MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

41 ESs adopted the homogeneous setting (Model 1), while the rest adopted the heterogeneous setting (Model 2). For the former one, some parents reported on this board that they were forced to just speed up and skip contents, so it proves again that implementation is critical, and MCPS is never good at that. Then, based on 3-months of data (basically winter MAP and fall MAP difference), they concluded that Model 1 is not successful and therefore let's go with Model 2 because the latter is more equitable.

This is not enough data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

41 ESs adopted the homogeneous setting (Model 1), while the rest adopted the heterogeneous setting (Model 2). For the former one, some parents reported on this board that they were forced to just speed up and skip contents, so it proves again that implementation is critical, and MCPS is never good at that. Then, based on 3-months of data (basically winter MAP and fall MAP difference), they concluded that Model 1 is not successful and therefore let's go with Model 2 because the latter is more equitable.

This is not enough data

Whoever made these analysis in the CO, I'm wondering if they could get a 2 on AP stat test. The data and analysis are full of flaws. Maybe they are forced to or just used to manipulate the data for whatever CO suggests them to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an utter mess. I can’t believe how bad Taylor has proved to be, at basically everything.

It seems like no one at central office or the board of ed cares about what families or teachers think. It’s very depressing. We keep voting out board of education members and nothing improves. It’s a constant merry go round of curriculum and the only people who benefit are the ones who sell the curricula.

I’ve been in McPS for 15 years now — another 3 and we are done. But as a member of the community, it makes me very sad that the goal is to dumb down public education. So now only the ultra rich that can pay for private school get a top tier education? Talk about an equity problem. This is not the way to build a workforce that can compete with AI and foreign workers. It’s not just the math — the ELA situation is even worse.

This! There’s so much more we can do. Keep the current model and pilot/research a way to layer over ELC but don’t implement until you have a solid plan. Let’s not ruin for hundreds of teachers and thousands of students when you expect teachers to work miracles. Math is much harder to layer and should be kept the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

Yes, for this year they let schools choose between a single advanced classroom or mixed-level ELA classrooms.

And reading between the lines, MCPS basically admitted in their presentation today that principals were telling them "Parents are complaining to us that we could have chosen the cohorted class and we didn't. So you should require everyone to do mixed-level classes so they don't blame us for it." (Pretty sure that's what she meant by "administrators were telling us to pick one model districtwide.")

You read between the lines very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Enrichment in my kid’s ELA class means the teacher uses the “overlays” with the whole class because she believes it’s good for all kids. So that’s not enrichment, that’s just a different whole curriculum. And her MAP scores have been going down since MCPS adopted CKLA because they never taught kids how to decode multisyllabic words or spell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

41 ESs adopted the homogeneous setting (Model 1), while the rest adopted the heterogeneous setting (Model 2). For the former one, some parents reported on this board that they were forced to just speed up and skip contents, so it proves again that implementation is critical, and MCPS is never good at that. Then, based on 3-months of data (basically winter MAP and fall MAP difference), they concluded that Model 1 is not successful and therefore let's go with Model 2 because the latter is more equitable.

This is not enough data

It was also based on percentage of kids proficient on MAP, not on whether the average actual scores went up or down and for who.

[Anonymous]

The entire proposal is based on an absolute fraud.


The main argument was that kids in Compacted Math aren't passing MCAP at high rates.

That is a lie.


The MCAP pass rates by school range from 8% to 95%.

Guess which schools are <15%, and which are >80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

41 ESs adopted the homogeneous setting (Model 1), while the rest adopted the heterogeneous setting (Model 2). For the former one, some parents reported on this board that they were forced to just speed up and skip contents, so it proves again that implementation is critical, and MCPS is never good at that. Then, based on 3-months of data (basically winter MAP and fall MAP difference), they concluded that Model 1 is not successful and therefore let's go with Model 2 because the latter is more equitable.

Well and how do they even justify with a straight face making everyone switch to the model with worse results/lower scores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

What homogeneous groups are you talking about for ELA? Our ES only has that during FIT

41 ESs adopted the homogeneous setting (Model 1), while the rest adopted the heterogeneous setting (Model 2). For the former one, some parents reported on this board that they were forced to just speed up and skip contents, so it proves again that implementation is critical, and MCPS is never good at that. Then, based on 3-months of data (basically winter MAP and fall MAP difference), they concluded that Model 1 is not successful and therefore let's go with Model 2 because the latter is more equitable.

Well and how do they even justify with a straight face making everyone switch to the model with worse results/lower scores?

How could they justify that they are creating 6 super regions in the name of equity?

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry I can not get over the fact that there are multiple typos a graph with algebra 1 data that has a pie wedge for “no grade” and is supposed to be demonstrating something, and the class with declining scores happens to be the 4th grade Covid class? Why is there nothing we can do to stop this or push for actual research, good data, and decisions based on facts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand these concerns that kids are stuck on one pathway starting grade 3. I have a 5th grader and just within her friend group one child dropped back to regular math after math 4/5 and two jumped up by taking enrichment over last summer. It really does not seem insurmountable. We are a pretty middle of the road school too.

The concerns are fake concerns. They just don't want to paper over the racial disparities by taking away meaningful acceleration from everyone.

Why wouldn't you at least pilot this somewhere first? Jfc

Same question was raised for CKLA and for regional model. That's what I said: TT and Nikki Porter are both excellent at dismantling everything!

+1. It's like asking what a terrorist's plan for rebuilding is. They don't have one. Their only goal is to destroy MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Okay I’ve been thinking about this all afternoon. Can someone explain to me how the cluster grouping is acceleration and not just enrichment? From the presentation it seemed like the said that students could be accelerated on a unit by unit basis and some things would still be whole class. But… how does that work if a kid is truly ready to move faster through the curriculum? They’re all still in the same class.

Then, they suggest that someone could jump from say accelerated 5th to pre algebra or they could go to accelerated 6th. How is that then not skipping content?

I truly don’t understand how they’re proposing this works…

[Anonymous]

It looks like it is going to be up to individual parents to make this system work for their children from now on. Does anyone know about the individual acceleration plans noted by the state? Do these operate like an IEP? Or is the law not there yet. If a student is tested as 2E do they need to receive real acceleration? Right now, as noted upthread, "enrichment" is an extra worksheet or a computer game. There has to be something better than this (cohorting would have provided it).

[Anonymous]

On the bright side now students can do pre cal at 9th grade and no need to go to high school for Algebra2 at 8th grade. A terrific news for advanced kids.

Anonymous wrote:If you have a gifted or advanced kid, MCPS is basically telling you that it no longer will serve them. Math acceleration will now be within a heterogenous class just like model 2 of the CKLA enrichment this year. And they are getting rid of homogenous groups for CkLA enrichment next year. If you care at all, write to the board today before they discuss this this afternoon: Here is the deck for today’s presentation to the board on math. It looks like they are getting rid of compacted math all together and doing “acceleration” in mixed classrooms (however that will work). 5th graders are going to end up repeating content. They’re also proposing to get rid of cohorted enrichment for ELC. If you are concerned about this like I am, please reach out to the board today before they discuss this afternoon:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DTUE6G38E612/$file/Accelerate%20Enrich%20Learn%20Literacy%20Math%20260507%20PPT.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry I can not get over the fact that there are multiple typos a graph with algebra 1 data that has a pie wedge for “no grade” and is supposed to be demonstrating something, and the class with declining scores happens to be the 4th grade Covid class? Why is there nothing we can do to stop this or push for actual research, good data, and decisions based on facts?

The scores weren't even declining! They were removing the top kids from the MCAP cohort every year as they made the jump Algebra.