MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.

Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.

They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.

HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.

Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.

They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.

HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.

MCPS has NEVER utilized rigorous research methodology. WE pay people $200k per year to produce this drivel and put it forth as evidence before the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

When CM was really for the advanced kids, and not for those whose parents were pushy, the 5 or 6 kids in our ES took a bus to the MS for acceleration.

Then some parents pushed for their kids to be in CM, so more than half the grade got pushed into CM which they then offered at the ES. I volunteered there, and it was clear that many kids did not belong in that class. I was thinking my youngest should probably be on track, not accelerated, but the teacher told me that because so many kids were pushed into CM, the kids left in the "on track" class were very behind, and my kid would be completely bored. It became opposite extremes with nothing in the middle.

That said, I'm super glad my kids will be out of MCPS. CM was necessary for one of my kids, who is now in college as a dual math/STEM major, getting a 4.0.

The dumbing down of MoCo kids. This will hurt those whom MCPS is trying to help the most. Some parents will just get tutors or teach their kids at home so their kids will be more advanced come HS so that they can take AP BC calc in 11th grade. It's the kids whose parents don't have the means/will to do the same who will suffer the most in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.

Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.

They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.

HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.

MCPS has NEVER utilized rigorous research methodology. WE pay people $200k per year to produce this drivel and put it forth as evidence before the board.

It's such a mistake to hire these FO teams with functionally fake PhDs. The expertise to make MCPS better absolutely exists, and the salaries are actually quite good, but there is a culture of "promoting from within" and allowing these mail-order ed/admin degrees that means you just aren't getting the cream of the crop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.

Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.

They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.

HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.

MCPS has NEVER utilized rigorous research methodology. WE pay people $200k per year to produce this drivel and put it forth as evidence before the board.

It's such a mistake to hire these FO teams with functionally fake PhDs. The expertise to make MCPS better absolutely exists, and the salaries are actually quite good, but there is a culture of "promoting from within" and allowing these mail-order ed/admin degrees that means you just aren't getting the cream of the crop.

You're assuming that making MCPS better is the goal. It seems like the goal is to dress up the decisions they've already made with graphs and they're very good at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

When CM was really for the advanced kids, and not for those whose parents were pushy, the 5 or 6 kids in our ES took a bus to the MS for acceleration.

Then some parents pushed for their kids to be in CM, so more than half the grade got pushed into CM which they then offered at the ES. I volunteered there, and it was clear that many kids did not belong in that class. I was thinking my youngest should probably be on track, not accelerated, but the teacher told me that because so many kids were pushed into CM, the kids left in the "on track" class were very behind, and my kid would be completely bored. It became opposite extremes with nothing in the middle.

That said, I'm super glad my kids will be out of MCPS. CM was necessary for one of my kids, who is now in college as a dual math/STEM major, getting a 4.0.

The dumbing down of MoCo kids. This will hurt those whom MCPS is trying to help the most. Some parents will just get tutors or teach their kids at home so their kids will be more advanced come HS so that they can take AP BC calc in 11th grade. It's the kids whose parents don't have the means/will to do the same who will suffer the most in the end.

This perfectly illustrates the problem with MCPS, which is constantly lurching from idea to idea rather than using proven change management tools.

In the early 2010s (and before), CM was truly only for a handful of kids per school. It might have been a little too tightly gate-kept, but not by much.

Then they lurched to throwing it open for every kid at or above grade level, so most of the kids in a lot of schools. They could have just opened it up a touch, but they threw open the gates entirely. SHOCKER - it did not set kids up for success, but the by time that cohort of kids started spinning out (usually pre-calculus), we'd already gone through two superintendents.

So now they are lurching back, without any sort of change management (buffer year) or any in-between approaches. It's just so dumb and avoidable.

[Anonymous]

So I'm confused. On slide 13 they say that current compacted 4th graders will do "Math 5 w/Accel" next year. But on slide 17 it says that in 2026-2027, there will be "accelerated grade 5 completion" and that the cluster grouping will be for rising grade 4 next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused. On slide 13 they say that current compacted 4th graders will do "Math 5 w/Accel" next year. But on slide 17 it says that in 2026-2027, there will be "accelerated grade 5 completion" and that the cluster grouping will be for rising grade 4 next year?

Indicative that MCPS can't even get a basic planning PPT on curricular issues correct. It's terrible if this year's grade 4 have to repeat content next year if they're in Compacted math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused. On slide 13 they say that current compacted 4th graders will do "Math 5 w/Accel" next year. But on slide 17 it says that in 2026-2027, there will be "accelerated grade 5 completion" and that the cluster grouping will be for rising grade 4 next year?

Indicative that MCPS can't even get a basic planning PPT on curricular issues correct. It's terrible if this year's grade 4 have to repeat content next year if they're in Compacted math.

And yet, that's exactly what they're planning. You can bet there will be a lot of parents asking for their kids to move up to 6th grade math next year. I'm hoping if there are big enough cohorts of kids ready they can offer the 6th grade math at the elementary schools, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

When CM was really for the advanced kids, and not for those whose parents were pushy, the 5 or 6 kids in our ES took a bus to the MS for acceleration.

Then some parents pushed for their kids to be in CM, so more than half the grade got pushed into CM which they then offered at the ES. I volunteered there, and it was clear that many kids did not belong in that class. I was thinking my youngest should probably be on track, not accelerated, but the teacher told me that because so many kids were pushed into CM, the kids left in the "on track" class were very behind, and my kid would be completely bored. It became opposite extremes with nothing in the middle.

That said, I'm super glad my kids will be out of MCPS. CM was necessary for one of my kids, who is now in college as a dual math/STEM major, getting a 4.0.

The dumbing down of MoCo kids. This will hurt those whom MCPS is trying to help the most. Some parents will just get tutors or teach their kids at home so their kids will be more advanced come HS so that they can take AP BC calc in 11th grade. It's the kids whose parents don't have the means/will to do the same who will suffer the most in the end.

Again, you were at a wealthier school. For us, we had CM, but friends didn't and no kidsi were bussed to the MS. In MS and HS, some kids were, including mine, but as parents we had to drive them (again, look at the disparities). And, it was a fight to get them to be able to take a class at another school. Some kids skip AB, and do BC in 10th. You use other kids as talking points, when they are our kids that are the ones going without and suffering. Our school lacks stem, and its going to be an issue with college acceptances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?

Yes

Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.

[Anonymous]

Once students get to middle school, are they tracked then? In Elementary, I can't understand how one teacher will teach multiple sets of clusters in a classroom that may be as large as 28 students. Right now, "enrichment" means extra worksheets or computer games. Will the "accel" just be more of this?

It is insane they are just introducing this now and trying to roll it out next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?

Yes

Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.

In our ES, 2/3 students are in compact math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?

Yes

Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.

I'd be curious both where and when, because if schools are offering it virtually, there's no reason why any school should be without. If someone was at a school this year or last without compacted math being offered to any students, I wish they'd say where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.

We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?

Yes

Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.

In our ES, 2/3 students are in compact math.

In our school we have maybe 60% of grade 4 kids in a ginormous compacted math class, 30% in a grade level one, and 10% in this teeny class for kids with special needs. I can understand if they haven't sufficiently done the gate keeping on compacted math and kids are having issues when they get to HS being in an accelerated track, but completed getting rid of it is stupid. My kid is bored enough even in the ginormous compacted math class.