Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.
Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.
So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.
Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.
215 for spring MAP-M 3rd grade would Make complete sense. 251 for even 4th spring MAP-M makes zero sense as it even cuts off some kids in 99th percentile. Maybe they will clarify this to principals tomorrow?
250s is middle school. Makes no sense.
Anonymous wrote:But for the 3rd grade CES rejection letter, No, I mean the in-lottery-but-not-selected letter, it said my 3rd grade kid will be in ELC and compact math for 4th grade.
If not, does MCPS lie to us?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.
Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.
So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.
Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.
215 for spring MAP-M 3rd grade would Make complete sense. 251 for even 4th spring MAP-M makes zero sense as it even cuts off some kids in 99th percentile. Maybe they will clarify this to principals tomorrow?
Anonymous wrote:So the fourth graders in CM will finish 1/2 of 5th grade math this year and then start it over again at a slower pace next year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.
Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.
So how likely is it that someone at AEI/DCCAPS responsible for analyzing possible cutoffs transposed the 5 and the 1 in their report, the numbers were shoved up the chain without proper editorial review, and someone at the higher level ran with it, realizing such extreme restriction tended to fix multiple political/budgetary problems for them? A MAP-M of 215 in 3rd grade would be a more natural litmus test that could then allow the population to be winnowed down by grades, teacher recommendations, etc.
Separately, as far as delivery goes, achieving cohorted instruction while offering sufficient differentiation/acceleration might be a silver lining of the forced experiment in virtual learning.
Anonymous wrote:Kids are required to have a 251 Map-M. Although this is common for every DCUM poster, it is not common overall for 4th graders in this county. Regardless of where kids live, this is a reach score.
Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.
Anonymous wrote:Another teacher here. This is definitely true. That doesn’t mean that nothing will change, but at this point the guidance states that kids must have very high MAP scores, advanced level on all district assessments, and all A’s through the 3 quarters. Most kids will be knocked out with the MAP requirement.
Anonymous wrote:
The guidance I'm aware of came out for students currently in 4th grade and enrolled in Math 4/5 about if they take Math 5 next year or move on to 5/6. The reason given was the loss of instructional time over the past year + to cover almost two years of content.
There was a score for Fall and a score for Spring, I understood from what I heard that students could meet either the Fall or the Spring score, plus they had to have grades or a teacher advocacy AND strong scores on the district assessments. So it wasn't just MAP-M.
Since the spring MAP window is still open, it doesn't seem that the number of students who will qualify could be known at this point.
I also heard there will be new guidance for identifying students currently in 3rd grade, but I don't think that was shared yet. It sounds like schools wont be making those decisions but they will come from Central Office like the CES list does.
Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.
But... But... Someone on DCUM said it was true!
Anonymous wrote:This entire thread is untrue. There wa as discussion and nothing has been decided.