MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Glad to see how many of them are pushing back on this. Yang and Montoya I expected-- Rivera-Oven I did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yang is so sweet while calling out bullsht.

I think Rivera-Oven is so polite by using "a little bit" too much. It's just straight bullsh*t implementation plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay!! Kids who somehow don't meet criteria for compacted elem math (many of whom are not high SES, hmm) are forever held back and on a separate, unequal track.

Fully support this decision MCPS.

Ignore all the haters

What's "unequal" about the current system? My kid is on a grade-level track. They'll still get to take whatever HS math they need for college. I'm not whining about them being "unequal" to the kid taking next-grade-level math because I know my kid is in the right track. Lots of kids are pushed to take compacted math and then have a lot of trouble when they get to algebra. Maybe the problem is with 2/3 of kids getting pushed to the accelerated track.

[Anonymous]

Rivera-Oven and Yang are working together!

Rivera-Oven concerned about lowering expectations.

Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what is "exclusionary tracking"? Doesn't their model still include this because kids will take Algebra 1 at different grades? I'm so confused.

This is the state definition of exclusionary tracking/what the state prohibits: "Exclusionary Tracking refers to the practice of placing students into rigid learning tracks, often arbitrary and based on assumptions about their abilities, which limits their future opportunities in mathematics."

YES this is exactly what compacted math does, with the final selection made at grade 3, right? Seriously wrong, and absolutely limits opportunites

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, but that 5% NEEDS real acceleration....

They are in W cluster and can go to AOPS and take Algebra in 6th

We have kids like that at our Title I school, but we're a talking point not a group actually to be served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay!! Kids who somehow don't meet criteria for compacted elem math (many of whom are not high SES, hmm) are forever held back and on a separate, unequal track.

Fully support this decision MCPS.

Ignore all the haters

There are significant percentages of FARMS, Latino and Black students that currently take compacted math.

Taking compacted math away from them does not increase equity. The right approach to addressing equity concerns would be to:
- make it harder for parents wealthy parents to force kids that don't need compacted math into it
- ensure that qualified Black and Latino kids can access in person compacted math regardless of teacher biases that mountains of research show exist
- offer math interventions in K-3 for kids that aren't progressing

But that all sounds very hard so just shove everyone into the same class and call it "equity" (equity has never meant giving everyone the exact same thing, like giving everyone steak even though some are vegetarians)

[Anonymous]

Cluster grouping is not the NAGC top recommendation.

[Anonymous]

MCPS: "Teachers are used to having children levels of different levels in one Honors Geom class, so we'll just add 2 more levels into the same class". Cool cool cool

Rivera-Oven: "EML students (English as second language) aren't mentioned in your plan"

[Anonymous]

Lowering expectations is deciding a kid's math potential at grade 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glad to see how many of them are pushing back on this. Yang and Montoya I expected-- Rivera-Oven I did not.

I doubt they're going to do anything besides just yell at them in this meeting and then let it happen, but at least it's good to hear them yell at them about it.

[Anonymous]

Calling out the crazy "1-4-5" and 2-3-4" slide. What happens when a Group 1 kid wants to move up to Group 2?

I think it's just a mistake and MCPS won't admit it.

I'm sad no one called out all the bad math on the Canva decorative image.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nagc.org/grouping

[Anonymous]

HOLY SHEEET!!

Parents and students are sooooooo screwed!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nagc.org/grouping

Here's what NAGC actually says:

"Four central themes emerged from meta-analyses examining more than 100 years of credible research on the efficacy of specific approaches to grouping gifted students: (a) more grouping of gifted students together enhances learning, (b) negligible growth has been identified when no formal grouping is used, (c) acceleration and enriched curricula through content-based models have strong target content area achievement gains, and (d) grouping and differentiated curriculum are both necessary to promote growth. [21]"