Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Its not required. They do teach. But, if you want higher MAP scores you need to supplement as working ahead is how you get them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

That should not be required. They should teach what is required for kids to move on in the program, and announce performance standards for moving on in advance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Most kids who go forward in math have parents who supplement, hire tutors, etc. regardless of COVID as MCPS math is painfully slow. We always used workbooks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'd told us they'd send a letter at the Tuesfay distribution. So literally the day before the end of the school year. Which, I get from their perspective, but still kind of frustrating as a parent.

That’s so cowardly and such a slap in the face to parents and students. Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

I agree. I’m very annoyed they didn’t let families know in advance about this.

Yup. I think I even asked at some point -- what are the topics they are skipping and can you give us the analogs in the Khan Academy curriculum so we can do it over the summer. If we'd been told that they would be tested on it in the spring, and expected to know it, we could have done that catch-up over the spring semester. (Still stupid, but whatever.)

Exactly. Because it’s not that the material is too hard, it’s just that most kids didn’t get a chance to learn it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

I agree. I’m very annoyed they didn’t let families know in advance about this.

Yup. I think I even asked at some point -- what are the topics they are skipping and can you give us the analogs in the Khan Academy curriculum so we can do it over the summer. If we'd been told that they would be tested on it in the spring, and expected to know it, we could have done that catch-up over the spring semester. (Still stupid, but whatever.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

I agree. I’m very annoyed they didn’t let families know in advance about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

That is so crappy. They should not do what they’re doing halfway through the compacted math program, and on top of that with no advance notice. And if a kid is doing well in 4/5, they can do well in 5/6. If anything, they should offer math programming over the summer to make up for the sections that were not taught to the kids. I just think to penalize kids for not doing as well on sections of a test that covers concepts they have not yet been taught is so unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

How do you know you have to supplement when your kid gets straight As (and high As at that) and rave reviews from the teacher?!? Once the test is done it’s too late. I’m annoyed that parents were not advised that sections would be skipped and now kids are essentially penalized for it. Frustrating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.

You need to supplement. Those are not high scores so it makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a shred of actual evidence to support any of these claims? I know it's difficult to disprove a negative and there may be a kernel of truth since the switch from C2.0 to Eureka was bound to wreak some havoc, but this just doesn't seem right to me. At our school, for example, they covered roughly 85% of the Eureka 5/6 material. That's probably fine since it had never been done before. I'm guessing kids in Compacted 4/5 had a similar experience which is that most did fine and a few struggled which is expected. Further, the Eureka curriculum is different than 2.0. It has more depth and is more challenging so really no surprise there.

My child did well in her 4/5 class - she As all year. On MAP she got 230 or higher on the elements covered in class, but lower scores - 217 and 215 - on elements not covered fully in class. She was not moved through to compacted 5/6 math. Very disappointing and had we known what wasn’t covered would ultimately be used to keep her from a track she loves and thrives in, we might have done tutoring to cover missed topics.