It's late so I'll keep it short.
The first reading of the revised middle school math placement policy was tabled Tueseay night at the suggestion of Wake County school board member John Tedesco. This came in an attempt to block a motion by school board member Jim Martin that would have nixed the policy entirely in favor of forming a working group to evaluate and stop tracking issues.
Martin questioned the need to have a districtwide policy on math placement when one doesn't exist for other subjects. He also criticized the use of the 70 percent EVAAS probability of success as the floor for placing students,
By passing Tedesco's motion, it moves the discussion of the policy to the next board meeting. Ruth Steidinger, senior director of middle school programs, said the middle schools will do math placement this month for the upcoming school year and need guidance soon on what criteria to use.
Comments
Has this been addressed
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:27 — turnerk1I haven't heard anyone address one issue I've been wondering about. The kids who are currently taking 5/6 compacted math are scheduled to be put in Common Core 7+. However, the 6th grade math curriculum they are currently taking is NOT the 6th grade math curriculum that Common Core 7+ is assuming they've taken. I wonder what they will be missing? If Common Core is really so much more rigorous, I'm not sure it makes sense to accomodate this year's 5/6 compacted math students by skipping Common Core 6. The people who designed the Common Core curriculum don't think it should be compacted by two years. I'm really not sure it is a good idea to have that third track at all, at least until the system has had some time to figure out the curriculum.
This is a really good
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 14:37 — JSBinNCThis is a really good question. I am going to ask about it - thank you.
that's great
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:54 — turnerk1If you get an answer can you post on the blog? I have a child in 5/6 compacted math right now and I'm really struggling with whether I should request that he be put in Common Core 6+ next year rather than 7+.
Steidinger has previously
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 18:27 — KeungHui (author)Steidinger has previously indicated that they're working with AG staff to help cover the topics that they might not have gotten to when they're in the new class. It's similar to how they'll have to do some transitional work this fall at the high school level when students taking the new math courses will need to learn some material that they didn't cover under the old courses.
Keung..
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:29 — NWRaleighMomSo, will the new acceleration math start in 2012/2013 or in 2013/2014?
Ditto what RWT says. The
Sun, 02/12/2012 - 16:20 — KeungHui (author)Ditto what RWT says. The only rising sixth-graders who will be eligble for the 2012-13 school year for the track that has two years of math acceleration are the students who completed 5/6 compacted math this year. Rising sixth-graders who didn't take compacted math but have the 70 percent or higher EVAAS probability would get Common Core 6 Plus, a one-year accelerated version of the regular curriculum.
It's revised in spring 2013 and beyond to reflect that compacted math is no longer being offered in fifth grade.
Click here for the handout.
***
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 17:45 — RWTRising 6th graders who successfully completed the 5/6 compacted math course will be placed in to Math 7*. They will then take CCM-I (the math formerly known as Algebra I) in 7th grade and CCM-II (Geometry) in 8th grade.
Rising 6th graders who are not qualified for the 6/7 compacted math and have an EVAAS score which predicts that they have a greater than 70% chance of passing Algebra I will be placed into Math 6* and will be on track for CCM-I/Algebra I in 8th grade.
Rising 6th graders who are not qualified for any of the above math classes will be placed in Math 6, and they will be on track to take CCM-I/Algebra I in 9th grade.
I don't know what happens to those kids who are level 4/strong/verystrong/above 95 %tile and were not offered 5/6 math. Nobody addressed them.
Supposedly there will be some upward (and presumably, downward) mobility between the slowest track and the middle track, but I do not see any provisions for mobility into the fastest track.
2012/13
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 15:53 — turnerk1Common Core will be implemented next academic year.
thanks
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 18:43 — turnerk1thank you for responding Keung
Same boat
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:21 — JSBinNCI sent a note to my child's AG teacher asking for thoughts - I can let you know. Maybe offline. Keung (i think) remembers who I am / how you can email me if you want to email.
ARGH
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 18:36 — Bob_Sconcethe middle schools will do math placement this month for the upcoming school year and need guidance soon on what criteria to use.
Earth to WCPSS: The first semester just ended. Are you really basing these decisions on a single semester's grades? Why not wait until, oh, say, May, and factor in 3rd quarter grades and EOG results?
Heck, I have a kid who had a substitute in one class for about the entire 2nd quarter, so he's going to be graded by his first quarter? Good grief.
changes to EVAAS scores
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 19:34 — rogueyankeeHere is some interesting info on math placements made based on information last year at this time: 680 6th grade students had EVAAS scores over 70 based on data that was available during March registration; however the EVAAS scores for these students dropped below 70 after the 6th grade EOG. 571 7th grade students had EVAAS scores over 70 based on the data that was available during the March registration; however, the EVAAS scores for these students dropped below 70 after the 7th grade EOG. Placement decisions made in March don't take into account the students current year performance.
True
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 20:04 — RWTHowever, the student can be transferred to a more appropriate math course come fall. It's a lot easier to go down a track than to go up.
6th grade course selection
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:30 — turnerk1They've always signed up for 6th grade courses around this time of year, so yes they really do base the math decision off of the performance from half of the year. I guess they figure that the performance of the child will probably be fairly steady throughout the year, so what they've done during the first semester is a good predictor for their performance the rest of the year.
Martin
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 14:46 — jenandjonHe seems only concerned in what is best for HIS kid. I think 5th/6th compacted math should stay and I whole-heartedly support the new math program.
Math does lend itself to differentiation while other subjects, not so much. See comment below. I agree.
That's the entire reason why he ran
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 15:52 — FSandYOUto protect what is rightfully his.
Remember, an arrogant PHd card carrying member is smarter than all the rest of us and should always get his way.
Need for a district wide policy
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:32 — RWTTake the 5th/6th grade math classes. Rolled out in secret, schools could either offer the compacted class or not. Either way, it is supposedly offered only to students scoring above the 98th percentile. Schools that offer it do so to wildly varying percentages of their fifth graders: about 20% of all fifth graders at Oak Grove, and only 5% at Salem.
I'm sure the kids at Oak Grove are very smart, but it must be highly improbably that 1 in 5 fifth graders are at or above the 98th %tile.
If something is going to be offered at every school, it should be consistently offered.
Why math and not all subjects? Perhaps math lends itself to acceleration and skipping in a way that other subjects do not. Perhaps the other core subjects lend themselves more easily to differentiation than math: a language arts teacher can assign a more difficult book, or a social studies teacher can require a more in-depth assignment of her better students, or in science a teacher can really explore things like the electromagnetic spectrum with the brighter kids and keep it simple for the ones who just don't get it.
However, in math, it is more black and white. You are either in algebra, or you are not. There is no in-between. Going deeper in eight-grade math doesn't equal algebra
I think it's 95% percentile
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 13:03 — croaswifeFrom what I rememner reading it was for those identified AIG as "strong" or "very strong". I think the strongs are 95th and the very strongs need to be 98th.
Criteria for Compacted 5/6 Math
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 19:10 — lferreriThere's a copy of the criteria among the posted handouts on the ED Task Force WCPSS web site. (The meeting date was October 6, 2011.) A student who is "Very Strong" Math can qualify. One who is "Strong" Math with a 98 or 99th percentile in "BOTH aptitude and achievement" can also qualify. There is a third category for students who are "Strong" Math and recommended by "the School Based Committee for Gifted Education". However none of these categories means automatic acceptance. The student must then have a "4th grade profile care marked with overall Level 4 performance and at least 3 open-ended class assignments or assessment samples from a variety of strands." Level 4 is described by a number of criteria including "shows confidence and initiative" and "applies strategies creatively". Even then, the student still is only referred to the Central Office Based Committee for a review. They make the final determination.
I am used to dealing with decision trees and criteria, but I found this placement system to be very complex. (If you doubt that, you may want to look at the criteria sheet to see what I mean.) As a parent, I would not know whether my AG student qualified. There are some subjective criteria (such as the third "recommended" group and the requirement to show "confidence") that I can easily see being used to exclude or include a particular student. Stepping back from the specifics, I believe that the measures of aptitude and achievement are from testing done at the end of third grade so they would be a year old by the time the decision was made. As someone pointed out above, the number of participants varied a lot between the schools which I can easily see happening based on the way the criteria were laid out.
Martin, doing what Martin does best
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 08:27 — FSandYOUTrying to keep your kids from achieving!
So...
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 18:07 — exYank_WCprinyou think EVASS 70% is a good cutoff for those who wish compacted math in 5th grade? That's what you seem to imply with y our comment..
I don't know what criteria
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 20:04 — jenmanI don't know what criteria they are using for the 5/6th compacted class, but the 70% is for the normal 'advanced track' leading to Alg in 8th grade. The 5/6 compacted class leads to Geometry in 8th.
Compacted Math
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 21:26 — stepbystepIt's my understanding that there will no longer be compacted math 5/6 in elementary school because the new core curriculum is stronger. Based on the new criteria proposed but then tabled last night, tracking begins at 6th grade but is based on the same sorts of criteria and percentages mentioned elsewhere in this post using EVAAS, ITBS and/or CogAt if I understand correctly. What's not clear with the new criteria is whether a "borderline" student who might not have met the clearly stated cut-off for the top two tracks but whose parents want the child to move up anyway have a way to request that?
Common Core Tracks
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 21:54 — lferreriI believe that's correct about the compacted 5/6 math. I think you are right about it being unclear what will happen if parents want a child to move up. There are also a lot of other unanswered questions such as why tests like the ITBS and the CogAT, given on single dates two years previously, would be used for placement in the top track at the end of fifth grade. (EVAAS uses multiple scores and more recent scores so I think it makes more sense as a criterion.) There is also an issue with the inability of a student to enter the top track after the initial placement in sixth grade. Before we start determining who will be placed in which track or even the desirability of having three tracks, we really need an extensive discussion about these issues in my opinion.
In my opinion, if a parent
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 22:31 — RWTIn my opinion, if a parent or fifth-grade teacher nominates a student for the higher track (or if a child self-nominates), then he or she should get a shot at it regardless of EVAAS. S/he can always transfer out if it isn't working for him or her.
Placement
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 23:24 — lferreriI think the problem isn't in the lower two tracks where the EVAAS score is used. It's in the top track where the criteria involve scoring at the 98th percentile on nationally normed tests of aptitude and achievement. (The student still has to have an EVAAS projection of 70% or higher.) Those scores will be two years old if they use the ITBS and CogAT and there does not seem to be any mechanism that would allow a parent to ask for the highest track. In addition, once the decision is made in 6th grade, there is no later path to the highest track.
That is what bothers me...
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 00:36 — raleighlauraHow do kids move up to another track over time? Or is your high school career set based on 6th grade placement using data points from Spring of your 4th grade year?
Yup..
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 09:16 — Bob_SconcePretty much determined by 6th grade placement. That's been true and doesn't have much to do with compacted math.
The way it looks to me is
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 06:56 — RWTThe way it looks to me is that most kids will get placed to take Algebra I (The future Common Core Math I) in 8th grade. This will put them on track to take Geometry (CCM-II) in 9th and Calculus I by 12th grade. That's pretty good, especially if the maths are going to be as challenging as everyone makes them out to be (which may be true if actual math-loving, math-proficient folks were involved in designing the Common Core).
The track I'm carping about is the one that puts a student on track to take Geometry (CCM-II) in 8th grade. The track will cram four years of math into two years. (MCCMath 6/7 in sixth grade, MCCM8/I in seventh grade). It is going to be very challenging both in class and at home.
My complaints stem mostly from (1) the sneaky way in which the 5th/6th grade compacted math course was implemented at my son's elementary school, (2) the fact that my son and other strong students with 4s in math since 2nd grade were shut out of it, and (3) the inconsistent way across elementary schools in which students are chosen for the class, with some schools having 5% or fewer fifth graders enrolled and some having 20% of the fifth grade class attempting it.
Since next year there will be no 5th/6th compacted math course, I won't have a complaint on that front. It's great that there is an attempt to standardize access to the heavily-compacted, Geometry-in-8th-grade track. However, the proposal that went before the board on Tuesday failed to include a transparent, accessible way for students to be included based on nomination by teacher, parents, or themselves. In fact, the proposal specifically excluded subjective criteria such as nominations or a grade portfolio, as these provisions were written in strike-through font.
So...
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:20 — Bob_SconceOne of my pet peeves is the huge overlap between 5th grade and 6th grade math. The end result is that kids who understood it in 5th grade get bored in 6th grade when they do the same thing. Instead of doing something new, they're doing the SAME THING. It's just wasted time.
Tough Middle School Math Years for 5/6th Compacted
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 15:02 — jenandjonCase in point of why I am pulling my son out of sports for 6th grade. He wants to pursue an interest in STEM and if that's where he wants to be, he'll need Cal II in HS. He's slated for CC7+.
I think the 5/6 compacted math is a great class. I love my daughter, however, math is not her natural calling. She would have absolutely no business being in the same class with kids who are identified as "very strong" need in math. WCPSS need the differentiation and throwing all these kids into the same 5th grade math class is a HUGE mistake.
100% agree
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 10:47 — NWRaleighMomI think the 5/6 compacted math is a great class.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
100% agree. I believe the differentiation needs to start even earlier.
Just to clarify
Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:14 — nmoskalThe sneaky part wasn't specific to your school. The ED Task Force talked at length about math placement and tracking during the year that the expansion of 5/6 compacted math was being planned and implemented and to my knowledge not one time did central staff say "oh by the way, we are implementing an expansion of 5/6 compacted math." It wasn't until after it was in place that information was provided.