At today's BOE meeting someone said that they started putting kids in CM who didn't make the cut off but that the school recommended and those students have been doing well.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the previous system was subjective. Regardless of how kids are chosen or if everyone is given access I think the end results will be the same. There will be an gap.

LOL
Among DD's friends, one was not initially even tested because the teacher didn't think he was up to it. His parents appealed, and he was tested and got in. Another missed the cut off number, but the principal allowed her in anyway. Another was not allowed in, but outscored all the compacted math kids on the PARCC. Another didn't get selected at our school, moved to another part of the county, and was allowed in without retesting.
It is subjective.

I don't think the previous system was subjective. Regardless of how kids are chosen or if everyone is given access I think the end results will be the same. There will be an gap.

Anonymous wrote:Well that makes perfect sense, replace a uniform objective equal system with one subjective and random.

More like a uniform subjective equal system.

Anonymous wrote:What's the problem with that? Let every kid whose parent wants it into compacted math. Teach the curriculum. Grade objectively. At points during the year offer a slower path for kids who are not thriving.

I'm 100% positive the proposal is not let anyone in who wants it...

What's the problem with that? Let every kid whose parent wants it into compacted math. Teach the curriculum. Grade objectively. At points during the year offer a slower path for kids who are not thriving.

Well that makes perfect sense, replace a uniform objective equal system with one subjective and random.

Yes, they have to offer it everywhere. Delivery may be different; that's what the principals should really figure out - not whether to have it or not.

I can't imagine they would really decide to offer compacted math only at schools with a critical mass of higher-achieving students. That means that students at lower SES schools don't get the same opportunities for acceleration?

Anonymous wrote:Of course not..W schools are getting their own curriculum. Curriculum w.0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also heard from a friend at Beverly Farms that they will be the only school to have compact math next year. I'm really upset and contacting MCPS.

That is completely false - I know for a fact that our elementary school (not BFES) will have compacted math because it's causing even more overcrowding due to the need for an additional classroom devoted to Compacted Math.

LOL, PP, you fell for the BFES troll.

[Bangs head on table] - I totally did!!

Of course not..W schools are getting their own curriculum. Curriculum w.0

Will it be the same at W schools? At my DD's ES, we really need the compact math instruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Word at the MCCPTA delegates assembly in February was that compacted math hosted in Middle Schools for 5th graders would be going away, and that, for the moment, compacted math would stay in elementary schools if there were enough kids and the principals wanted it in their elementary schools. Word was also that Bowers wanted to get rid of it entirely.

Oh look, more rumor-mongering. Or is it gossip-mongering?

PP here: I should state that both of these came from the podium from someone on the MCCPTA board, but I do not recall who it was. It was enough to raise concern that compacted math might be eliminated. It was not whispers from person to person.

Anonymous wrote:Word at the MCCPTA delegates assembly in February was that compacted math hosted in Middle Schools for 5th graders would be going away, and that, for the moment, compacted math would stay in elementary schools if there were enough kids and the principals wanted it in their elementary schools. Word was also that Bowers wanted to get rid of it entirely.

Oh look, more rumor-mongering. Or is it gossip-mongering?