Looks like ELC is gone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woodward is San Salvador 2.0

Seriously

[Anonymous]

Here's another link to a different MCPS description of the models and the decision process by schools: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kF4RiZgBTlJp_Ful5ZGHNOCqd9M0oXl0xOhqvkSZEkk/edit?usp=drivesdk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of slow as molasses kids who suck up the resources from teachers.

And the pressure to make sure test scores are high enough means the focus is on the kids at the bottom, not the ones at the top.

Agree. Talk about equity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Yang’s question around this. Why is compacted math a system wide decision but Enriched Literacy was left up to principals to decide.

I noticed that presenter who appeared over video said data illustrated ELC kids performed better than CES. Does anyone know what study this was?

We turned down CES bc the long bus ride and being pulled out of environment with siblings and friends seemed less than ideal. There was no transparency ELC was going away at thedeadline to reply to CES though... so we may regret it.... Unless we get model 1, I guess. Oh well

Not that they performed better — that they made gains at a higher rate. Those are different. There is an MCPS analysis fronts. Few years back on this.

This one? https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2020/CES%20and%20ELC%20Examination%2010Jan2020.pdf

Note that this was back before the CES became a lottery, so CES kids would have had gotten into the CES because they had higher scores to start with than ELC kids (for the most part.)

Not exactly. You need a longer memory to understand what happened here. Before CES became a lottery from the "top 15%" there was another change. They moved from a system that relied on teacher recommendations and at-home essays to one that eliminated those factors while focusing on selecting the highest performing kids from a lot of schools. This is when "local norming" was the word of the day.

Because the new system was going to leave behind a lot of kids who might otherwise have qualified for CES, they introduced an "in school CES" model that they called ELC and that they said would be cohorted. So what it looks like here is that MCPS promised cohorting to make parents simmer down about local norming, and then waited a couple of years and took it away.

This is exactly right.

This is exactly right and why parents are mad about the removal of ELC. The whole point of creating ELC was because there were not enough seats in the CES to accommodate all the kids who qualify. Local norming makes sense, because if a school has a large enough cohort of students, it makes sense to provide for them in their current school. This would be true at many schools. So all that needs to happen is schools cohort those kids together and provide them what is needed.

It is true and it seems simple. Why is MCPS so incredibly determined to provide primarily grade level and below grade level instruction to students they’ve identified as needing above grade level content and instruction? And why are they able to manage differentiation in math but not ELA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love Yang’s question around this. Why is compacted math a system wide decision but Enriched Literacy was left up to principals to decide.

I noticed that presenter who appeared over video said data illustrated ELC kids performed better than CES. Does anyone know what study this was?

We turned down CES bc the long bus ride and being pulled out of environment with siblings and friends seemed less than ideal. There was no transparency ELC was going away at thedeadline to reply to CES though... so we may regret it.... Unless we get model 1, I guess. Oh well

Not that they performed better — that they made gains at a higher rate. Those are different. There is an MCPS analysis fronts. Few years back on this.

This one? https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2020/CES%20and%20ELC%20Examination%2010Jan2020.pdf

Note that this was back before the CES became a lottery, so CES kids would have had gotten into the CES because they had higher scores to start with than ELC kids (for the most part.)

Not exactly. You need a longer memory to understand what happened here. Before CES became a lottery from the "top 15%" there was another change. They moved from a system that relied on teacher recommendations and at-home essays to one that eliminated those factors while focusing on selecting the highest performing kids from a lot of schools. This is when "local norming" was the word of the day.

Because the new system was going to leave behind a lot of kids who might otherwise have qualified for CES, they introduced an "in school CES" model that they called ELC and that they said would be cohorted. So what it looks like here is that MCPS promised cohorting to make parents simmer down about local norming, and then waited a couple of years and took it away.

This is exactly right.

This is exactly right and why parents are mad about the removal of ELC. The whole point of creating ELC was because there were not enough seats in the CES to accommodate all the kids who qualify. Local norming makes sense, because if a school has a large enough cohort of students, it makes sense to provide for them in their current school. This would be true at many schools. So all that needs to happen is schools cohort those kids together and provide them what is needed.

It is true and it seems simple. Why is MCPS so incredibly determined to provide primarily grade level and below grade level instruction to students they’ve identified as needing above grade level content and instruction? And why are they able to manage differentiation in math but not ELA?

+1000 Yang was spot on with this same question.

[Anonymous]

Public testimony at today’s BOE meeting calling McPS on specifics for why principals get all the power:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DHWJAX4BF0EB/$file/written%20testimony%20Diana%20Avram.pdf

[Anonymous]

Another one asking why Model 1 wasn’t the default for all schools:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DHWJAM4BD55C/$file/MCPS%20BOE%20Testimony_Alex%20Cynamon_6-24-25.pdf

[Anonymous]

Our ES sent a notification last week for their next year designation. The school decided to adopt model I, and the top 20% was identified as the accelerated group. I don't know how it works, but I hope this will be beneficial for both the school and the students.

[Anonymous]

The hanks for linking to the testimony. Edu concerning that central office guidance says that model 2 is preferred.

[Anonymous]

Isn't there an MD statue that differentiation must be provided? How are they getting around that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hanks for linking to the testimony. Edu concerning that central office guidance says that model 2 is preferred.

That email attached to the testimony was written very poorly and unclearly, but I don't think it's saying central office is telling schools model 2 is preferred. I think it's saying central office is telling schools that if *schools* have a preference for model 2 for the stated reasons, it's a valid justification for them to pick model 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our ES sent a notification last week for their next year designation. The school decided to adopt model I, and the top 20% was identified as the accelerated group. I don't know how it works, but I hope this will be beneficial for both the school and the students.

That’s a good outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our ES sent a notification last week for their next year designation. The school decided to adopt model I, and the top 20% was identified as the accelerated group. I don't know how it works, but I hope this will be beneficial for both the school and the students.

How did your principal collect parent I put before making this decision? This was required per the McPS memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our ES sent a notification last week for their next year designation. The school decided to adopt model I, and the top 20% was identified as the accelerated group. I don't know how it works, but I hope this will be beneficial for both the school and the students.

How did your principal collect parent I put before making this decision? This was required per the McPS memo.

Can you post the memo please? Would be helpful to know what central office told principals. -DP

[Anonymous]

From the memo:

"Involve the leadership team, teachers, and families in discussions about model selection. Share clear criteria and rationale for decisions made."

They are also supposed to "access student demographics and needs... evaluate staffing and schedule flexibility...consider instructional goals and equity"