Is Boars trying to destroy McPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Cluster grouping slightly reduces the range from classrooms that are already totally mixed-- the range within classes in cluster grouping is either a) below-average up to way-above-average/highly-gifted, or b) way-below-average up to above-average. (In the most common handbook on cluster grouping, they have 5 levels of kids and classes either have levels 1-4 or 2-5. So this is better than classrooms with levels 1-5, i.e. most K-3 classrooms.)

However, when you are replacing already-cohorted classes (where currently some teachers teach 1-2 and the rest teach 3-5) with cluster grouping, then this dramatically increases the range of students teachers have to teach.

It is also especially difficult in math, where you are not just trying to provide the same basic curriculum with enrichment layered on, but you are instead trying to accelerate only one portion of your class to cover an entirely different set of standards than the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

Does MCPS have the money to divide kids into 6 cohorts with separate instructors? In most elementary schools, no, there isn't the size for each grade level. But I can't understand why would you argue that it's better to have everyone in one grouping across these 6 cohorts in one classroom so the teacher teaches no one effectively.

Huh? No one is advocating deciding all the groups across. At teacher might get Group 1 and Group 2 students. Another might get Group 3 & 4 students. Another Group 5&6. Another might get Group 3&4 again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

Does MCPS have the money to divide kids into 6 cohorts with separate instructors? In most elementary schools, no, there isn't the size for each grade level. But I can't understand why would you argue that it's better to have everyone in one grouping across these 6 cohorts in one classroom so the teacher teaches no one effectively.

Huh? No one is advocating deciding all the groups across. At teacher might get Group 1 and Group 2 students. Another might get Group 3 & 4 students. Another Group 5&6. Another might get Group 3&4 again.

Oh, then you misunderstood CO's suggestion. Feel free to check their slide deck, but they were very clear that they don't want to group 1 & 2 stay together anymore. They want group 1 to stay with 3 and 4, and group 2 to stay with 5 and 6, so group 1 and 2 (the fastest students) will be neglected and self-teach, while the rest groups stay doubting if they are too dumb. This is MCPS' strategy for equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

Does MCPS have the money to divide kids into 6 cohorts with separate instructors? In most elementary schools, no, there isn't the size for each grade level. But I can't understand why would you argue that it's better to have everyone in one grouping across these 6 cohorts in one classroom so the teacher teaches no one effectively.

Huh? No one is advocating deciding all the groups across. At teacher might get Group 1 and Group 2 students. Another might get Group 3 & 4 students. Another Group 5&6. Another might get Group 3&4 again.

What are you talking about? There aren't 3 separate teachers to address each of these groups individually in many schools. There's just one teacher who will be doing pull outs who will spend maybe 10-15 minutes with each group, and probably much longer with the kids who are struggling the most leaving the other learners to teach themeselves. Which is far worse than what kids get now which is a full class of instruction with kids in their cohort in compact math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

I keep hearing these claims about kids being over accelerated and that just doesn’t seem to be true at our school. We have a pretty heterogeneous student body with a fair percentage FARMs but also a ton of parents with a PhD or MD due to proximity to FDA and to a lesser degree NIH. Under 30 percent of the grade is in accelerated math. I have been in the classroom to observe and it seemed students were following just fine. With that said the one child who I know struggled with 4/5 simply dropped back and is doing well this year. I have no problem with better guidance on how to identify and on/off ramp kids but that is an implementation issue, not a reason to destroy the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

I keep hearing these claims about kids being over accelerated and that just doesn’t seem to be true at our school. We have a pretty heterogeneous student body with a fair percentage FARMs but also a ton of parents with a PhD or MD due to proximity to FDA and to a lesser degree NIH. Under 30 percent of the grade is in accelerated math. I have been in the classroom to observe and it seemed students were following just fine. With that said the one child who I know struggled with 4/5 simply dropped back and is doing well this year. I have no problem with better guidance on how to identify and on/off ramp kids but that is an implementation issue, not a reason to destroy the program.

To add on, I would have thought this was an argument for compacted math. Putting a lot of relatively independent kids in a bigger class and giving them appropriate instruction allows for a smaller class of kids who are struggling for whatever reason (ESOL or learning disabilities or whatever). It’s actually giving fewer resources to advanced kids, but actually preferable because they are appropriately focused/paced resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

I keep hearing these claims about kids being over accelerated and that just doesn’t seem to be true at our school. We have a pretty heterogeneous student body with a fair percentage FARMs but also a ton of parents with a PhD or MD due to proximity to FDA and to a lesser degree NIH. Under 30 percent of the grade is in accelerated math. I have been in the classroom to observe and it seemed students were following just fine. With that said the one child who I know struggled with 4/5 simply dropped back and is doing well this year. I have no problem with better guidance on how to identify and on/off ramp kids but that is an implementation issue, not a reason to destroy the program.

To add on, I would have thought this was an argument for compacted math. Putting a lot of relatively independent kids in a bigger class and giving them appropriate instruction allows for a smaller class of kids who are struggling for whatever reason (ESOL or learning disabilities or whatever). It’s actually giving fewer resources to advanced kids, but actually preferable because they are appropriately focused/paced resources.

+1 My kid's compacted math class has 36 kids, and there's two other math classes for at grade level (20 kids) and those who are struggling/ have severe special needs which has 12 kids. But my kid's compact math teacher says her class is pretty easy for her to teach despite having so many students because the kids are all kids who are good at math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not normally alarmist but I’m pretty alarmed. The regional HS model seems poorly thought through; eliminated compacted math and ELA seems like a terrible decision; and now this open lunch elimination that will destroy clubs at many HS and make it really hard for HS kids to take advanced classes. All of this is being pushed through so quickly with no real study or discussion and they are all radical changes. It’s like they are dismantling the entire system.

I am really dumbfounded at how bad Taylor is, and really astounded at the Board. I’m now really regretting not pushing my youngest to go to a private HS because at this point I’m not sure the system will still be viable in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are affirmatively trying to ruin it. And it’s not even a money issue — many of these changes will cost more money to implement.

How does eliminating open lunch destroy clubs and make it hard for HS kids to take advanced classes? Not everyone knows what you are talking about.

I am also confused by this. My child attends HS at a "closed" campus, and clubs meet at lunch, which is perfect. I have no idea why getting rid of open lunch would harm clubs, and in fact think it is probably the opposite because everyone is "free" at the same time and on campus.

The schools that have open lunch are generally so large that it is not feasible to have one lunch for all students if lunch is closed. As a result, they will need to shift to multiple lunch periods which will destroy our vibrant system of student clubs, as well as making it much harder for students to take classes that are advanced or otherwise mixed-grade classes. Our HS has been doing open lunch for decades and it has served us well. No one at the HS wants this change and it will make things much, much more difficult for our students and teachers. If you are in one of these schools, you understand the issue. I suspect most board members have no kids in these schools and probably haven’t even set foot in them at lunch time. It’s so frustrating.

That’s not what happens. Lunch will still be at the same time for everyone, students just won’t be able to leave campus. The can eat in the cafeteria, halls, courtyard, teacher classes, library spaces, etc. Plenty of schools in the district have closed lunch currently. And yes, most of them also cannot fit everyone into the cafeteria and are over crowded.

That's Blair, with 3,200 students and closed lunch. Although, plenty of students leave campus, for Chipotle and other lunch places, across the street. The school took out lockers the students weren't using to make more room for students at lunch.

+1 One of the places Blair kids eat lunch is *at clubs*

Far from destroying club culture, the closed campus enhances it by keeping kids on campus where they can attend meetings.

WJ has open lunch and a very vibrant club culture. The principals, past and current, are saying that they cannot do one lunch period without open lunch. Why can’t we just believe that people in the building, along with teachers and parents, might know what they are talking about more than the Board members? This is not broken and doesn’t need to be e fixed. If closed lunch works for Blair, good for them—but don’t force it on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not normally alarmist but I’m pretty alarmed. The regional HS model seems poorly thought through; eliminated compacted math and ELA seems like a terrible decision; and now this open lunch elimination that will destroy clubs at many HS and make it really hard for HS kids to take advanced classes. All of this is being pushed through so quickly with no real study or discussion and they are all radical changes. It’s like they are dismantling the entire system.

I am really dumbfounded at how bad Taylor is, and really astounded at the Board. I’m now really regretting not pushing my youngest to go to a private HS because at this point I’m not sure the system will still be viable in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are affirmatively trying to ruin it. And it’s not even a money issue — many of these changes will cost more money to implement.

How does eliminating open lunch destroy clubs and make it hard for HS kids to take advanced classes? Not everyone knows what you are talking about.

I am also confused by this. My child attends HS at a "closed" campus, and clubs meet at lunch, which is perfect. I have no idea why getting rid of open lunch would harm clubs, and in fact think it is probably the opposite because everyone is "free" at the same time and on campus.

The schools that have open lunch are generally so large that it is not feasible to have one lunch for all students if lunch is closed. As a result, they will need to shift to multiple lunch periods which will destroy our vibrant system of student clubs, as well as making it much harder for students to take classes that are advanced or otherwise mixed-grade classes. Our HS has been doing open lunch for decades and it has served us well. No one at the HS wants this change and it will make things much, much more difficult for our students and teachers. If you are in one of these schools, you understand the issue. I suspect most board members have no kids in these schools and probably haven’t even set foot in them at lunch time. It’s so frustrating.

That’s not what happens. Lunch will still be at the same time for everyone, students just won’t be able to leave campus. The can eat in the cafeteria, halls, courtyard, teacher classes, library spaces, etc. Plenty of schools in the district have closed lunch currently. And yes, most of them also cannot fit everyone into the cafeteria and are over crowded.

That's Blair, with 3,200 students and closed lunch. Although, plenty of students leave campus, for Chipotle and other lunch places, across the street. The school took out lockers the students weren't using to make more room for students at lunch.

+1 One of the places Blair kids eat lunch is *at clubs*

Far from destroying club culture, the closed campus enhances it by keeping kids on campus where they can attend meetings.

WJ has open lunch and a very vibrant club culture. The principals, past and current, are saying that they cannot do one lunch period without open lunch. Why can’t we just believe that people in the building, along with teachers and parents, might know what they are talking about more than the Board members? This is not broken and doesn’t need to be e fixed. If closed lunch works for Blair, good for them—but don’t force it on others.

Another Blair parent here, and I couldn't agree with you more. I think the one-period lunch is critical for vibrant club activities, not closed or open lunch.

[Anonymous]

Turning this to informing voters on the upcoming BOE primary, 3 at-large candidates and a number of district 3 Candidates had a Q&A forum at Poolesville on 5/11. Apparently there’s a recording of it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyr9zScg5RM&pp=4gcKEghzdWJzdGFjaw%3D%3D&ra=m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

I keep hearing these claims about kids being over accelerated and that just doesn’t seem to be true at our school. We have a pretty heterogeneous student body with a fair percentage FARMs but also a ton of parents with a PhD or MD due to proximity to FDA and to a lesser degree NIH. Under 30 percent of the grade is in accelerated math. I have been in the classroom to observe and it seemed students were following just fine. With that said the one child who I know struggled with 4/5 simply dropped back and is doing well this year. I have no problem with better guidance on how to identify and on/off ramp kids but that is an implementation issue, not a reason to destroy the program.

To add on, I would have thought this was an argument for compacted math. Putting a lot of relatively independent kids in a bigger class and giving them appropriate instruction allows for a smaller class of kids who are struggling for whatever reason (ESOL or learning disabilities or whatever). It’s actually giving fewer resources to advanced kids, but actually preferable because they are appropriately focused/paced resources.

+1 My kid's compacted math class has 36 kids, and there's two other math classes for at grade level (20 kids) and those who are struggling/ have severe special needs which has 12 kids. But my kid's compact math teacher says her class is pretty easy for her to teach despite having so many students because the kids are all kids who are good at math.

we should be differentiating by levels if we want higher academic outcomes. Smaller classes for students who are struggling, to give them the individual attention they need, while grouping higher achievers together at the appropriate level. But in the Taylor administration, high achievement is racist and elitist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not normally alarmist but I’m pretty alarmed. The regional HS model seems poorly thought through; eliminated compacted math and ELA seems like a terrible decision; and now this open lunch elimination that will destroy clubs at many HS and make it really hard for HS kids to take advanced classes. All of this is being pushed through so quickly with no real study or discussion and they are all radical changes. It’s like they are dismantling the entire system.

I am really dumbfounded at how bad Taylor is, and really astounded at the Board. I’m now really regretting not pushing my youngest to go to a private HS because at this point I’m not sure the system will still be viable in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are affirmatively trying to ruin it. And it’s not even a money issue — many of these changes will cost more money to implement.

How does eliminating open lunch destroy clubs and make it hard for HS kids to take advanced classes? Not everyone knows what you are talking about.

I am also confused by this. My child attends HS at a "closed" campus, and clubs meet at lunch, which is perfect. I have no idea why getting rid of open lunch would harm clubs, and in fact think it is probably the opposite because everyone is "free" at the same time and on campus.

The schools that have open lunch are generally so large that it is not feasible to have one lunch for all students if lunch is closed. As a result, they will need to shift to multiple lunch periods which will destroy our vibrant system of student clubs, as well as making it much harder for students to take classes that are advanced or otherwise mixed-grade classes. Our HS has been doing open lunch for decades and it has served us well. No one at the HS wants this change and it will make things much, much more difficult for our students and teachers. If you are in one of these schools, you understand the issue. I suspect most board members have no kids in these schools and probably haven’t even set foot in them at lunch time. It’s so frustrating.

Blair just changed to 1 closed lunch maybe ,5 years ago. It they can do it any school can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not normally alarmist but I’m pretty alarmed. The regional HS model seems poorly thought through; eliminated compacted math and ELA seems like a terrible decision; and now this open lunch elimination that will destroy clubs at many HS and make it really hard for HS kids to take advanced classes. All of this is being pushed through so quickly with no real study or discussion and they are all radical changes. It’s like they are dismantling the entire system.

I am really dumbfounded at how bad Taylor is, and really astounded at the Board. I’m now really regretting not pushing my youngest to go to a private HS because at this point I’m not sure the system will still be viable in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are affirmatively trying to ruin it. And it’s not even a money issue — many of these changes will cost more money to implement.

How does eliminating open lunch destroy clubs and make it hard for HS kids to take advanced classes? Not everyone knows what you are talking about.

I am also confused by this. My child attends HS at a "closed" campus, and clubs meet at lunch, which is perfect. I have no idea why getting rid of open lunch would harm clubs, and in fact think it is probably the opposite because everyone is "free" at the same time and on campus.

The schools that have open lunch are generally so large that it is not feasible to have one lunch for all students if lunch is closed. As a result, they will need to shift to multiple lunch periods which will destroy our vibrant system of student clubs, as well as making it much harder for students to take classes that are advanced or otherwise mixed-grade classes. Our HS has been doing open lunch for decades and it has served us well. No one at the HS wants this change and it will make things much, much more difficult for our students and teachers. If you are in one of these schools, you understand the issue. I suspect most board members have no kids in these schools and probably haven’t even set foot in them at lunch time. It’s so frustrating.

That’s not what happens. Lunch will still be at the same time for everyone, students just won’t be able to leave campus. The can eat in the cafeteria, halls, courtyard, teacher classes, library spaces, etc. Plenty of schools in the district have closed lunch currently. And yes, most of them also cannot fit everyone into the cafeteria and are over crowded.

That's Blair, with 3,200 students and closed lunch. Although, plenty of students leave campus, for Chipotle and other lunch places, across the street. The school took out lockers the students weren't using to make more room for students at lunch.

+1 One of the places Blair kids eat lunch is *at clubs*

Far from destroying club culture, the closed campus enhances it by keeping kids on campus where they can attend meetings.

WJ has open lunch and a very vibrant club culture. The principals, past and current, are saying that they cannot do one lunch period without open lunch. Why can’t we just believe that people in the building, along with teachers and parents, might know what they are talking about more than the Board members? This is not broken and doesn’t need to be e fixed. If closed lunch works for Blair, good for them—but don’t force it on others.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not normally alarmist but I’m pretty alarmed. The regional HS model seems poorly thought through; eliminated compacted math and ELA seems like a terrible decision; and now this open lunch elimination that will destroy clubs at many HS and make it really hard for HS kids to take advanced classes. All of this is being pushed through so quickly with no real study or discussion and they are all radical changes. It’s like they are dismantling the entire system.

I am really dumbfounded at how bad Taylor is, and really astounded at the Board. I’m now really regretting not pushing my youngest to go to a private HS because at this point I’m not sure the system will still be viable in 2-3 years. It just seems like they are affirmatively trying to ruin it. And it’s not even a money issue — many of these changes will cost more money to implement.

How does eliminating open lunch destroy clubs and make it hard for HS kids to take advanced classes? Not everyone knows what you are talking about.

I am also confused by this. My child attends HS at a "closed" campus, and clubs meet at lunch, which is perfect. I have no idea why getting rid of open lunch would harm clubs, and in fact think it is probably the opposite because everyone is "free" at the same time and on campus.

The schools that have open lunch are generally so large that it is not feasible to have one lunch for all students if lunch is closed. As a result, they will need to shift to multiple lunch periods which will destroy our vibrant system of student clubs, as well as making it much harder for students to take classes that are advanced or otherwise mixed-grade classes. Our HS has been doing open lunch for decades and it has served us well. No one at the HS wants this change and it will make things much, much more difficult for our students and teachers. If you are in one of these schools, you understand the issue. I suspect most board members have no kids in these schools and probably haven’t even set foot in them at lunch time. It’s so frustrating.

That’s not what happens. Lunch will still be at the same time for everyone, students just won’t be able to leave campus. The can eat in the cafeteria, halls, courtyard, teacher classes, library spaces, etc. Plenty of schools in the district have closed lunch currently. And yes, most of them also cannot fit everyone into the cafeteria and are over crowded.

That's Blair, with 3,200 students and closed lunch. Although, plenty of students leave campus, for Chipotle and other lunch places, across the street. The school took out lockers the students weren't using to make more room for students at lunch.

+1 One of the places Blair kids eat lunch is *at clubs*

Far from destroying club culture, the closed campus enhances it by keeping kids on campus where they can attend meetings.

WJ has open lunch and a very vibrant club culture. The principals, past and current, are saying that they cannot do one lunch period without open lunch. Why can’t we just believe that people in the building, along with teachers and parents, might know what they are talking about more than the Board members? This is not broken and doesn’t need to be e fixed. If closed lunch works for Blair, good for them—but don’t force it on others.

Perhaps you have never watched multiple WJ students dart through traffic against the light at Old Georgetown Road in order to get to Wildwood Shopping Center. Somebody is going to get hit at some point. Particularly after Woodward opens, there will be plenty of space for WJ students on campus during lunch. This is one school that might need closed lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your youngest is not in HS, it will not impact them but we have multiple good teachers leaving MCPS or to other schools, which makes me question our admin. If they treat the teachers just as bad as the parents, or worse, I can see why they'd leave.

The compacted math elimination will also drive teachers away, as they will be expected to cover all levels of learning in one class which is basically impossible. Again, teachers don’t want this, parents don’t want this — and the Board and Taylor are just shoving it down our throats.

Actually the cluster grouping is meant to reduce that. So if there are say six levels of students, teachers are only dealing with 2-3 of those levels.

Right now there are only two levels in compacted math, and with cohort grouping, teacher only deal with 1 group. What's the advantage of dealing with 2-3 levels simultaneously? Could you elaborate?

I'm not Team MCPS on this, but if you think there are only 2 levels in compacted math, you are sorely mistaken. Even high-needs schools are sending up to half of their kids to the compacted math track. Even with a compacted classroom, there are already 2-3 levels.

I keep hearing these claims about kids being over accelerated and that just doesn’t seem to be true at our school. We have a pretty heterogeneous student body with a fair percentage FARMs but also a ton of parents with a PhD or MD due to proximity to FDA and to a lesser degree NIH. Under 30 percent of the grade is in accelerated math. I have been in the classroom to observe and it seemed students were following just fine. With that said the one child who I know struggled with 4/5 simply dropped back and is doing well this year. I have no problem with better guidance on how to identify and on/off ramp kids but that is an implementation issue, not a reason to destroy the program.

To add on, I would have thought this was an argument for compacted math. Putting a lot of relatively independent kids in a bigger class and giving them appropriate instruction allows for a smaller class of kids who are struggling for whatever reason (ESOL or learning disabilities or whatever). It’s actually giving fewer resources to advanced kids, but actually preferable because they are appropriately focused/paced resources.

The challenge is that there are many schools where 10-15 kids or less should be in compacted math. So they would actually be in the smaller classes and it would force the kids who are on level or behind into the oversized classes.