Reply to High MAP-M/compacted math eligibility-- how much of it is exposure/supplementation?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "High MAP-M/compacted math eligibility-- how much of it is exposure/supplementation?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The sad thing about using MAP for placement is that MAP is based on knowledge, not intelligence.  If your kid wasn't accelerated informally (by being in a high math group) in 3rd grade, they simply won't recognize concepts  needed to score high on the MAP.

This was my kid.  One of the youngest in the grade and so a bit less 'ready' in second and third.  Mid to low math group. Scored borderline for compacted math on the MAP.  And then once in compacted math, she did well in the class and her MAP soared.  (Because she was exposed to the material before being tested on it.). [/quote]

Math is math. Smart kids can figure out how to solve problems that they have never been taught.  MAP is an untimed, adaptive test where smart, interested students can spend as long as they want solving hard problems. This is officially documented by NWEA the creators of MAP. 
[/quote]
+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. [b]Motivated[/b] kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents. [/quote]

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out!  Everyone has the same resources!  Keep the myth alive![/quote]
+1  Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math.  (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like  exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).[/quote]

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead. [/quote]

Different poster, but are you sure that's true?  Is [url=https://cdn.nwea.org/docs/MAP+Growth+Grades+2-5+to+Khan+Academy.pdf]this info on topics by score level[/url] inaccurate?  Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.[/quote]

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions"  in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

[b]If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.[/b][/quote]

PP from before the DP.

The bolded is both a hyperbolic strawman in relation to those of high innate mathematical ability and incorrect in its conclusions that a student incapable of making mental leaps to solve variations would not be helped, themselves, by exposure

Moreover, the conclusion that a bright kid can impute anything to which they have not been exposed does not follow from the example of jumping from fraction by whole number multiplication to fraction by fraction multiplication.  A counter[i]example[/i] might be operations with complex numbers.  Without having been exposed to the terminology of complex numbers, where [i][b]i[/b][/i] represents the square root of -1, a highly capable student has a high likelihood of coming to an incorrect answer to a related problem, where a student of less innate mathematical ability/interest but who had been exposed to the concepts and terminology associated with complex numbers would have a high likelihood of coming to a correct answer.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics