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 &quot;exposure&quot; 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]

The point, and it's clear you do not wish it acknowledged, is that identification via MAP does not carry as much fidelity to the primary intent of such curricular programming -- provision of accelerated instruction to the highly able -- as other identification paradigms that incorporate a more ability-focused metric than simply relying on the more exposure-sensitive MAP, especially as best practices as expressed by MAP's NWEA creators suggest that this is the case.  Continuing use of a MAP litmus, then, disproportionately under-identifies students with that ability but with lower than average resource levels, whether from teacher attention deficit due to a lack of a manageable in-school cohort, from a lack of effective access to outside enrichment or from a similar cause.

Nobody, I think, is suggesting that those not as highly able but advanced due to such fortune of resource circumstance be [i]excluded[/i] from acceleration, if desired.  Instead, the thrust is to ensure that those with ability but with lesser resource circumstance are not disproportionately excluded from that which would tend to meet their need, turning a vicious cycle of underperformance vs. ability -&gt; under-identification -&gt; under-placement -&gt; lesser learning opportunity -&gt; underperformsnce vs. ability (again) into a more virtuous (or at least less vicious) one.  Favoring the opposite might rightly be characterized as opportunity hoarding.[/quote]

None of this changes the fact that, if, for whatever reason, the student is struggling at grade level, putting them in a more advanced class will help.  If a kid is performing below their potential due to insufficient support,  they need and deserve more support at their current level, not at a higher level!

Compacted Math is not a prize, it is a placement for learning.

Fighting your way into a more advanced math class without being prepared for it is not going to help. The classes already have many students who drop back to a less advanced/accelerated track because they can't keep up.[/quote]

Such a student need not be struggling with Math class not to have shown a particular level on a highly exposure-based metric like MAP.  There are multiple reasons, but two come to mind as particularly concerning if deciding to exclude access to acceleration.

1) The highly-able student sits in a class where a large percentage of classmates are not highly capable or are of below-average capability.  The focus of the teacher is on the others, the class moves slower through grade-level concepts, and more advanced concepts are not introduced.  The student does not have a home situation conducive to outside enrichment.  The student is not likely to be identified via MAP.

2) The highly-able student, whether in the situation described in #1 or otherwise, is so bored with the pace of on-level instruction that they tune it out.  Again, the student does not have a home situation conducive to outside enrichment.  The student is not likely to be identified via MAP.

Especially at the elementary level, with its spiral curricular approach, a highly able student does not necessarily need the same level of preparation (though that always helps).  Meanwhile, if not identified and supported with this acceleration, the condition is more likely to persist, and the opportunity largely is lost by the time one hits HS-level courses, as those become more dependent on prior coursework (vs. the conceptual spiral approach through PreAlgebra).  Fighting one's way into Calculus without having mastered all of HS Algebra (both levels), for instance, more clearly would be counterproductive.

A highly able student may struggle initially as they back-fill some level of prior concept, but should be able to handle the accelerated pace, itself, in due course.  Those placed in an accelerated course who cannot handle the [i]pace[/i] and drop back to the non-accelerated course are less likely to be those of that high ability.

I agree that "Compacted" Math is not a prize, but a placement for learning.  Placing those highly able is at least as important as placing those who have demonstrated learning from exposure.  Families of some of the latter group treating "Compacted" Math as a prize is, I think, more of an issue, if there is such an issue at all.  This should be about identifying and meeting need -- for both, as much as possible.[/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