MCPS plans to rate schools on #s of kids in advanced classes

[Anonymous]

So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

Word salad. Fishmaw leopard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

No, not all schools have four years of math for all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

No, not all schools have four years of math for all kids.

They may not have your preferred classes, but they do have enough math classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why we have honors for all.

I think Taylor's plan is to not have honors for all.

https://theblackandwhite.net/80785/news/mcps-to-change-grading-policy-for-the-2025-2026-school-year/

MCPS also plans to audit course designations of the “honors” label, to ensure continued difficulty and the integrity of weighted GPAs.

What does that mean "audit course designations"? Does that mean that they'll observe the issue for a few years and do nothing about it til the next Superintendent?

Changes are supposed to be implemented in 2025/26 cal year.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DFHRPN6EFA43/$file/Grading%20and%20Reporting%20Regulation%20Revision%20250410%20PPT%20REV.pdf

But what changes--what does audit mean in this context?
"Audit courses for use of honors designations and benchmark weighting models."

Earlier this year a group from central office came through our high school and reviewed an honors science course. They felt it lacked adequate student "inquiry," and therefore was too easy for honors and needed to be fixed. I am not sure how they're going to go about fixing it, but I assume this is the model for audits

When you say they said it "needed to be fixed" did you get the sense the school was supposed to change it or that central was going to be changing it?

PP here. The answer to that question is above my pay grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

No, not all schools have four years of math for all kids.

They may not have your preferred classes, but they do have enough math classes.

No, if they stop at bc, then you can take stats but the. Kids can still have a year with no math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why we have honors for all.

I think Taylor's plan is to not have honors for all.

https://theblackandwhite.net/80785/news/mcps-to-change-grading-policy-for-the-2025-2026-school-year/

MCPS also plans to audit course designations of the “honors” label, to ensure continued difficulty and the integrity of weighted GPAs.

What does that mean "audit course designations"? Does that mean that they'll observe the issue for a few years and do nothing about it til the next Superintendent?

Changes are supposed to be implemented in 2025/26 cal year.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DFHRPN6EFA43/$file/Grading%20and%20Reporting%20Regulation%20Revision%20250410%20PPT%20REV.pdf

But what changes--what does audit mean in this context?
"Audit courses for use of honors designations and benchmark weighting models."

Earlier this year a group from central office came through our high school and reviewed an honors science course. They felt it lacked adequate student "inquiry," and therefore was too easy for honors and needed to be fixed. I am not sure how they're going to go about fixing it, but I assume this is the model for audits

When you say they said it "needed to be fixed" did you get the sense the school was supposed to change it or that central was going to be changing it?

PP here. The answer to that question is above my pay grade.

How can an individual school fix that? If “honors” health or “honors” English are insufficiently rigorous, that’s a curricular issue for the most part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it’s ok our kids go without the classes they need for graduation?

I don’t understand this comment.
Of course students will get the classes they need for graduation.

No, not all schools have four years of math for all kids.

They may not have your preferred classes, but they do have enough math classes.

No, if they stop at bc, then you can take stats but the. Kids can still have a year with no math.

There are ways to do it, including dual enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Most of the students in DC’s accelerated class who are not there due to meeting criteria are not doing well. I think putting such students in accelerated classes is setting them up for failure.

[Anonymous]

Measuring and audit things provides data both for objective results and reporting but also for asking deeper questions and making improvement.

The number or % of students in advance classes is meaningful. For example when compared to the # of students in a school rated as gifted, or the average MAP/MCAP score for the same school, or when broken out by sub group and compared against % for other schools. A key complaint has been instructional level practices from one school to the next heck even one class to the next.

When the pass percentage of AP Exams is very different between schools there are some root causes that need to be addressed. Likely rigor of class and preparation, prior preparation before class. But without measuring and looking at the data, no one would know or investigate. And like it or not there is some bias ( some unconscious and some intentional) that play into this).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the students in DC’s accelerated class who are not there due to meeting criteria are not doing well. I think putting such students in accelerated classes is setting them up for failure.

This is another reason why things need to be measured. It’s part of the reason for the implementation of more on ramps and off ramps for math and the greater focus on who is put into the accelerated classes. Many parents want their kids in such classes but it’s not ultimately good for the kid in the long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why we have honors for all.

I think Taylor's plan is to not have honors for all.

https://theblackandwhite.net/80785/news/mcps-to-change-grading-policy-for-the-2025-2026-school-year/

MCPS also plans to audit course designations of the “honors” label, to ensure continued difficulty and the integrity of weighted GPAs.

What does that mean "audit course designations"? Does that mean that they'll observe the issue for a few years and do nothing about it til the next Superintendent?

Changes are supposed to be implemented in 2025/26 cal year.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DFHRPN6EFA43/$file/Grading%20and%20Reporting%20Regulation%20Revision%20250410%20PPT%20REV.pdf

But what changes--what does audit mean in this context?
"Audit courses for use of honors designations and benchmark weighting models."

Earlier this year a group from central office came through our high school and reviewed an honors science course. They felt it lacked adequate student "inquiry," and therefore was too easy for honors and needed to be fixed. I am not sure how they're going to go about fixing it, but I assume this is the model for audits

When you say they said it "needed to be fixed" did you get the sense the school was supposed to change it or that central was going to be changing it?

PP here. The answer to that question is above my pay grade.

How can an individual school fix that? If “honors” health or “honors” English are insufficiently rigorous, that’s a curricular issue for the most part.

I would imagine if MCPS finds it "insufficiently rigorous", then the "honors" designation would be removed. Or, yes, MCPS would have to change the curriculum, which I highly doubt will happen next year. You would think that MCPS would know already whether the curriculum was "rigorous" since they are the ones that pick the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

I don't disagree with you, but it's almost impossible to have these conversations without looking at past practice, and at the intersection of race and perceptions of success.

Right now, I think we can all agree that the standards for "Honors" classes are low, to the detriment of almost everyone. Kids who truly need remediation aren't getting it, and kids who need/want an academic challenge are also not getting it.

However, moving to a system where schools are "ranked" by percentage of kids who pass an AP exam also has issues, because it creates an incentive for schools to gatekeep who gets to take AP courses. I'm sure that sounds fine if you have a kid who teachers/administration tend to see as a "good student." If your kid is white/Asian, female, well-organized, listens well, and speaks up in class not too much and not too little, it's going to sound like a fine system. But if your kid is Black/Hispanic, a boy, has learning differences, or is marked as ELL even if they finished ELL programming in elementary school, you might start to think this is not the best system after all.