Anonymous wrote:My child just received the placement into pre-algebra next year. They are very strong in math and regularly scoring in the 99.9th percentile on their MAP test, so I have generally thought the more acceleration the better. But in all these discussions about compacted math people seem to feel like the 6th grader pre-pathway is excessive and may not prepare kids well for algebra and geometry. Can any parents who have experience with this kind of acceleration if they feel their child’s been adequately prepared?

Anonymous wrote:My own experience:
Pre-algebra grade 6
Algebra 1 honors grade 7
Algebra 2 honors grade 8
Geometry honors summer before grade 9
Pre calculus honors grade 9
AP Calculus AB grade 10
AP statistics (elective) grade 10
AP Calculus BC grade 11
Differential Equations and Matrix Theory grade 12

I was a math minor in college.

I am a lawyer today in a practice area that is tangential to math. Go figure.

Would have my kids do same path. They have the aptitude. Some people are just smarter….google a normal curve….IQ….. sounds like OP’s kid can handle. MCPS harps too much on “equity”. Sorry … can’t social engineer brain cells.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.

MC doesn't want kids from Calc BC directly to MVC as they want you to take calc with them. MCPS doesn't tell you this when you choose your math path. MVC is only at select schools so the only option is AP stat's. MCPS needs to offer MVC at all schools.

In many schools there are not enough students to form a class. They should offer it virtually though if it’s not at a school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of geometry on the SAT? It seems like a bad idea to remove geometry content from the curriculum for students planning to take the SAT...

I think it’ll be fine for SATs - the parts they slimmed down are more for Calc kids who will be doing proofs etc. But hopefully MCPS beefs up Precalc.

Maryland's verion of IA also appears to skimp on proofs, trig and prob/stats to pare down enough to do the rest in 2 years at standard pacing. Trig may not have much real-life applicability for many, but proofs/logic and prob/stats are really useful life tools.

The non-calc path kids probably can pick up some of the stats bit in later years, but it might still leave out logic/proofs, and the stats employed for the two non-stats-specific paths, there, might well leave out the probability theory behind stats that helps support associated critical thinking for that reasoning/analysis they'd be learning.

For calc path kids, and we know that nearly all of the higher-end-college-aspiring folk will be pushing their kids that way (in addition to those choosing it because they truly are interested in STEM), re-integrating all of that in a precalc class will be overly burdensome. Leaving it to the APs would be detrimental, as well. MCPS doesn't seem to have an answer, here, except to let enough kids fail to handle it well in the first couple of post-IA years, say, "I told you so -- you should have chosen one of the other pathways," and expect future cohorts to be dissuaded by that experience.

Glass half-empty view here, to be sure. But these, along with what-do-I-do-(at any/all high schools, not just the privileged)-with-my-two-years-after-calc should be things MCPS is addressing fully and with clarity before jumping in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.

MC doesn't want kids from Calc BC directly to MVC as they want you to take calc with them. MCPS doesn't tell you this when you choose your math path. MVC is only at select schools so the only option is AP stat's. MCPS needs to offer MVC at all schools.

OP here, thank you all. I am also worried about the gap in math in high school. I also was done with math by my junior year and took no math at all my senior year, which was not great for my college math experience. Which high schools have multi variable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.

MC doesn't want kids from Calc BC directly to MVC as they want you to take calc with them. MCPS doesn't tell you this when you choose your math path. MVC is only at select schools so the only option is AP stat's. MCPS needs to offer MVC at all schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’ve been doing well on the MCAPs too (Exceeds Expectations) they will be fine. The only issue is that in 27-28 they will be the first to take the new Integrated Algebra sequence, which leads to Precalc freshman year and Calc sophomore year. Nobody knows if the new Integrated Algebra pathway will be enough for kids taking Calc. Hopefully by then MCPS will have a better option than “we’ll see.” You might want to supplement on Geometry which is where they skimp the most.

Just to clarify. It’s the state that is skimping on Geometry in the new Integrated Algebra 1 and 2. Some of that Geometry is pushed down to grade 7-8 in the new math. Your child will get the new grade 7/8 standards next year, so you can see how it feels and redo Amp 7 plus if you want. I think your child probably will be fine though.

AMP 7+ will not exist in 2 years. I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't there a fair bit of geometry on the SAT? It seems like a bad idea to remove geometry content from the curriculum for students planning to take the SAT...

I think it’ll be fine for SATs - the parts they slimmed down are more for Calc kids who will be doing proofs etc. But hopefully MCPS beefs up Precalc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’ve been doing well on the MCAPs too (Exceeds Expectations) they will be fine. The only issue is that in 27-28 they will be the first to take the new Integrated Algebra sequence, which leads to Precalc freshman year and Calc sophomore year. Nobody knows if the new Integrated Algebra pathway will be enough for kids taking Calc. Hopefully by then MCPS will have a better option than “we’ll see.” You might want to supplement on Geometry which is where they skimp the most.

Just to clarify. It’s the state that is skimping on Geometry in the new Integrated Algebra 1 and 2. Some of that Geometry is pushed down to grade 7-8 in the new math. Your child will get the new grade 7/8 standards next year, so you can see how it feels and redo Amp 7 plus if you want. I think your child probably will be fine though.

AMP 7+ will not exist in 2 years. I think.

What makes you say that? Amplify Desmos (the new math curriculum, similar to Illustrative math) is about to launch condensed/accelerated classes that cover grades 6-8 math in two years, which is basically the same as what the current AMP 6+ and AMP 7+ do. And the state is requiring that students have a pathway to starting algebra in 8th grade, with on-ramps as late as 6th grade, and having AMP 6+ and AMP 7+ is honestly the simplest way to do that, especially since they can just plug-and-play with the Amplify Desmos curriculum to do it. I don't see it going away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’ve been doing well on the MCAPs too (Exceeds Expectations) they will be fine. The only issue is that in 27-28 they will be the first to take the new Integrated Algebra sequence, which leads to Precalc freshman year and Calc sophomore year. Nobody knows if the new Integrated Algebra pathway will be enough for kids taking Calc. Hopefully by then MCPS will have a better option than “we’ll see.” You might want to supplement on Geometry which is where they skimp the most.

Just to clarify. It’s the state that is skimping on Geometry in the new Integrated Algebra 1 and 2. Some of that Geometry is pushed down to grade 7-8 in the new math. Your child will get the new grade 7/8 standards next year, so you can see how it feels and redo Amp 7 plus if you want. I think your child probably will be fine though.

AMP 7+ will not exist in 2 years. I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.

MC doesn't want kids from Calc BC directly to MVC as they want you to take calc with them. MCPS doesn't tell you this when you choose your math path. MVC is only at select schools so the only option is AP stat's. MCPS needs to offer MVC at all schools.

Anonymous wrote:PP. There are a lot of kids who have much lower scores who get placed into Pre Algebra in sixth, because of how the lottery cutoffs work. Scores can be as low as 60 or 70th percentile nationally on the MAP to qualify for the lottery - and MCPS uses fourth and fifth grade MAP so they don’t make sure kids actually can do sixth grade math before advancing to PreAlgebra, which is compacted grade 7 and 8 math. That’s really what the discussion is about. Over a third of kids in Compacted Math are not passing the state assessments later. And because the selection criteria was locally normed, the accuracy of placement depended on your school. You can see the rates if kids passing Geometry at your local school here on the Geometry MCAP tab: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Btm7A1i0FJw1ssLDht_L6KocVrRwcM1Y/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111799539092517039560&rtpof=true&sd=true


It wasn’t too much for my kids at the 98/99th percentile on MAP (I should add that MAP scores are not exactly tied to state math standards). And my kids don’t supplement. Both also did very well in math later. But they took the current Algebra - Geometry sequence.

You can see how they do on the district progress checks, etc., next year and slow down to Accel Math 6, or retake Accel Math 7 of you’re nervous, but probably not necessary.

The biggest issue is choosing math courses in high school. You will need to find four years of math. Right now MCPS is suggesting Precalc > Calc AB > Calc BC, and that leaves one more class. Multivariable Calc is what they currently offer at some schools or Montgomery College. Your child might not want to do that, so maybe AP Stats.

But hopefully they have some other options by high school for the kids who are not hardcore Calc. Your child might be - it really is an individual decision.