Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If by "performance," you mean test scores that is another measure, but the Metis report was all about applications, admissions and enrollment.

The Metis report was not about enrollment in compacted math, it was about enrollment in special programs. Compacted math is not a special program.

DP.. no, it isn't, but it seems to me that this is about the overall achievement gap, and not having many URM in advanced courses/programs/tracks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is URM?

Code for "kids who are poor and/or black and/or Hispanic."

Means not ORM (over represented majority).

Anonymous wrote:What is URM?

Code for "kids who are poor and/or black and/or Hispanic."

Anonymous wrote:If by "performance," you mean test scores that is another measure, but the Metis report was all about applications, admissions and enrollment.

The Metis report was not about enrollment in compacted math, it was about enrollment in special programs. Compacted math is not a special program.

What is URM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think MCPS is spending too much time and money lowering bars and expanding programs in strategic places just to make it LOOK like they are successful at closing the gap. But they are not really closing the gap this way. It's fake. They are changing the standards. I would have spent more of my efforts on the early education and STEM programs targeted at URM that they are putting in place. I think those will make a difference in the long run but they are too small right now.

They are changing what standards? Do you know how MCPS measures the performance gap? It's not by percent of kids in compacted math, and it's not by application magnet programs.

DP... honestly, I think they like to look at different things, and magnet and CM enrollment is one area. Why else are there so many more CM kids this year compared to two years ago? I can't believe that this year's kids are smarter than two years ago. CM, like HGC, should be limited to those who really need it. If they want to give more kids access to acceleration, then make the overall curriculum more challenging.

apparently they want to give more access to acceleration -- I guess we will find out how that works after they are at it a couple years.

More access is fine, but putting in a student who is not really ready for it does not help the student. The student will struggle more, possibly miss concepts, and the teacher will have to slow down the speed or spend more time with the "slower" kids while the rest of the kids don't get any attention and possibly then miss out on some concepts themselves. CM is fast paced. There is no wiggle room to slow it down.

Anonymous wrote:My son's 5/6 class gained 4 students this year. There is 1 compacted class and 3 regular classes. Teacher did tell us that overall, class size increased in the last two years from approx 15 kids to 25 kids.

This is what I'm saying... why are there so many more kids in CM now than before? What prompted the change?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think MCPS is spending too much time and money lowering bars and expanding programs in strategic places just to make it LOOK like they are successful at closing the gap. But they are not really closing the gap this way. It's fake. They are changing the standards. I would have spent more of my efforts on the early education and STEM programs targeted at URM that they are putting in place. I think those will make a difference in the long run but they are too small right now.

They are changing what standards? Do you know how MCPS measures the performance gap? It's not by percent of kids in compacted math, and it's not by application magnet programs.

DP... honestly, I think they like to look at different things, and magnet and CM enrollment is one area. Why else are there so many more CM kids this year compared to two years ago? I can't believe that this year's kids are smarter than two years ago. CM, like HGC, should be limited to those who really need it. If they want to give more kids access to acceleration, then make the overall curriculum more challenging.

apparently they want to give more access to acceleration -- I guess we will find out how that works after they are at it a couple years.

Our school has less than 90 kids and 43 of them are in CM which is almost double what it was two years ago when my other DC missed the CM cutoff;we choose not to fight it. Then MCPS turns around and try and place him in IM Math in MS. Again, choose not to go that route either, skipping over Math fundamentals is in no way a path to close any achievements gaps nor is it the path for children to retain the fundamentals for higher education. MCPS needs to work with all the children at their level and we as parents need to face fact, not all of our children are Math Wizards.

My son's 5/6 class gained 4 students this year. There is 1 compacted class and 3 regular classes. Teacher did tell us that overall, class size increased in the last two years from approx 15 kids to 25 kids.

My 4th grader is in compact math. Everyone in 4th grade gets pulled out to a different classroom for math. There are 4 classes total, only one of them is compact math. There are 26 kids (out of 100) that are in CM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think MCPS is spending too much time and money lowering bars and expanding programs in strategic places just to make it LOOK like they are successful at closing the gap. But they are not really closing the gap this way. It's fake. They are changing the standards. I would have spent more of my efforts on the early education and STEM programs targeted at URM that they are putting in place. I think those will make a difference in the long run but they are too small right now.

They are changing what standards? Do you know how MCPS measures the performance gap? It's not by percent of kids in compacted math, and it's not by application magnet programs.

DP... honestly, I think they like to look at different things, and magnet and CM enrollment is one area. Why else are there so many more CM kids this year compared to two years ago? I can't believe that this year's kids are smarter than two years ago. CM, like HGC, should be limited to those who really need it. If they want to give more kids access to acceleration, then make the overall curriculum more challenging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are they changing the standards of access to programs or changing the actual standards of the curriculum? Meaning -- is the curriculum at HGC and compacted math different than it used to be? If standards of access have changed - I don't see a problem. But if they are watering down curriculum -- that is more of a concern.

They will officially tell you no in terms of the curriculum being watered down but have you been in a compacted math class recently where they accept 60 or more percent of the kids in the school? Teachers are spending a lot of time with remedial groups while the other kids are playing "math" games.

that is not a problem in our school --- they did not accept anywhere near 60% of the class. so perhaps that's a problem you need to address with your school.

DP here.. how many were in CM two years ago compared to this year? In our school, it's doubled. They definitely let in more kids. Do they still use UCARE assessments?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are they changing the standards of access to programs or changing the actual standards of the curriculum? Meaning -- is the curriculum at HGC and compacted math different than it used to be? If standards of access have changed - I don't see a problem. But if they are watering down curriculum -- that is more of a concern.

They will officially tell you no in terms of the curriculum being watered down but have you been in a compacted math class recently where they accept 60 or more percent of the kids in the school? Teachers are spending a lot of time with remedial groups while the other kids are playing "math" games.

that is not a problem in our school --- they did not accept anywhere near 60% of the class. so perhaps that's a problem you need to address with your school.

It is a blanket MCPS policy that different schools are addressing in different ways but it was the MCPS policy that encouraged schools to expand their programs.

sorry you're having that problem with your school.

Anonymous wrote:If by "performance," you mean test scores that is another measure, but the Metis report was all about applications, admissions and enrollment.

Well that's lovely but those figures won't be the ones that the USDE uses when looking at the gap. It may be something that MCPS is keeping track of - but its not how the achievement gap is defined.