Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

I agree with the PPs, one teacher complaining wouldn't change *anything*... are you kidding. But, many teachers and many parents complaining, then yea, I see why they changed it.

http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182009/potonew194846_32535.shtml

"The Montgomery County Public Schools math curriculum remains "a mile wide and an inch deep" even as an increasing number of sixth- and seventh-graders begin studying algebra, according to Nancy Feldman, a former long-term substitute teacher in math at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda who now tutors students in math.

"Very few are comfortable with fractions, decimals and percents. That's consistent across the board," Feldman said of students in Algebra 1 and higher courses."

I heard the same thing from another parent of a current HSer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

You actually seriously think that MCPS changed the entire system-wide math curriculum and philosophy because Joe Blow AP Calc teacher at Sherwood HS complained that some of his kids had bad foundation skills? Really? Seriously? I know this forum likes to slag off MCPS for everything, but really?

My DS has been in the guinea pig year of 2.0 since algebra in 8th grade. Just got a 650 PSAT in math as a Sophomore. Obviously he took 8th grade algebra so he is not a top math student. We were pretty happy with the score. More important to me than PARCC or map-M

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

It was, at minimum, a lot of arrogant high school teachers with axes to grind. Or, alternatively -- people who knew what they were talking about, because they saw it every day.

Anonymous wrote:The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

That's still anecdotal and possibly one arrogant HS teacher with an axe to grind. Anyway, I'd like someone to produce any evidence that this isn't still happening. The secondary math class re-writes under 2.0 are awful. I have to believe they are producing just as many students with major gaps in understanding. If someone has data that proves otherwise I'd like to hear it. Or even just anecdotes from HS science teachers who have noticed better quality students. Algebra was re-written three years ago, some of those students are in HS now (including my DS).

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) mathematics milestone data for the past three years indicate a decline in performance for students across grade levels, with strategic challenges demonstrated in elementary school achievement, success in Algebra 1 by Grade 8, and success in Algebra 2 by Grade 11. In addition, the recent PARCC results (attached) also reveal disturbing achievement gaps. We know we must address these trends with urgency both in the short- and long-term to ensure that more of our students are prepared for college and careers upon high school graduation.

The data doesn't show any underperformance by students in compacted math. Prior to 2.0, the data also did not show any underperformance of accelerated students. The "I hear that students used to be accelerated too quickly" is solely an anecdotal MCPS line to justify removing substantive acceleration in math via 2.0. The statement isn't supported by the data.

MCPS has a problem with accelerated or compacted math because it doesn't like how the racial numbers play out. Higher math scores and students qualifying for compacted or accelerated math are in the high SES areas that trend toward asian and caucasian. Clearly we shouldn't be providing asian and caucasian students with an appropriate level of accelerated math education that they perform well in because it doesn't make the county's numbers look good.

Maybe it's anecdotal, but enough people were complaining about it. The supporting data could just be reflecting that many students had outside tutoring, not that they were in the right math class.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/montgomery-county-public-schoo/the-highly--touted-montgomery.html

"But a work group looking at the curriculum concluded in a report that too many high school students lacked a concrete understanding math fundamentals. Too many teachers, Birnbaum reported, were complaining that even advanced students were unprepared and parents wondered why they had to hire tutors for their kids in advanced math classes."

The problems with overacceleration were not that kids didn't do well when tested on what they learned in 5th grade. The problems that I heard expressed were from high school math teachers who had to learn to handle kids who had gaps in their learning from skipping things, or who could do the problems, but didn't fully understand what they were doing.

Anonymous wrote:Was MAP-M changed to reflect the new curriculum?

It kind of doesn't matter, if MCPS can look at their numbers and see something that makes them worry the gap has increased over the last three years, they can just as well say how the general population or non-disadvantaged groups have done over that time period. If whatever they are looking at isn't valid, they can't use it as evidence when they choose to. I'm all for reducing the achievement gap and assessing whether curriculum changes have impacted it, but the first goal has to be has the curriculum change done any good for anyone? If not, what's the point of focusing on achievement gap, the first focus needs to be better curriculum for everyone. There are lots of way for a gap to increase, it could be while one group gets better or while one get's worse but it can also happen while all groups get worse just at different rates.

Meanwhile, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) mathematics milestone data for the past three years indicate a decline in performance for students across grade levels, with strategic challenges demonstrated in elementary school achievement, success in Algebra 1 by Grade 8, and success in Algebra 2 by Grade 11. In addition, the recent PARCC results (attached) also reveal disturbing achievement gaps. We know we must address these trends with urgency both in the short- and long-term to ensure that more of our students are prepared for college and careers upon high school graduation.

The data doesn't show any underperformance by students in compacted math. Prior to 2.0, the data also did not show any underperformance of accelerated students. The "I hear that students used to be accelerated too quickly" is solely an anecdotal MCPS line to justify removing substantive acceleration in math via 2.0. The statement isn't supported by the data.

MCPS has a problem with accelerated or compacted math because it doesn't like how the racial numbers play out. Higher math scores and students qualifying for compacted or accelerated math are in the high SES areas that trend toward asian and caucasian. Clearly we shouldn't be providing asian and caucasian students with an appropriate level of accelerated math education that they perform well in because it doesn't make the county's numbers look good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was MAP-M changed to reflect the new curriculum?

I don't think so... MAP is national wide, not related to CC curriculum.

So it is really hard to know if changes in MAP scores just relate to CC curriculum differences or a decline.

Anonymous wrote:8:17 Doesn't "getting worse" depend on the assessment?

For example, MCPS starts curriculum 2.0 in math before the PARCC tests are finished. 3rd Graders in MCPS don't touch a particular topic, which it turns out is tested on PARCC! (Surprise!!) Doesn't that mean that everyone in 3rd Grade (unless tutored outside) will do worse because of a curriculum deficiency at MCPS?

What topic, and how do you know? Curriculum 2.0 is supposed to be aligned to the Common Core standards. The PARCC tests are supposed to be aligned to the Common Core standards. If it's not in the Common Core standards, it shouldn't be in PARCC. If it is in the Common Core standards, it should be in Curriculum 2.0. There shouldn't be any surprises.

Anonymous wrote:Was MAP-M changed to reflect the new curriculum?

I don't think so... MAP is national wide, not related to CC curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I honestly don't think it's about race (I'm Asian). I think it's more about the fact that 1. lots of parents complaining about the way they assess for it, and 2. as 2.0 curriculum gets more mature, they have a better understanding of the type of kid who would benefit from more advanced math.

Compacted math gets kids to calculus in 11th grade. Not that many kids need to be on that path.

Maybe I am too pessimistic but in middle school at some schools all kids are in "advanced english". I am sorry, if everyone is in the class it is not "advanced". My kid that is reading at 11th grade level is not going to get proper instruction in a class with kids at 3rd grade level. That is not a good situation for anyone.

Your kid has presumably been in classes with kids who are behind all along. If she's reading at an 11th grade level, then I think it's safe to assume that the school has met her needs.

Anonymous wrote:Was MAP-M changed to reflect the new curriculum?

That's a good question. I am not sure that the test itself would need to be changed as it's computer adaptive, but the benchmark scores would probably need to look different if different math skills are being taught in a different time sequence or in a different grade level than previously.

Was MAP-M changed to reflect the new curriculum?