Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHM. I was teaching Math concepts - counting, reverse counting, addition, subtraction, skip counting by grouping, tally marks, sorting, pattern recognition, shapes, puzzles, time...etc to my kids since the time they were toddlers - mainly because I had to keep my kids busy the whole day.
So, even though my kids were at home with me, they were getting full exposure to math. My kids never went to Kumon or any sort of tutoring etc. We used to play "school" at home every evening and we had "homework time" in the evening. I started supplementing in all subjects using curriculum, textbooks, workbooks, websites, toys etc before they were in Kindergarten - so my kids were very advanced (not just a couple grades).
My kids are not geniuses but they are fast learners and they were in a sort of home-made STEM immersion with me. So, they were very advanced and they had no fear of learning new concepts, abstract thinking, pattern recognition in any subject. I am not a STEM student myself - but in the journey to teach my kids, I also went to community college to learn subjects that I had not been educated in in collegd. I pretty much became an expert in K-12 content in most subjects except FL.
I absolutely reject the idea that the smartest kid will learn Math organically without being taught Math concepts. Parents need to educate their children at home in addition to sending them to school.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.).
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.
Anonymous wrote:So just to confirm, for folks saying their kid had no extra exposure/supplementation, there were no math games, workbooks, parental discussions, or other ways they would have been taught about things like fractions, decimals, area, angles, multi-digit multiplication or division, etc, before they came up in school, correct? But they were still able to score above 210ish/above the 85th percentile or so?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If your kid has or had fairly high MAP-M scores in 3rd grade (let's say 210ish or higher, or whatever the cutoff for compacted math is if you know it/if your kid qualified), did you do any kind of supplementation or otherwise expose them to concepts before they covered them in school? Is it common for kids with no supplementation/extra exposure to still get high scores and qualify for compacted math?
I am trying to wrap my mind around what it takes to score high, but from poking around at practice questions, I am seeing a lot about topics that they don't really cover in school until at least after the winter MAP test and sometimes not in 3rd grade at all, from decimals to fractions to various aspects of geometry. Is the idea that most bright kids can figure these things out on their own? Or are these not actually a big factor in the scoring, so kids who haven't learned these things can still score high? Or are most high-scoring kids getting exposure to this stuff outside of school (whether formal or informal, i.e. parents using teaching moments to talk about fractions and decimals and such as they come up in everyday life)? I'm not necessarily talking about the highly-gifted/super-mathy kids here, just your standard smart kids who will qualify for and succeed in compacted math and the typical honors/moderately accelerated math pathway moving forward.
Thanks for any insight... trying to make sense of to what extent my kid's math scores are telling us about aptitude compared to peers and potential for future math success and growth, vs to what extent it is an exposure issue (we don't supplement at all and aren't great about even the informal "talking about math in everyday life" stuff.)
Is 210 is really a high in 3rd? I have seen much higher scores being tossed around in DCUM. Can someone with knowledge may shed some light on this?
Anonymous wrote:If your kid has or had fairly high MAP-M scores in 3rd grade (let's say 210ish or higher, or whatever the cutoff for compacted math is if you know it/if your kid qualified), did you do any kind of supplementation or otherwise expose them to concepts before they covered them in school? Is it common for kids with no supplementation/extra exposure to still get high scores and qualify for compacted math?
I am trying to wrap my mind around what it takes to score high, but from poking around at practice questions, I am seeing a lot about topics that they don't really cover in school until at least after the winter MAP test and sometimes not in 3rd grade at all, from decimals to fractions to various aspects of geometry. Is the idea that most bright kids can figure these things out on their own? Or are these not actually a big factor in the scoring, so kids who haven't learned these things can still score high? Or are most high-scoring kids getting exposure to this stuff outside of school (whether formal or informal, i.e. parents using teaching moments to talk about fractions and decimals and such as they come up in everyday life)? I'm not necessarily talking about the highly-gifted/super-mathy kids here, just your standard smart kids who will qualify for and succeed in compacted math and the typical honors/moderately accelerated math pathway moving forward.
Thanks for any insight... trying to make sense of to what extent my kid's math scores are telling us about aptitude compared to peers and potential for future math success and growth, vs to what extent it is an exposure issue (we don't supplement at all and aren't great about even the informal "talking about math in everyday life" stuff.)
Anonymous wrote: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.).
Anonymous wrote: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.).