Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

90% on the MAP-M for fall of 3rd is around 215 for fall of 4th its around 225. This is not a high bar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They've been jumping all over the place

Then you’re issue appears to be with Eureka Math. The 5/6 curriculum has done 4 continuous modules in the curriculum without skipping around. It is true that each module has a different topic, but compacted 5/6 is not skipping around.
I should add the kid scores in the 280s on the MAP-M and thinks compacted is a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They've been jumping all over the place

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

He earned As every single quarter. Why from a research and data-grounded educational perspective is this not the right path?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

And perhaps he shouldn't continue compacted math. It's not the right path for every kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

No, it’s not. My 4th grader has never been in the 90th percentile on the MAP M. They’ve scored b/w 60 - 88 over the course of testing but got As this year and was challenged but not burdened by the pace of compacted 4/5. This means that he won’t continue in compacted math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.

This does not seem onerous. It actually sounds like a continuation of the current/previous policy.

A whole thread of nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If it were left to parents, most would put their kids in the most advanced math possible.

Exactly. 7th grade mom here. I had an older child so I know better. Very few kids need to be on this path. My older one is in that category.

Anonymous wrote:The guidance that came out today said students needed to have scored in the 90th percentile on MAP-M in the fall or winter, earned A's on their report cards and scored at a level 4 or 5 on their required Eureka assessments over the course of the year. This is going to weed a lot of kids out of moving on to 5/6.