice, I clearly want my child to be challenged and forced to work hard to succeed along with more than HALF of the grade rather than going at a pace appropriate for kids.

Thus, given a school with 4 fourth or fifth grade teachers and a willingness to teach at different paces, why would there not be four classes going at different paces? I would be happy for my kids to be in one of the middle-paced classes.

It would also be instructive, at the school level, to compare the students that were successful versus not successful at the end of the year and see if MAP scores (or whatever criteria the school used) were successful. As I said, my DC was borderline to get in, but so far has brought home mostly perfectly scored worksheets and seems to understand concepts when we go over them on weekends. Perhaps all kids are scoring pefectly because the curriculum has been watered down or dc is in one of the 'remedial groups' in the compacted class. (I'm not sure there is a way for me to tell before the conferences.) But in any case, given how much parents' (and presumably, teachers) care about the math placement, I wonder if the predictive validity of the current criteria has been assessed.

So the parents are the problem, honestly. I don't understand why parents push so hard for compacted math. It's teaching topics that are a year ahead of their grade level, folks. It goes much faster and doesn't go into depth as on grade level math. Even if your kid is borderline, why push it? It cant just be based on MAP scores. Teacher input like it is at our school has a lot to do with it too. So there you have it, it's essentially the parents who are itching to have their kid take on more than what they are capable of that is causing the watering down of compacted math. Let teachers do their jobs!

Why push your kid into it? Because the choice is between a kid at the 80th percentile learning with kids in the 80-99 percentile, or learning with kids in the 0-79th percentile. There's also the problem that the OTHER parents are also pushing, so compacted is probably not kids who are 80-99 but rather 70-99, meaning grade level is kids at 0-69%.

So bottom line, schools need to place the child where they see fit. Also, compact math placement is not solely on math placement. It also considers the teacher's feedback on whether or not the child will be able to handle the work at the pace that it goes. So your kid might be in the 80th percentile but he/she may need to take a bit more time to understand the concepts. At our school, kids whose parents insist that they be placed in compacted math even though it wasn't the suggested placement by the school, are given a test by the teacher to evaluate if they are ready for it or not. Majority of the time, the child doesn't do well in that test.

I don't see why they can't break the classes, whether 3, 4, 5, or 6 different sections, into appropriate levels. One or two could, technically, be compacted math and only those would offer the path into IM as a 6th grader. But the other kids would be challenged and supplemented as appropriate. And frankly, there are non compacted math kids who jump into IM in 6th, anyway, so some of those not-quite-compacted kids could be in that boat if they demonstrate strong skills along the way.