Anonymous wrote:I think the whole 'doing away with textbooks ' was one of the worst moves in recent years.

Text books let you see where your going, let your kid pick up extra practice if they need it, and LET THE PARENTS KNOW WHAT THE CHILD IS LEARNING. Its just absurd.

Holding kids back so everyone else can catch up is a race to the bottom.

I could not agree more. Textbooks also allow kids to more easily review what they already learned if they need to go over it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

In practice, large group lecture means a poor live performance of what is already done better in a Khan or YouTube video, on a topic that half the kids already know and half the kids aren't ready for yet.

But the debate here is small groups vs. ability tracking into separate classrooms for math. It's not small groups vs. heterogeneous whole class instruction. The only thing that is accomplished when you switch from having an advanced math class to having advanced math clusters in a heterogeneous class is that the teacher now has a group of kids she gets to ignore, and she has more time for struggling groups. It's a way to close the equity and achievement gaps from both the bottom up and the top down.

+1 that is exactly what happens in practice at MCPS until grade 4. But now it sounds like they want it to happen until grade 6.

Maryland should ban advanced math in order to increase equity.

Maryland should also do this because California did it first:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/california-math-framework-algebra/675509/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is contradictory word salad.

https://go.boarddocs.com/md/msde/Board.nsf/files/DDCNW2617726/$file/Math%20Policy%20(INFORMATION%20ONLY).pdf

"includes a transition away from the
traditional Algebra-Geometry-
Algebra 2 sequence to Integrated
Algebra 1 & 2 beginning in school
year 2027-2028"

So are they eliminating Geometry?

Or accelerating 3 years into 2, to magically help kids who can't even learn it in 3 years?


My god, they'll try anything, anything, except having kids STUDY AND PRACTICE MATH MORE.

Geometry can easily be integrated. It's weird that it's a year long class all by itself.

Among other problems, it means that people moving to or from Maryland during the cycle will find themselves very, very confused.

Honestly, I like that Algebra I -> Geometry -> Algebra II forces spaced repetition for Algebra topics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

PP whose district did the flexible groupings.

This could be the case if they made smaller groups within the class, but that’s not how they did it. All the 3rd grade classes had math at the same time, so if Ms A was your normal teacher and Ms B was teaching the advanced math group for this topic, you just went to Ms B’s room for math and Ms B taught a full classroom of advanced math. The math specialist also went to each grade for their math block, which stopped any one group from getting too big.

They pretested at the beginning of each unit anyway, so there weren’t extra tests.

And because the top group went deeper, not faster, it was really easy to specify what content went to each grade level. The advanced kids did things like projects and AoPS-style challenge problems on the topic, rather than moving onto new/different topics.

I thought it was weird at the time, but after moving here and having a kid bored in compact math, it was clear that it worked really well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

+1 or go deeper. The goal should be understanding, not knocking out a skills test and then forgetting everything when you move on.

-100 especially at the elementary level. Memorization and embedding the skills is actually crucial. The pedagogical shift to “understanding” is what got us here. you learn math through drilling, practice, recall, repetition. lots of research on this. For example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-024-09680-w

Paper said the opposite.
"spaced recall" is not drilling. It's revisiting content to keep it fresh. Visiting problems from multiple angles builds fluency. Drilling times tables leaves people with a mechanical ability (often forgotten later) that is misused or not used when complex problems appear and they don't understand how to model a problem or check their own work for mistakes.

That may be true. But at least it helps a larger portion of the population become more mathematically functional (e.g. not needing a calculator at the grocery store) and leaves the real challenging problems to math geniuses. This is a less bad outcome than bringing everyone down to the lowest level and calling it an instructional equity victory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

+1 or go deeper. The goal should be understanding, not knocking out a skills test and then forgetting everything when you move on.

-100 especially at the elementary level. Memorization and embedding the skills is actually crucial. The pedagogical shift to “understanding” is what got us here. you learn math through drilling, practice, recall, repetition. lots of research on this. For example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-024-09680-w

Paper said the opposite.
"spaced recall" is not drilling. It's revisiting content to keep it fresh. Visiting problems from multiple angles builds fluency. Drilling times tables leaves people with a mechanical ability (often forgotten later) that is misused or not used when complex problems appear and they don't understand how to model a problem or check their own work for mistakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf

From link says teachers to have number talks where “teacher is not to be the definite authority” and “simply records student thinking.” All depends on how teachers interpret this. Our DC’s teacher had it mean teacher should never correct any child. So number talks were kids giving all kinds of wrong answers to math problems and wrong ways of doing problem and maybe some right, but teacher never corrected or said what actual answers. That teaching method didn’t work for many in class and lots of parents got tutors that year.

This is the equivalent to “whole language” instead of phonics.

Yep. Bunch of kid’s schools did both, which was grate (written as was mandated for teachers to accept 109% of the time at those schools- and please don’t correct that there is no percentage over 100 as that is not in line with just listening and simply recording). Those teachers that would still correct spelling and math were highly sought after.

I think the whole 'doing away with textbooks ' was one of the worst moves in recent years.

Text books let you see where your going, let your kid pick up extra practice if they need it, and LET THE PARENTS KNOW WHAT THE CHILD IS LEARNING. Its just absurd.

Holding kids back so everyone else can catch up is a race to the bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

In theory, yes. In practice, small groups let the teachers give extensive tutoring to the struggling kids while ignoring the top groups.

In practice, large group lecture means a poor live performance of what is already done better in a Khan or YouTube video, on a topic that half the kids already know and half the kids aren't ready for yet.

But the debate here is small groups vs. ability tracking into separate classrooms for math. It's not small groups vs. heterogeneous whole class instruction. The only thing that is accomplished when you switch from having an advanced math class to having advanced math clusters in a heterogeneous class is that the teacher now has a group of kids she gets to ignore, and she has more time for struggling groups. It's a way to close the equity and achievement gaps from both the bottom up and the top down.

and - now NOBODY gets a coherent syllabus and curriculum. It’s all loosey goosey for everyone. My kid’s 6th grade math was run this way, with an extremely wide differential between kids who were on a 2nd grade level and kids ready for algebra. I tried to ask the teachers “Can you just tell me what my kid needs to learn this year so he can do pre-algebra next year?” And they looked at me like I was crazy or had two heads. At the elementary level they appear to have zero concept of progression or content.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee I wonder why these kids can’t add. Check out page 10 from the 3rd grade curriculum.

https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/3724/WCPS/3157617/Grade_3.pdf

From link says teachers to have number talks where “teacher is not to be the definite authority” and “simply records student thinking.” All depends on how teachers interpret this. Our DC’s teacher had it mean teacher should never correct any child. So number talks were kids giving all kinds of wrong answers to math problems and wrong ways of doing problem and maybe some right, but teacher never corrected or said what actual answers. That teaching method didn’t work for many in class and lots of parents got tutors that year.

This is the equivalent to “whole language” instead of phonics.

Anonymous wrote:Most of this is contradictory word salad.

https://go.boarddocs.com/md/msde/Board.nsf/files/DDCNW2617726/$file/Math%20Policy%20(INFORMATION%20ONLY).pdf

"includes a transition away from the
traditional Algebra-Geometry-
Algebra 2 sequence to Integrated
Algebra 1 & 2 beginning in school
year 2027-2028"

So are they eliminating Geometry?

Or accelerating 3 years into 2, to magically help kids who can't even learn it in 3 years?


My god, they'll try anything, anything, except having kids STUDY AND PRACTICE MATH MORE.

It’s a real head scratcher. I think they are just in denial about kids needing to study and practice more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

This is a good way to do things. Lots of kids are not uniformly advanced, or have highs and lows over time, so on ramps are good. Also, socially, it normalizes growth (you can improve / it's nbd to miss the mark one time) instead of having to permanently maintain on track. My kid is in advanced classes and talks about the worry of bring demoted to the regular track even though we try to put zero pressure at home.

No, it’s a terrible way to do things. math is quantifiable by definition. kids are not this fragile. They can understand that their math class has a syllabus of topics to cover that they need to pass in order to advance. Putting them into a million different small groups just exacerbates the problem and distracts from instruction.

That's dumb. Small groups let the more advanced kids learn new material instead of material they already know.

+1 or go deeper. The goal should be understanding, not knocking out a skills test and then forgetting everything when you move on.

-100 especially at the elementary level. Memorization and embedding the skills is actually crucial. The pedagogical shift to “understanding” is what got us here. you learn math through drilling, practice, recall, repetition. lots of research on this. For example: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251-024-09680-w

I feel like the only way this could work to everyones benefit is if each teacher had an aide to help with small group instruction. Of course, without funding that’s just a pipe dream. Maryland is already running a budget deficit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s more than just the pre k to 2nd bit.

“ In third to fifth grades, schools would only be permitted to regroup students for math class on a periodic basis. These children should “never be permanently grouped by ability,””

This sounds like you could not have a class that does more advanced math in 3rd - 5th either. All you could do was groupings “periodically”. That is going to be massively frustrating to the math kids bored out of their minds at the slow pace of normal instruction for 6 years.

My old district did this. They pretested kids before every unit and split them into groups based on the results. Some kids wee always in the top group, but some kids were better at certain topics and floated into the top group for those. And some topics were new to a grade and there was no top group.

The top group got enrichment rather than acceleration. They went deeper, not faster. It might have been harder to manage logistically, but it made more sense pedagogically.

but logistics matter. Wasting class time on 10 pretests/year means that kids are losing actual instruction time. the way to teach math is to have a curriculum delivered to kids at the pace that matches their abilities.

Kids need more testing time and less "instructional" time. Math is not learned by "instruction", it's learned by practice, practice, practice.

I don’t think we disagree but the assessments are not “testing” in the way you are thinking. I agree about practice - by “instruction” I mean the teacher structures the class into demonstration, worked examples, practice, review, more practice. but some direct instruction is necessary.

I don’t think computer programs are all bad because in theory they can provide the repetition and practice. But I don’t think they are doing it effectively because they don’t provide the volume needed and the focused recall.