On the lawsuit, of course they can't disclose the questions. Next thing then we will have Dr. Li's compacted math test prep course!

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does a good job of explaining the criteria. I don't think I had read previously that 90% on InView quantitative reasoning was required. Are all kids who score that high tested?

Its one piece of the equation, not the only one . Others included grades and teacher recommendation. Our principal has presented this every year, so there is no reason at our school that the selection process would be a mystery or a big secret.

I read about that lawsuit. Craziness!

MCPS did respond to the father's PIA request. Their response was that the test protocol is excepted from disclosure under the PIA.

Yes and the father should have filed a grievance in circuit court to challenge this. This is the one area though where I think the state board should have stepped in and not punted it to the circuit court.

The father originally was requesting to see what tasks his son was asked to perform, what problems he was asked to solve, what his son's responses were, and what evaluation protocol was used to evaluate his response. He further asked for how this evaluation aligned with Common Core grade level requirements.

Everything except for the common core comparison is bulls eye in FERPA. He would have prevailed as the county or state can't hide the student work and rationale behind how this students was evaluated. FERPA doesn't require them to prove or disprove what they do has any value but they can't hide the data that is specific to the student. Upholding not requiring MCPS to show how this is aligned with common core is within FERPA but odd since MCPS constantly screams about how this is all Common Core.

IMO, the state should have required MCPS to provide the tasks that were given to the student, the student's response, and the criteria/protocal under which this student was measured. It isn't in the state's interest to have every school system trying to fight PIA requests and they'll end up getting their butts kicked once a parent willing to spend money on lawyers comes along.

Anonymous wrote:

The father should have paid for outside testing to show an external source evaluating the child's math ability. He should have filed a grievance in circuit court to get the records when the school refused to respond to PIA.

MCPS did respond to the father's PIA request. Their response was that the test protocol is excepted from disclosure under the PIA.

Anonymous wrote:

Because the father was convinced that his kid was advanced since he could do advanced math at home. I stated previously, just because a kid can do advanced math doesn't mean he really understands it because some advanced math can be learned simply by rote. From what I can see, being in compacted 4/5 math is not the same as being able to do long division quickly, for example. Again, doing long division can be learned by rote. Under 2.0, you have to show clear understanding of certain concepts by explaining it, with words or diagrams.

Ah but here is the big problem! Some teachers do not accept anything other than a verbal/written explanation. They don't allow a kid to use visual diagrams, or show mental calculation and reasoning. They are very rigid in observation. This is a big problem in 2.0 and math reasoning has zero to do with being able translate math concepts into words. The alternative is NOT rote memorization its actually understanding the structure and practice of math!!!!

We've been on that roller coaster. DS has dysgraphia and stutters. 2nd grade teacher kept him out of accelerated math because he could verbalize what he understood or knew. 3rd grade teacher let him show other kids how to do it on the board without talking (watch me rather than listen to me) and let him use diagrams. I guarantee you if the 2nd grade teacher had been giving the test he would have gotten a zero and not gotten into compacted math.

I agree with you and have posted on another thread (or was it this none) stating the verbal part was not a good idea because some kids (and adults) have a hard time finding words to explain things. All teachers should allow the use of diagrams.

Because the father was convinced that his kid was advanced since he could do advanced math at home. I stated previously, just because a kid can do advanced math doesn't mean he really understands it because some advanced math can be learned simply by rote. From what I can see, being in compacted 4/5 math is not the same as being able to do long division quickly, for example. Again, doing long division can be learned by rote. Under 2.0, you have to show clear understanding of certain concepts by explaining it, with words or diagrams.

Ah but here is the big problem! Some teachers do not accept anything other than a verbal/written explanation. They don't allow a kid to use visual diagrams, or show mental calculation and reasoning. They are very rigid in observation. This is a big problem in 2.0 and math reasoning has zero to do with being able translate math concepts into words. The alternative is NOT rote memorization its actually understanding the structure and practice of math!!!!

We've been on that roller coaster. DS has dysgraphia and stutters. 2nd grade teacher kept him out of accelerated math because he could verbalize what he understood or knew. 3rd grade teacher let him show other kids how to do it on the board without talking (watch me rather than listen to me) and let him use diagrams. I guarantee you if the 2nd grade teacher had been giving the test he would have gotten a zero and not gotten into compacted math.

Its not a law suit its an appeal with the state board of education. They are only assessing whether MCPS followed their process.

I think the father has a valid point that the school never produced any information on what or how they were assessing "math reasoning". It was a very circular argument with the school. Yes, the school met with the parents multiple times but they never produced the child's educational record with the tasks and student work or notes.

The father should have paid for outside testing to show an external source evaluating the child's math ability. He should have filed a grievance in circuit court to get the records when the school refused to respond to PIA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one am very appreciative of the PP who posted the opinion appealling the CM placement decision. If it's the father himself, kudos to him.

Why? I mean, it sounds like the school district repeatedly met with him, etc. and gave him plenty of info to show his kid shouldn't be in CM. Why did he keep pursuing this?

Kudos for chutzpah, maybe.

But yes, I am grateful to the PP who posted the opinion. That was interesting to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I for one am very appreciative of the PP who posted the opinion appealling the CM placement decision. If it's the father himself, kudos to him.

Why? I mean, it sounds like the school district repeatedly met with him, etc. and gave him plenty of info to show his kid shouldn't be in CM. Why did he keep pursuing this?

Because the father was convinced that his kid was advanced since he could do advanced math at home. I stated previously, just because a kid can do advanced math doesn't mean he really understands it because some advanced math can be learned simply by rote. From what I can see, being in compacted 4/5 math is not the same as being able to do long division quickly, for example. Again, doing long division can be learned by rote. Under 2.0, you have to show clear understanding of certain concepts by explaining it, with words or diagrams.

Anonymous wrote:I for one am very appreciative of the PP who posted the opinion appealling the CM placement decision. If it's the father himself, kudos to him.

Why? I mean, it sounds like the school district repeatedly met with him, etc. and gave him plenty of info to show his kid shouldn't be in CM. Why did he keep pursuing this?

Anonymous wrote:I for one am very appreciative of the PP who posted the opinion appealling the CM placement decision. If it's the father himself, kudos to him.

For what?

I for one am very appreciative of the PP who posted the opinion appealling the CM placement decision. If it's the father himself, kudos to him.

I hate to say this, but I have to wonder if there has been some gender or racial bias in who was selected for testing. Why the heck didn't they just give the same test to every kid?

Really. If you think your snowflake should have been tested then talk to your principal, but it's not that hard to identify the kids who seem ready for more challenging math. I'm not a teacher, but the difference in abilities was pretty clear to me after volunteering in math just a handful of times.

OP who asked the question re gender or racial bias here. I really don't follow this comment. If math abilities are so plain to see after a couple of volunteering sessions, then what's the harm in giving every child the test? It's only one data point. Unconscious bias (I'm not suggesting any intentional bias) is impossible to police if you don't give every student the same test. One of the scores that Jay Matthews uses to test the quality of high schools is whether AP classes are sufficiently open - that there's not a preselection as to which students should be allowed to take the test. How is pre-selecting the students allowed to take the test for CM any different?

Anonymous wrote:The father in the opinion really sounds nuts.

I bet he posts on this forum.

Anonymous wrote:The opinion does a good job of explaining the criteria. I don't think I had read previously that 90% on InView quantitative reasoning was required. Are all kids who score that high tested?

The link says that 90% on InView quantitative reasoning is a benchmark, not that it's required.