Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.

PP from before the DP.

The bolded is both a hyperbolic strawman in relation to those of high innate mathematical ability and incorrect in its conclusions that a student incapable of making mental leaps to solve variations would not be helped, themselves, by exposure

Moreover, the conclusion that a bright kid can impute anything to which they have not been exposed does not follow from the example of jumping from fraction by whole number multiplication to fraction by fraction multiplication. A counterexample might be operations with complex numbers. Without having been exposed to the terminology of complex numbers, where i represents the square root of -1, a highly capable student has a high likelihood of coming to an incorrect answer to a related problem, where a student of less innate mathematical ability/interest but who had been exposed to the concepts and terminology associated with complex numbers would have a high likelihood of coming to a correct answer.

What you are missing is that to be in a position where you are getting questions wrong because you haven't seen the terminology, you'd have already worked your way past the 95th or 99th percentile. There just isn't that much new terminology being added every year in math.

Of course there is new terminology added. My 3rd grader came home and said that they did pretty well on MAP M (227), but that they didn't know what a prime number was, when asked to calculate one in their last question (google tells me prime numbers are a Common Core grade 4 concept). Their friend who does weekend math enrichment knew the concept from their enrichment classes and explained it to my kid, and my kid was saying that if someone had just defined what a prime number was, they could have figured it out.

Don't get me wrong--math enrichment is a good thing and parents should do more of it, but let's not pretend that high MAP scores are a proxy for capturing the most mathematically gifted kids--often times it's just exposure.

Thanks for the assist. The concept of complex numbers was, as emphasized but ignored by the PP, just an example to obviate the fact that not all intuition would be as simple as moving from multiplication of fractions by whole numbers to multiplication of fractions by fractions.

Whether primes, complex numbers, exponents, decimals, letter variables, fractions, themselves, or dozens of other concepts, there's plenty all along the way from early grades to high school that requires some reasonable level of exposure to facilitate intuition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just got my 3rd grade kid’s score for this week’s MAP-M and they got a 252. Kid is in RSM but is quick to figure things out — my kid was describing stuff the haven’t done even in RSM but was able to deduce (stuff about plotting a quadrilateral on an axis). We did RSM because of the lack of challenge in school so it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg — are they scoring high because of RSM or because they are naturally inclined to understand complex math?

Either way I am just hoping compacted math is a bit better than what they’ve had to date…

It's a bit better. Your kid is probably already past Math 6 level, but a little disciplined review is good for improving fluency.
CM will be 3 days per topic instead of 5, while your kid would probably be happy with 2 days per topic. Stick with RSM or similar and then you'll get a placement in 6th grade, likely Algebra 1, maybe AIM/AMP7+ Prealgebra

Not pp, but I have a question. So kids can pick different math level class starting at 6th grade? Is that a placement from 5th grade map m result? And, what is AUM/AMP 7?

Anonymous wrote:We just got my 3rd grade kid’s score for this week’s MAP-M and they got a 252. Kid is in RSM but is quick to figure things out — my kid was describing stuff the haven’t done even in RSM but was able to deduce (stuff about plotting a quadrilateral on an axis). We did RSM because of the lack of challenge in school so it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg — are they scoring high because of RSM or because they are naturally inclined to understand complex math?

Either way I am just hoping compacted math is a bit better than what they’ve had to date…

It's a bit better. Your kid is probably already past Math 6 level, but a little disciplined review is good for improving fluency.
CM will be 3 days per topic instead of 5, while your kid would probably be happy with 2 days per topic. Stick with RSM or similar and then you'll get a placement in 6th grade, likely Algebra 1, maybe AIM/AMP7+ Prealgebra

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.

PP from before the DP.

The bolded is both a hyperbolic strawman in relation to those of high innate mathematical ability and incorrect in its conclusions that a student incapable of making mental leaps to solve variations would not be helped, themselves, by exposure

Moreover, the conclusion that a bright kid can impute anything to which they have not been exposed does not follow from the example of jumping from fraction by whole number multiplication to fraction by fraction multiplication. A counterexample might be operations with complex numbers. Without having been exposed to the terminology of complex numbers, where i represents the square root of -1, a highly capable student has a high likelihood of coming to an incorrect answer to a related problem, where a student of less innate mathematical ability/interest but who had been exposed to the concepts and terminology associated with complex numbers would have a high likelihood of coming to a correct answer.

What you are missing is that to be in a position where you are getting questions wrong because you haven't seen the terminology, you'd have already worked your way past the 95th or 99th percentile. There just isn't that much new terminology being added every year in math.

Of course there is new terminology added. My 3rd grader came home and said that they did pretty well on MAP M (227), but that they didn't know what a prime number was, when asked to calculate one in their last question (google tells me prime numbers are a Common Core grade 4 concept). Their friend who does weekend math enrichment knew the concept from their enrichment classes and explained it to my kid, and my kid was saying that if someone had just defined what a prime number was, they could have figured it out.

Don't get me wrong--math enrichment is a good thing and parents should do more of it, but let's not pretend that high MAP scores are a proxy for capturing the most mathematically gifted kids--often times it's just exposure.

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in a poor school for early elementary. The teachers would sit him front of iReady/Reflex all day because they'd be busy trying to catch the kids up who were behind. So he would play on those apps and progress through the programs until he was way ahead of his grade level -- which kept the cycle of teachers putting him in front of computer for math class going.

That's better than almost every school. Most schools just force advanced kids to sit and learn nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.

PP from before the DP.

The bolded is both a hyperbolic strawman in relation to those of high innate mathematical ability and incorrect in its conclusions that a student incapable of making mental leaps to solve variations would not be helped, themselves, by exposure

Moreover, the conclusion that a bright kid can impute anything to which they have not been exposed does not follow from the example of jumping from fraction by whole number multiplication to fraction by fraction multiplication. A counterexample might be operations with complex numbers. Without having been exposed to the terminology of complex numbers, where i represents the square root of -1, a highly capable student has a high likelihood of coming to an incorrect answer to a related problem, where a student of less innate mathematical ability/interest but who had been exposed to the concepts and terminology associated with complex numbers would have a high likelihood of coming to a correct answer.

What you are missing is that to be in a position where you are getting questions wrong because you haven't seen the terminology, you'd have already worked your way past the 95th or 99th percentile. There just isn't that much new terminology being added every year in math.

We just got my 3rd grade kid’s score for this week’s MAP-M and they got a 252. Kid is in RSM but is quick to figure things out — my kid was describing stuff the haven’t done even in RSM but was able to deduce (stuff about plotting a quadrilateral on an axis). We did RSM because of the lack of challenge in school so it’s a bit of a chicken or the egg — are they scoring high because of RSM or because they are naturally inclined to understand complex math?

Either way I am just hoping compacted math is a bit better than what they’ve had to date…

I supplemented with reading comprehension and math workbooks every summer beginning in K. My oldest has special needs, with an IEP, and the supplementation was remedial and helped him stay on track. No CES! My youngest has no special needs, but since she asked for the same thing, it ended up helping her get ahead. She attended the CES and then chose to return to her home school. She is currently in high school, taking all AP or advanced classes, and still finds school pretty easy and boring.

You parent the kids you have, that's all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

The point, and it's clear you do not wish it acknowledged, is that identification via MAP does not carry as much fidelity to the primary intent of such curricular programming -- provision of accelerated instruction to the highly able -- as other identification paradigms that incorporate a more ability-focused metric than simply relying on the more exposure-sensitive MAP, especially as best practices as expressed by MAP's NWEA creators suggest that this is the case. Continuing use of a MAP litmus, then, disproportionately under-identifies students with that ability but with lower than average resource levels, whether from teacher attention deficit due to a lack of a manageable in-school cohort, from a lack of effective access to outside enrichment or from a similar cause.

Nobody, I think, is suggesting that those not as highly able but advanced due to such fortune of resource circumstance be excluded from acceleration, if desired. Instead, the thrust is to ensure that those with ability but with lesser resource circumstance are not disproportionately excluded from that which would tend to meet their need, turning a vicious cycle of underperformance vs. ability -> under-identification -> under-placement -> lesser learning opportunity -> underperformsnce vs. ability (again) into a more virtuous (or at least less vicious) one. Favoring the opposite might rightly be characterized as opportunity hoarding.

None of this changes the fact that, if, for whatever reason, the student is struggling at grade level, putting them in a more advanced class will help. If a kid is performing below their potential due to insufficient support, they need and deserve more support at their current level, not at a higher level!

Compacted Math is not a prize, it is a placement for learning.

Fighting your way into a more advanced math class without being prepared for it is not going to help. The classes already have many students who drop back to a less advanced/accelerated track because they can't keep up.

Such a student need not be struggling with Math class not to have shown a particular level on a highly exposure-based metric like MAP. There are multiple reasons, but two come to mind as particularly concerning if deciding to exclude access to acceleration.

1) The highly-able student sits in a class where a large percentage of classmates are not highly capable or are of below-average capability. The focus of the teacher is on the others, the class moves slower through grade-level concepts, and more advanced concepts are not introduced. The student does not have a home situation conducive to outside enrichment. The student is not likely to be identified via MAP.

2) The highly-able student, whether in the situation described in #1 or otherwise, is so bored with the pace of on-level instruction that they tune it out. Again, the student does not have a home situation conducive to outside enrichment. The student is not likely to be identified via MAP.

Especially at the elementary level, with its spiral curricular approach, a highly able student does not necessarily need the same level of preparation (though that always helps). Meanwhile, if not identified and supported with this acceleration, the condition is more likely to persist, and the opportunity largely is lost by the time one hits HS-level courses, as those become more dependent on prior coursework (vs. the conceptual spiral approach through PreAlgebra). Fighting one's way into Calculus without having mastered all of HS Algebra (both levels), for instance, more clearly would be counterproductive.

A highly able student may struggle initially as they back-fill some level of prior concept, but should be able to handle the accelerated pace, itself, in due course. Those placed in an accelerated course who cannot handle the pace and drop back to the non-accelerated course are less likely to be those of that high ability.

I agree that "Compacted" Math is not a prize, but a placement for learning. Placing those highly able is at least as important as placing those who have demonstrated learning from exposure. Families of some of the latter group treating "Compacted" Math as a prize is, I think, more of an issue, if there is such an issue at all. This should be about identifying and meeting need -- for both, as much as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

+1 It's additional exposure, not genius. With my older kid I did much more supplementation at home, and their math scores showed it. With my younger one, I haven't had the time, and their math scores show it. It's too bad that people conflate MAP scores with being gifted in math and that MCPS makes placement decisions based upon it. This is not what MAP was designed to do.

"Gifted" is 99+% ile, performing well 2+ years above grade level, getting scores that a average student never achieve, even in high school.

Compacted Math 85%ile is not gifted; it is learning the grade level material well, which includes a collection of topics that are also in the next grade level standard because math curriculum "spirals", adding complexity and variation and combination to core topics, not just constantly adding new topics.

PP prior to the DP, above.

One may choose that definition of "gifted," though I would subscribe to a different or broader one, or, at least, qualify that the percentile more definitively represent ability instead of achievement. I also would suggest that it is important to make a determination such that those who are so gifted, at whatever percentage of the population that might be considered valid, are not excluded due to a relative lack of access to in-class instruction or to outside supports. Once more, this is not to suggest that those demonstrating achievement the level of which may have been influenced by exposure should be excluded, either. It is simply that between the two groups, understanding that there may be considerable overlap, the more pressing need, and, then, the more appropriate focus of GT-related provision of programming, is that associated with those of high ability.

The 85th percentile MAP litmus was adopted during the first year of impact from CovID-19 to try to identify students for the CES and criteria-based magnet MS lottery pools. This was due to the school system's inability to administer CogAT. The relatively low bar was part of an approach that cast a very wide net in the hopes of preventing the exclusion of any who might have been identified under the prior paradigm. That first year, the MAP litmus was only one of a number of ways identification was made, and that was for the same purpose of making the net wide. Later, they tightened the criteria a bit by making them "AND" (i.e., a student had to be 85th on MAP, with the various adjustments of local norming and accounting for services received, WITH As in the relevant subject, etc.) instead of "OR." With the effects of the pandemic subsiding, that definitely should have been corrected more accurately and narrowly to identify a population considered for the programs, and I hope they are finally moving towards that.

The criteria for centrally suggested placement in "Compacted" Math 4/5 & 5/6 (individual schools make the final call, though many simply follow the central suggestion) is different from that 85th-percentile-plus-report-card paradigm, though MAP scores have been used for that, as well.

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?

Correct. Well, we played Monopoly Jr and Yahtzee sometimes on rainy days. We only talked about the Ari than roc involved enough to keep the game moving. My husband and I haven’t done math since our own high school days, so we don’t exactly know what “math games” would be.

My kid was in a poor school for early elementary. The teachers would sit him front of iReady/Reflex all day because they'd be busy trying to catch the kids up who were behind. So he would play on those apps and progress through the programs until he was way ahead of his grade level -- which kept the cycle of teachers putting him in front of computer for math class going.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.

PP from before the DP.

The bolded is both a hyperbolic strawman in relation to those of high innate mathematical ability and incorrect in its conclusions that a student incapable of making mental leaps to solve variations would not be helped, themselves, by exposure

Moreover, the conclusion that a bright kid can impute anything to which they have not been exposed does not follow from the example of jumping from fraction by whole number multiplication to fraction by fraction multiplication. A counterexample might be operations with complex numbers. Without having been exposed to the terminology of complex numbers, where i represents the square root of -1, a highly capable student has a high likelihood of coming to an incorrect answer to a related problem, where a student of less innate mathematical ability/interest but who had been exposed to the concepts and terminology associated with complex numbers would have a high likelihood of coming to a correct answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

Different poster, but are you sure that's true? Is this info on topics by score level inaccurate? Because what they have for the 191-200 and 201-210 bands includes a lot of stuff that isn't taught in Eureka Math until late 3rd grade or beyond-- fractions (including multiplying fractions), decimals, multi-digit multiplication and division (including remainders), area, perimeter, angles, variables, prime numbers, etc.

A certain RIT level X means "students rated at this level can solve HALF of the problems rated at this RIT level."

The "multiplying fractions" in the 200-210 range are multiplying by whole numbers, not multiplying fractions by fractions. The problems include picture models provided by the test. The whole numbers are small.
Multiplying by whole numbers is just addition, and addition is just counting. Remember, MAP only tests for accuracy, not speed or fluency. The student doesn't need to know any shortcuts or tricks.

Multiplying fractions by fractions is 211-217.

85%ile for end of 3rd grade is 215, so students only need to solve half the problems in that range, across all the topics.

If a kid needs to be taught directly how to solve each and every slight variation of a problem separately, and can't *sometimes* solve a novel variation, not even slowly using basic non-optimal tactics, that kid fundamentally does not understand math, and adding more "exposure" to more topics will not help; it will only pile on more confusion.

For more context, my kids are older, but they were getting scores around 270 (which is notably high but not "genius" for end of middle school), which is so high that NWEA and Khan don't even publish sample questions at that RIT level, before they even learned high school Algebra I and Geometry. Is it because they were ready to hop into Algebra 2 or Precalc? No, it's because solving 90%-100% of the problems at a certain RIT level puts you easily 20pts above that level on your MAP score.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
When kids are quick to learn math concepts and enjoy them, they easily get ahead of peers in K-2, especially if they had a lot of early exposure to number concepts through early play (blocks, legos, cooking, counting, etc.)

What hasn’t been mentioned yet is that the MAP-M itself exposes advanced kids to even more advanced concepts. Motivated kids have enough access to technology (math games, khan Academy, etc) that they can figure out the “new” thing on their own or they ask about it. I remember when my 3rd grader asked me about the question with a little number 2 in the upper right and I explained that it meant the number times itself. That was all it took to learn exponents.

Now isn't that just precious with its virtue signaling.

All you need is to be smart and you'll figure it out! Everyone has the same resources! Keep the myth alive!

+1 Combined with the true belief that their child is special at math. (P.S. Most kids will understand concepts like exponents if explained to them--that's the point of why extra exposure at home or in enrichment classes makes it much easier to score higher).

The point, and it's quite suggestive that you can't see the point, is that you don't need this. 85%ile or qualifying for Compacted Math isn't about "exposure" to some arcane concept or language. If you (the kid) go to school and do your homework and ace your on-level tests, you are well able 85% ile / Compacted Math qualification. We are talking about a program for onboarding to slight acceleration, not skipping 2-3 years ahead.

The point, and it's clear you do not wish it acknowledged, is that identification via MAP does not carry as much fidelity to the primary intent of such curricular programming -- provision of accelerated instruction to the highly able -- as other identification paradigms that incorporate a more ability-focused metric than simply relying on the more exposure-sensitive MAP, especially as best practices as expressed by MAP's NWEA creators suggest that this is the case. Continuing use of a MAP litmus, then, disproportionately under-identifies students with that ability but with lower than average resource levels, whether from teacher attention deficit due to a lack of a manageable in-school cohort, from a lack of effective access to outside enrichment or from a similar cause.

Nobody, I think, is suggesting that those not as highly able but advanced due to such fortune of resource circumstance be excluded from acceleration, if desired. Instead, the thrust is to ensure that those with ability but with lesser resource circumstance are not disproportionately excluded from that which would tend to meet their need, turning a vicious cycle of underperformance vs. ability -> under-identification -> under-placement -> lesser learning opportunity -> underperformsnce vs. ability (again) into a more virtuous (or at least less vicious) one. Favoring the opposite might rightly be characterized as opportunity hoarding.

None of this changes the fact that, if, for whatever reason, the student is struggling at grade level, putting them in a more advanced class will help. If a kid is performing below their potential due to insufficient support, they need and deserve more support at their current level, not at a higher level!

Compacted Math is not a prize, it is a placement for learning.

Fighting your way into a more advanced math class without being prepared for it is not going to help. The classes already have many students who drop back to a less advanced/accelerated track because they can't keep up.