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][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]

+1  It's additional exposure, not genius.  With my older kid I did much more supplementation at home, and their math scores showed it.  With my younger one, I haven't had the time, and their math scores show it.  It's too bad that people conflate MAP scores with being gifted in math and that MCPS makes placement decisions based upon it.   This is not what MAP was designed to do.[/quote]

"Gifted" is 99+% ile, performing well 2+ years above grade level, getting scores that a average student never achieve, even in high school.

Compacted Math 85%ile is not gifted; it is learning the grade level material well, which includes a collection of topics that are also in the next grade level standard because math curriculum "spirals", adding complexity and variation and combination to core topics, not just constantly adding new topics. [/quote]

PP prior to the DP, above.

One may choose that definition of "gifted," though I would subscribe to a different or broader one, or, at least, qualify that the percentile more definitively represent ability instead of achievement.  I also would suggest that it is important to make a determination such that those who [i]are[/i] so gifted, at whatever percentage of the population that might be considered valid, are not excluded due to a relative lack of access to in-class instruction or to outside supports.  Once more, this is not to suggest that those demonstrating achievement the level of which may have been influenced by [i]exposure[/i] should be excluded, either.  It is simply that between the two groups, understanding that there may be considerable overlap, the more pressing [i]need[/i], and, then, the more appropriate focus of GT-related provision of programming, is that associated with those of high ability.

The 85th percentile MAP litmus was adopted during the first year of impact from CovID-19 to try to identify students for the CES and criteria-based magnet MS lottery pools.  This was due to the school system's inability to administer CogAT.  The relatively low bar was part of an approach that cast a very wide net in the hopes of preventing the exclusion of any who [i]might[/i] have been identified under the prior paradigm.  That first year, the MAP litmus was only one of a number of ways identification was made, and that was for the same purpose of making the net wide.  Later, they tightened the criteria a bit by making them "AND" (i.e., a student had to be 85th on MAP, with the various adjustments of local norming and accounting for services received, WITH As in the relevant subject, etc.) instead of "OR."  With the effects of the pandemic subsiding, that definitely should have been corrected more accurately and narrowly to identify a population considered for the programs, and I hope they are finally moving towards that.

The criteria for centrally suggested placement in "Compacted" Math 4/5 & 5/6 (individual schools make the final call, though many simply follow the central suggestion) is different from that 85th-percentile-plus-report-card paradigm, though MAP scores have been used for that, as well.[/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