Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

[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.

That’s above 99% — a reach score indeed!

It’s ridiculous my kid in the TPMS magnet who is breezing through with all As didn’t even get that high in fifth grade, let alone third.

My kid isn't getting all As in compacted, but it's not for lack of understanding the concepts. It's called the DL tune out!

[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.

That’s above 99% — a reach score indeed!

It’s ridiculous my kid in the TPMS magnet who is breezing through with all As didn’t even get that high in fifth grade, let alone third.

I think 99% is around 247 for Winter of 5th, but for IM math in previous years they required a MAP in of 240 at the end of 5th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

The recommendation used to be 240 on the 5/6 to IM track, and was not firm. Nutty.

[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?

Read it again. It doesn’t say that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

The 5/6 curriculum has been pretty bad and random under Eureka. I'm not sure who decided which lessons to skip, but some of them contain core content that is subsequently tested.
Some of the grading standards are based on "Eureka things" that these poor kids have not had ingrained in them since K, but rather thrust upon them in a pandemic. I guess this year has been all about smart kids figure things out that they've never been taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 4th grader doing well in compacted math, spring MAP score 237 and I’d actually be fine if he didn’t move on to 5/6 next year. They missed 40% of the curriculum and those gaps will definitely start to show as they do more advanced math.

If they're at 237 they're doing fine. The 5/6 curriculum is kind of a joke anyway. You only needed 240 in years past to qualify for IM Math in 6th.

The 5/6 curriculum has been pretty bad and random under Eureka. I'm not sure who decided which lessons to skip, but some of them contain core content that is subsequently tested.
Some of the grading standards are based on "Eureka things" that these poor kids have not had ingrained in them since K, but rather thrust upon them in a pandemic. I guess this year has been all about smart kids figure things out that they've never been taught.

My kid is in it now. They're wapping up 6th-grade module 4 which is basic algebraic equations. This seems fine to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

My kid has a 240 MAP-M and all As in compacted 5/6 and is already registered in Applied Investigations in Math 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

So those are cutoffs in the 99% range? Still not sure that makes any sense. Would make much more sense to tie it to mastery of the concepts covered in the classes (or at least what should have been covered absent covid). I think to get in the 99%+ range requires kids who do outside practice that takes them into figure curriculum years. My kids used to blow it out of the water back when they played a lot of math practice apps in their free time—because the apps were advancing them past what was covered in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is a 231 to move from math 4/5 to math 5/6. The 251 is to move from math 5/6 to IM. So, less than 231 then repeat math 5 and less than 251 repeat math 6. Makes a lot more sense.

So those are cutoffs in the 99% range? Still not sure that makes any sense. Would make much more sense to tie it to mastery of the concepts covered in the classes (or at least what should have been covered absent covid). I think to get in the 99%+ range requires kids who do outside practice that takes them into figure curriculum years. My kids used to blow it out of the water back when they played a lot of math practice apps in their free time—because the apps were advancing them past what was covered in school.

Yes, the MAP tests mastery of concepts, so if you learn more math - whether it be in an app or at Russian School of Math - scores will be higher. For the kids already in the classes, MCPS should stop trying to fix something, and just let the parents and students decide. For the kids in 3rd grade, that may be a different question.

[Anonymous]

And the pendulum swings back....

[Anonymous]

My 7th grader would have made the cutoff (247 spring grade 5) but having him repeat algebra since learned nothing this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the pendulum swings back....

It's more like whiplash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 7th grader would have made the cutoff (247 spring grade 5) but having him repeat algebra since learned nothing this year.

You're a good example of why Central MCPS should not play "Math G-D." Parents and students are capable of judging their own situation and whether something needs to be fixed. A ridiculously large number of kids aren't meeting standards at all in either math or reading during a good, normal year. Why would one slow down an 85%ile kid, if that kid is willing to challenge themselves and has already covered the material?