Compacted Math- FYI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this.

Not sure why these posters keep insisting that kids are behind when all the test scores suggest the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this.

Not sure why these posters keep insisting that kids are behind when all the test scores suggest the opposite.

Interesting that you chose to quote that instead of the response, which noted the inherent mischaracterization, since the originally quoted passage contained:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path...

Talk about pushing a narrative...

Are all kids behind? No. Are some kids behind? Almost certainly. Better to debate the appropriateness of particular guidelines -- 238 on Spring MAP-M for continuing into Compacted 4/5 seems much too high, if true -- than whether they should be managing acceleration to reflect the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to 14:38 for a an articulate and insightful post. Lots to think and act on. I appreciate it.

You made my day

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This clearly is an important thread. There have been some fair questions, legitimate concerns and honest answers. There has also been some conjecture -- sometimes phrased as certainty. All would benefit from MCPS and local schools being more informative with what they know will be in their plan, what they are considering, when they will make related decisions and how the community can engage with them to provide meaningful input. I know that to be a point of failure across many subjects, often discussed here and elsewhere.

MCPS is faced with a few challenges, here. To begin with, past family interest in acceleration combined with differences in the student population with potential for benefit created a situation whereby there might not be manageable class sizes for separate acceleration. Erring on the side of allowance/accommodation to achieve manageable cohorts within schools, there may have been a sizeable population of children placed in compacted math who were not fully ready for the experience. MCPS has been gathering subsequent performance data to try to figure out where this might have been too much of a push.

This is not to say that these children, by and large, couldn't get through it. However, negative effects could include difficulty pacing the class -- where teachers might otherwise have continued on with those students handling the material more easily -- and frustration of the students having difficulty mastering the material, resulting in their being turned off to the subject.

With children's brains developing at different paces -- faster at some times in some subjects than in others (a 9th grader who hated writing in elementary school, for instance, could find themselves suddenly much more adept and interested) -- a curriculum system with multiple paths towards high-level performance, with on ramps and off ramps, would be preferable, allowing a student to avoid being "slotted" into a particular track. Per MCPS, this is a current aim. If robust and well communicated, it could alleviate parental concern with a child initially not being placed in an accelerated class (or being returned to standard curriculum).

Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

So, what is happening?

Currently, MCPS is looking to build a roadmap for recovery of education. The expectation is that they can bring everything back into line -- correcting for the learning loss -- in two to three years. They don't want to leave out the things missed over the past year-plus, as that is considered foundational to the progression of learning. At the same time, they want the recovery to be be meaningful, with the same course options achieved as would have been the case in the pathways that students may have been on in the past (or expected to pursue prior to the pandemic) for students who can get there. For "normal" acceleration, that means an opportunity to take Geometry in 8th grade and Calculus in 11th. While it is understood that having achieved higher-level math courses is generally better for college admissions, they continue working with admissions officers to identify both preferred profiles across incoming majors, especially STEM, and considerations that colleges may be taking with regard to the effects of the pandemic.

The way they see doing that is by using the coming year to ensure foundation. Where student evaluation indicates ability and preparedness, the acceleration option is still open; that was something that MCPS originally was considering dropping, and it was push back from community members earlier this year that kept them from going that route. Where evaluation does not indicate ability and preparedness, the recommendation would be to keep (or return) to the standard path. It doesn't end there, however. They are working into the curriculum the option for steeper learning, allowing a relatively quick on-ramp to the more accelerated path in following years. Options for even greater acceleration in those following years than used to be the case, once foundation is reestablished, again provides an on ramp. Moreover, they will preserve the option to double up math courses at the high school level, such as pairing Geometry with Algebra 2, to again provide an on ramp to Calculus by 11th grade.

It also is important to note that the current acceleration option in 4th & 5th grade, Compacted 4/5 & Compacted 5/6, is built from a Eureka curriculum that is not designed for compaction, and the pandemic has made it difficult to spend the time to customize it. The result is that there will be not only a year-and-a-half's worth of subject matter, but also a year-and-a-half's worth of classwork & homework, and that was not the case this year -- even compacted math was abbreviated this year due to the time constraints. MCPS might pursue different options for compaction in the future, building replacement courses, but part of their being careful in placing students who might not be ready into these courses this coming year is the concern that this unusual work burden would be especially rough on those without the full prior foundation.

Families are right to be concerned with how their children might be evaluated in this paradigm. The first thing to note is that not all of the metrics to be used have been determined. More on that should be forthcoming at this week's BOE meeting, but guidance might not be finalized until sometime in June. Second, it is very important that the guidance from the central office is just that -- guidance. Local schools are expected to utilize the guidance to help them identify the recommended paths for their students, but they are also supposed to use their familiarity with the capabilities of each student to hone this evaluation. In this regard, there is not supposed to be a firm cutoff based upon any single factor, whether scores or grades. That isn't to say that administrators at some schools wouldn't decide to stick with the MCPS guidance, for convenience or otherwise -- families would then have to ask for accommodation if they believe their child has been mis-evaluated, and it may be important that they have a discussion with the administration before decisions are made to ensure that planning remains flexible.

Many will want to know what the evaluation factors and recommended achievement levels will be, and it would have been much better if MCPS had determined this while there was still time for families to adjust their children's approach -- taking advantage of the free tutoring that MCPS has offered, for instance. There's some slack that should be given with all of the moving parts this year, but, again, engagement was lacking, especially for this known hot button issue. While the factors are expected to include scores on Eureka assessments, MAP-M scores and grades, not all of that for all elementary/middle grades has been settled.

One thing that might have been a consideration, but isn't currently, is participation in summer school, which is supposed to cover a portion, at least, of the missed material this year. The thing is that of the 19 days available, two will be for assessment, and the 17 remaining are not expected to be enough to cover entirely the missed time during the year. Still, this should be a point of consideration with school administrators for families seeking accommodation for a student who is determined to be a just-below borderline case for acceleration next year. There is, however, the problem of evaluation & determining fall accelerated class capacity concurrently with summer registration.

This brings up the silver lining of our experience with virtual instruction this year. We know that MCPS is offering a Virtual Academy next year for families not wishing their children to return to in-person learning. They may be able to leverage the virtual platform not only for that purpose, but also to better ensure the availability of accelerated math classes by creating manageable cohorts of similarly-able students across schools. The flexibility this approach would provide to administrators at local schools should ease the difficult planning tasks for full reopening next year.

This approach may facilitate at least one other thing: truly exceptional students -- those who are off the charts -- have for a long time been able to take math classes above the options available to their grade, and that remains the case. In the past, such students would have to be transported to another school (a middle or high school) during the day to take classes with older children. Those real outliers of similar capability might be cohorted virtually across the county to avoid the logistical difficulty and time burden.

This, of course, applies to kids in late elementary through middle school. The options for those currently in high school who might have experienced learning loss will have to be a little different, as there are fewer years to recover and class curricula are more stratified. Certainly, there is the possibility of taking classes in the summer.

Many of us hope for high achievement. We want commensurate options available to our children. These options should meet their academic need with material that keeps them learning and engaged. They should also try to ensure that students are not overburdened vs. either ability or preparation, and they should be flexible to account for differences in children's development -- no child should be slotted firmly into a particular path based on their third or fourth grade performance.

The plans outlined above are, at best, unofficial. They certainly are in flux. However, they do come from recent conversations with a number of MCPS parties. I hope the information at least gives families a bit more focus on that to which they might pay attention and better shapes further conjecture in this thread.

Regarding that, I do have a concern about the potential for differential approaches across the elementary and middle schools in the county. While there should be some local flexibility, there really should not be paths available to students at one school that are not available to students at another school, given similar abilities. Parents/guardians still will need to be ready to advocate for their children & communities.

That advocacy is often steered towards our local school principals/administration, including our schools' GT Liaisons. As the policy planning is still being hashed out and delivered to them, I would recommend that advocacy communication likewise be addressed to:

[e-mail], [e-mail] & [e-mail] -- The Board of Education, Superintendent and soon-to-be Acting/Interim Superintendent is where decisions will be approved; remember that there is likely to be something put to the BOE at this Tuesday's meeting.

[e-mail] -- The Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instructional Programs is likely to be the one who actually makes the decision, in consultation with the Superintendent in consideration of the above, of course.

I would also include the following, with consideration of their roles/limitations on their powers in relation to the decision makers/approvers:

[e-mail] -- The Supervisor for Acclerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) is almost certainly the person tasked with coordinating the options and the associated research/considerations relevant to the subject of this thread.

[e-mail] -- The Supervisor for Elementary Math is responsible for the design/coordination of overall elementary math curriculum options; for the subject of this thread, she would work hand-in-hand with Ms. Dean.

In addition, I would consider copying your local PTA leadership, along with the following MCCPTA (county-wide PTA) leads:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and the area VP & cluster coordinator(s) for your school (see http://www.mccpta.org/mccpta-leaders.html)

As has been pointed out in this thread, there are multiple other considerations in play. Funding is certainly among these -- there has been chronic under-funding by the county for two-plus decades versus MCPS requests. One can certainly argue with reason on either side of the larger debates about the best uses of tax dollars, proper role and inefficiencies of government, and the place of equity among important policy considerations, but this under-funded position does mean that there is limited ability to plan and adjust, and we find MCPS being more reactive & less proactive as a result, limiting efficiency and effectiveness. That is before taking into consideration the effects of the pandemic.

If we really want things to change, we'll need to do more than advocate on issues like this one. We'll need to elect not just a Board of Education, but also a County Council, that will come up with a different approach -- maybe even a different governance structure -- to provide effective funding and oversight of our school system.

MCPS is not perfect. It does have individuals, both at schools and in central offices, who clearly are highly dedicated to doing the best for students; as with any organization, though, there are those who don't do the best job, for one reason or another, and often there are conflicting needs that result in something that is good for some and not good for others. Parents definitely should advocate for their children and community, and should expect more when MCPS makes clear mistakes, as it did earlier when it considered dropping compacted math altogether for at least the first year of recovery.

MCPS is often downright terrible with its communications and engagement. That threads like this arise here with great regularity, and that parents are left to rail at BOE meetings, to principals/staff and otherwise to protect the interests of their children, is a direct result of that failure.

One last thing. While we all should be willing to go to bat for our kids, we all should also take into consideration the effort that many teachers, local school administrators and MCPS central staff have put in over this difficult pandemic period. Please be considerate, even as we advocate.

Thank you so much!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This clearly is an important thread. There have been some fair questions, legitimate concerns and honest answers. There has also been some conjecture -- sometimes phrased as certainty. All would benefit from MCPS and local schools being more informative with what they know will be in their plan, what they are considering, when they will make related decisions and how the community can engage with them to provide meaningful input. I know that to be a point of failure across many subjects, often discussed here and elsewhere.

MCPS is faced with a few challenges, here. To begin with, past family interest in acceleration combined with differences in the student population with potential for benefit created a situation whereby there might not be manageable class sizes for separate acceleration. Erring on the side of allowance/accommodation to achieve manageable cohorts within schools, there may have been a sizeable population of children placed in compacted math who were not fully ready for the experience. MCPS has been gathering subsequent performance data to try to figure out where this might have been too much of a push.

This is not to say that these children, by and large, couldn't get through it. However, negative effects could include difficulty pacing the class -- where teachers might otherwise have continued on with those students handling the material more easily -- and frustration of the students having difficulty mastering the material, resulting in their being turned off to the subject.

With children's brains developing at different paces -- faster at some times in some subjects than in others (a 9th grader who hated writing in elementary school, for instance, could find themselves suddenly much more adept and interested) -- a curriculum system with multiple paths towards high-level performance, with on ramps and off ramps, would be preferable, allowing a student to avoid being "slotted" into a particular track. Per MCPS, this is a current aim. If robust and well communicated, it could alleviate parental concern with a child initially not being placed in an accelerated class (or being returned to standard curriculum).

Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

So, what is happening?

Currently, MCPS is looking to build a roadmap for recovery of education. The expectation is that they can bring everything back into line -- correcting for the learning loss -- in two to three years. They don't want to leave out the things missed over the past year-plus, as that is considered foundational to the progression of learning. At the same time, they want the recovery to be be meaningful, with the same course options achieved as would have been the case in the pathways that students may have been on in the past (or expected to pursue prior to the pandemic) for students who can get there. For "normal" acceleration, that means an opportunity to take Geometry in 8th grade and Calculus in 11th. While it is understood that having achieved higher-level math courses is generally better for college admissions, they continue working with admissions officers to identify both preferred profiles across incoming majors, especially STEM, and considerations that colleges may be taking with regard to the effects of the pandemic.

The way they see doing that is by using the coming year to ensure foundation. Where student evaluation indicates ability and preparedness, the acceleration option is still open; that was something that MCPS originally was considering dropping, and it was push back from community members earlier this year that kept them from going that route. Where evaluation does not indicate ability and preparedness, the recommendation would be to keep (or return) to the standard path. It doesn't end there, however. They are working into the curriculum the option for steeper learning, allowing a relatively quick on-ramp to the more accelerated path in following years. Options for even greater acceleration in those following years than used to be the case, once foundation is reestablished, again provides an on ramp. Moreover, they will preserve the option to double up math courses at the high school level, such as pairing Geometry with Algebra 2, to again provide an on ramp to Calculus by 11th grade.

It also is important to note that the current acceleration option in 4th & 5th grade, Compacted 4/5 & Compacted 5/6, is built from a Eureka curriculum that is not designed for compaction, and the pandemic has made it difficult to spend the time to customize it. The result is that there will be not only a year-and-a-half's worth of subject matter, but also a year-and-a-half's worth of classwork & homework, and that was not the case this year -- even compacted math was abbreviated this year due to the time constraints. MCPS might pursue different options for compaction in the future, building replacement courses, but part of their being careful in placing students who might not be ready into these courses this coming year is the concern that this unusual work burden would be especially rough on those without the full prior foundation.

Families are right to be concerned with how their children might be evaluated in this paradigm. The first thing to note is that not all of the metrics to be used have been determined. More on that should be forthcoming at this week's BOE meeting, but guidance might not be finalized until sometime in June. Second, it is very important that the guidance from the central office is just that -- guidance. Local schools are expected to utilize the guidance to help them identify the recommended paths for their students, but they are also supposed to use their familiarity with the capabilities of each student to hone this evaluation. In this regard, there is not supposed to be a firm cutoff based upon any single factor, whether scores or grades. That isn't to say that administrators at some schools wouldn't decide to stick with the MCPS guidance, for convenience or otherwise -- families would then have to ask for accommodation if they believe their child has been mis-evaluated, and it may be important that they have a discussion with the administration before decisions are made to ensure that planning remains flexible.

Many will want to know what the evaluation factors and recommended achievement levels will be, and it would have been much better if MCPS had determined this while there was still time for families to adjust their children's approach -- taking advantage of the free tutoring that MCPS has offered, for instance. There's some slack that should be given with all of the moving parts this year, but, again, engagement was lacking, especially for this known hot button issue. While the factors are expected to include scores on Eureka assessments, MAP-M scores and grades, not all of that for all elementary/middle grades has been settled.

One thing that might have been a consideration, but isn't currently, is participation in summer school, which is supposed to cover a portion, at least, of the missed material this year. The thing is that of the 19 days available, two will be for assessment, and the 17 remaining are not expected to be enough to cover entirely the missed time during the year. Still, this should be a point of consideration with school administrators for families seeking accommodation for a student who is determined to be a just-below borderline case for acceleration next year. There is, however, the problem of evaluation & determining fall accelerated class capacity concurrently with summer registration.

This brings up the silver lining of our experience with virtual instruction this year. We know that MCPS is offering a Virtual Academy next year for families not wishing their children to return to in-person learning. They may be able to leverage the virtual platform not only for that purpose, but also to better ensure the availability of accelerated math classes by creating manageable cohorts of similarly-able students across schools. The flexibility this approach would provide to administrators at local schools should ease the difficult planning tasks for full reopening next year.

This approach may facilitate at least one other thing: truly exceptional students -- those who are off the charts -- have for a long time been able to take math classes above the options available to their grade, and that remains the case. In the past, such students would have to be transported to another school (a middle or high school) during the day to take classes with older children. Those real outliers of similar capability might be cohorted virtually across the county to avoid the logistical difficulty and time burden.

This, of course, applies to kids in late elementary through middle school. The options for those currently in high school who might have experienced learning loss will have to be a little different, as there are fewer years to recover and class curricula are more stratified. Certainly, there is the possibility of taking classes in the summer.

Many of us hope for high achievement. We want commensurate options available to our children. These options should meet their academic need with material that keeps them learning and engaged. They should also try to ensure that students are not overburdened vs. either ability or preparation, and they should be flexible to account for differences in children's development -- no child should be slotted firmly into a particular path based on their third or fourth grade performance.

The plans outlined above are, at best, unofficial. They certainly are in flux. However, they do come from recent conversations with a number of MCPS parties. I hope the information at least gives families a bit more focus on that to which they might pay attention and better shapes further conjecture in this thread.

Regarding that, I do have a concern about the potential for differential approaches across the elementary and middle schools in the county. While there should be some local flexibility, there really should not be paths available to students at one school that are not available to students at another school, given similar abilities. Parents/guardians still will need to be ready to advocate for their children & communities.

That advocacy is often steered towards our local school principals/administration, including our schools' GT Liaisons. As the policy planning is still being hashed out and delivered to them, I would recommend that advocacy communication likewise be addressed to:

[e-mail], [e-mail] & [e-mail] -- The Board of Education, Superintendent and soon-to-be Acting/Interim Superintendent is where decisions will be approved; remember that there is likely to be something put to the BOE at this Tuesday's meeting.

[e-mail] -- The Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instructional Programs is likely to be the one who actually makes the decision, in consultation with the Superintendent in consideration of the above, of course.

I would also include the following, with consideration of their roles/limitations on their powers in relation to the decision makers/approvers:

[e-mail] -- The Supervisor for Acclerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) is almost certainly the person tasked with coordinating the options and the associated research/considerations relevant to the subject of this thread.

[e-mail] -- The Supervisor for Elementary Math is responsible for the design/coordination of overall elementary math curriculum options; for the subject of this thread, she would work hand-in-hand with Ms. Dean.

In addition, I would consider copying your local PTA leadership, along with the following MCCPTA (county-wide PTA) leads:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and the area VP & cluster coordinator(s) for your school (see http://www.mccpta.org/mccpta-leaders.html)

As has been pointed out in this thread, there are multiple other considerations in play. Funding is certainly among these -- there has been chronic under-funding by the county for two-plus decades versus MCPS requests. One can certainly argue with reason on either side of the larger debates about the best uses of tax dollars, proper role and inefficiencies of government, and the place of equity among important policy considerations, but this under-funded position does mean that there is limited ability to plan and adjust, and we find MCPS being more reactive & less proactive as a result, limiting efficiency and effectiveness. That is before taking into consideration the effects of the pandemic.

If we really want things to change, we'll need to do more than advocate on issues like this one. We'll need to elect not just a Board of Education, but also a County Council, that will come up with a different approach -- maybe even a different governance structure -- to provide effective funding and oversight of our school system.

MCPS is not perfect. It does have individuals, both at schools and in central offices, who clearly are highly dedicated to doing the best for students; as with any organization, though, there are those who don't do the best job, for one reason or another, and often there are conflicting needs that result in something that is good for some and not good for others. Parents definitely should advocate for their children and community, and should expect more when MCPS makes clear mistakes, as it did earlier when it considered dropping compacted math altogether for at least the first year of recovery.

MCPS is often downright terrible with its communications and engagement. That threads like this arise here with great regularity, and that parents are left to rail at BOE meetings, to principals/staff and otherwise to protect the interests of their children, is a direct result of that failure.

One last thing. While we all should be willing to go to bat for our kids, we all should also take into consideration the effort that many teachers, local school administrators and MCPS central staff have put in over this difficult pandemic period. Please be considerate, even as we advocate.

Thank you so much!

If I were to wager, I would guess that you are a MCCPTA member, who is trying to assist followers of this thread, but also concerned about what the ¨mob of angry parents¨ might do to the more coordinated plan for advocacy. If we´re writing on behalf of our community and not just our own kid, what is a good message to send to these folks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I were to wager, I would guess that you are a MCCPTA member, who is trying to assist followers of this thread, but also concerned about what the ¨mob of angry parents¨ might do to the more coordinated plan for advocacy. If we´re writing on behalf of our community and not just our own kid, what is a good message to send to these folks?

A couple of things.

My understanding is that anyone who is a member of their school PTA in MoCo is, by extension, a member of MCCPTA, MDPTA (whatever form that is taking after the legal action from national) and National PTA. [please imagine, here, whatever emoticon means "not trying to be snide"]

I've been a delegate from our PTA to MCCPTA. As with all such bodies, it can't always speak with unanimity -- majority rule, and all. From what I've seen, it does try to achieve relative consensus. Though I think it does better with timing of engagement with/provision of information to the community than does MCPS (its job is considerably less complex, it has less information to divulge and it often has more leeway), it also is not flawless.

I'd hope that my role wouldn't matter. I'm not in a mind-meld with MCCPTA leadership. I don't take what they say at face value any more than I do so for other organizations that I feel have good intentions -- that is to say, I often will, but will question/probe to come to my own understanding when I find a subject to be of particular importance or see it as being contentious. From that perspective, I wouldn't want anyone to take the earlier post as gospel, and tried to frame it such that nobody would.

I think that there is a need for a mob of angry parents sometimes. Well, not a mob, really, but a group of folks willing to speak their displeasure forcefully and at the same time. The kind of concession given to a mob more typically seems to be a "throw our hands up and deal with it later" thing, which just kicks the can down the road. I'd prefer greater reason and coordination, forcing a similar response. That doesn't mean it should all go through MCCPTA (and, really, its far more effective if it comes both from MCCPTA and from individuals/non-MCCPTA groups), but, unless one considers MCCPTA as acting with a nefarious ulterior motive, keeping the communication open would likely sway their leadership towards advocating for the voiced individual concerns.

What would I suggest for a message? Well:

Get it in today, if at all possible. The BOE meeting is tomorrow, and, as with earlier meetings, they haven't posted the recovery presentation, so we can't know what MCPS will be proposing.

Speak to your child's or community's particular needs. Include examples or anecdotes (e.g., a child's positive experience with acceleration/enrichment, a school's ability to accommodate or challenge in accommodating an accelerated cohort, etc.), if applicable. When there can be some serious engagement, there likewise might be a position of relative consensus, and many can sign on to that if it covers their thoughts well. Without that engagement, giving all enough information to consider, the time in which to do it, the opportunity to provide initial feedback and the follow-up to show where that feedback has already been effective, signing on to a general statement risks missing aspects of the issue of importance. Make them put the picture together across MCPS -- I'd wager that there would be enough similarities among such messages that they could figure what the community really wants, but enough differences that they will pay attention, knowing they are dealing with a more representative sample than just one advocacy group (they should also figure that they will need to build in flexibility to address some differences).

Getting into the particulars for which to advocate, I'd like to divorce that, somewhat, from the above and from that which I'd written earlier, since this gets a bit more into opinion (not that I'd strictly refrained from that). With that as caveat:

Meet the needs of a broad range of students with capability of high achievement in math. Don't stop offering acceleration -- don't even think about it. If it is determined that students have missed some foundational content, be sure to prove that loss for each individual before restricting them from an accelerated class (rather than assuming learning loss), and be sure to provide them with a clear pathway to rejoin acceleration if they have the ability. Don't use arbitrarily high litmus tests to reduce the population considered for acceleration. If capacity for acceleration/enrichment is reduced, now, it may be harder in coming years to ramp it back up (e.g., with teacher training, etc.).

Ensure that students are not offered differentiation within a class instead of cohorted instruction with enrichment at an accelerated pace. This is a bit esoteric, but my understanding is that "differentiation" in the context of enrichment means that there are occasional pull-outs from the main class/individual instruction, but that the curriculum offered is the standard curriculum; this results in a strain on teachers to provide differentiated instruction (and a greater strain as the student population has more diverse abilities) and a much less enriched experience for the students (again, even less so with greater variation in their classmates' abilities). Establishing a cohort of similarly-able students and providing them an enriched/accelerated curriculum is far preferable.

Make sure that students of similar ability are offered the same opportunities across the school system. ES A shouldn't have to add clearly below-the-margin students to make up a cohort and ES B shouldn't have to eliminate an acceleration option if they don't have enough to make up a class-sized cohort. While schools/teachers/principals should be given some leeway to best identify the abilities of their students (they should know them better than any standardized test, even though test scores should be an important data point), principals should not be in the business of limiting the options available -- those should be county-wide, and, again, the silver lining of having gone through virtual schooling is that it opens up a reasonable option for managing the different numbers across schools. Provide direct central support, financial and logistical/technological, to schools as needed to accommodate these groups. A principal should not have to be limiting curricular options based on an assigned budget that might not take into consideration the ability diversity of their student population.

Communicate, communicate, communicate! (And engage -- it isn't a one-way street!) Provide a clear plan in timely fashion. One which is actionable by local schools. One which allows families, themselves, to plan for a child's needs and to advocate for them, if necessary -- as well as a child is known by their school, they are known far better by their families. One which is flexible enough to allow for reasonably different populations and individual abilities.

Treat the gifted/AEI population with the same respect with regard to resources as other groups. Too often, gifted students and their families are seen as entitled elitists -- "Your kids are already doing fine. Why should we give them anything special?" Sure, some may tend to be more vocal (and some may take a particularly negative/elitist approach to their advocacy), but that isn't the case for all or even most. The fact is that these kids have different needs. They should be seen as no less than the needs of more typical students, though the cost of addressing them may he higher, and no less than the needs of special education students, thought the cost of addressing them may be lower.

If the information I'd posted yesterday proves out, then some, though not all, of the above may be addressed. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't communicate our positions -- again, now/today appears to be the time to do so. I've also probably left out some important considerations. If you think of something, please post it here for others to review, and discuss, as you can, with fellow parents/guardians.

We also shouldn't assume it all turns out as hoped. If there is a particularly boneheaded/tone-deaf approach offered by MCPS, whether from poor planning or from particularly political aims, then that might be the time to get out the pitchforks and torches -- metaphorically speaking, of course.

[Anonymous]

PP 11:15, thanks again. You should run for a school-related office, will your well-balanced and rational approach and perspective. I appreciate your continued thoughts and am writing an email now.

[Anonymous]

"It also is important to note that the current acceleration option in 4th & 5th grade, Compacted 4/5 & Compacted 5/6, is built from a Eureka curriculum that is not designed for compaction, and the pandemic has made it difficult to spend the time to customize it. "

Why would a curriculum be chosen that was not designed for enrichment? That was one of the issues with 2.0 that our new curriculum was supposed to address. What has the curriculum office been doing during the pandemic? How many staff members are we paying? Not one of them could be assigned to figure out a way to accelerate Eureka? I call BS on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It also is important to note that the current acceleration option in 4th & 5th grade, Compacted 4/5 & Compacted 5/6, is built from a Eureka curriculum that is not designed for compaction, and the pandemic has made it difficult to spend the time to customize it. "

Why would a curriculum be chosen that was not designed for enrichment? That was one of the issues with 2.0 that our new curriculum was supposed to address. What has the curriculum office been doing during the pandemic? How many staff members are we paying? Not one of them could be assigned to figure out a way to accelerate Eureka? I call BS on that.

I'm a different poster than the very articulate one above, but my understanding is that they selected Eureka understanding that they needed to have a specialized version of Eureka developed to solve the 4/5, 5/6 issue, but in the meantime they were going to continue with 2.0. Then the pandemic hit, and they decided suddenly to shift everyone to Eureka. I don't know why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We also shouldn't assume it all turns out as hoped. If there is a particularly boneheaded/tone-deaf approach offered by MCPS, whether from poor planning or from particularly political aims, then that might be the time to get out the pitchforks and torches -- metaphorically speaking, of course.

Thanks, PP, for the useful advice. I don't think it is too much to ask for MCPS to have their act together after a year of back and forth on this. One size doesn't fit all, and that kind of approach serves students poorly. We need great math instruction at all levels, from K-12 and for all learners, no matter their circumstance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this.

Not sure why these posters keep insisting that kids are behind when all the test scores suggest the opposite.

MCPS did say they cut the math curriculum by an average of 40%. That's behind by definition isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

I skimmed the post and must have missed it, but what is the cut off score?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this.

Not sure why these posters keep insisting that kids are behind when all the test scores suggest the opposite.

Interesting that you chose to quote that instead of the response, which noted the inherent mischaracterization, since the originally quoted passage contained:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path...

Talk about pushing a narrative...

Are all kids behind? No. Are some kids behind? Almost certainly. Better to debate the appropriateness of particular guidelines -- 238 on Spring MAP-M for continuing into Compacted 4/5 seems much too high, if true -- than whether they should be managing acceleration to reflect the situation.

It isn't true since the benchmark for IM in 6th has been 240 for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Currently, MCPS is faced with the effects that have been brought on by the pandemic. Curricula, across the board, have been abbreviated due to time constraints. On top of that, many students have experienced learning loss due to difficulties adapting to virtual learning. Certainly, there are students, and a lot of them, who remain capable of starting or continuing on an accelerated path, but this is not the case for all, even among those for whom it would be the case coming off of a normal year.

Great post but just assuming this is true because it backs your preferred narrative doesn't make it so. As has been stated by many posters, not every class and every school fell behind. Perhaps, some did but not clear that this is true across the board especially since MAP score data doesn't support this.

Not sure why these posters keep insisting that kids are behind when all the test scores suggest the opposite.

MCPS did say they cut the math curriculum by an average of 40%. That's behind by definition isn't it?

must be a lot worse at some schools since ours covered 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids are also just not great test takers or may have special needs that make their scores not match their ability. Crazy that thy are placing so much weight in one test.

It's one of several factors that help inform and guide this process.

No, teacher here. This is a correct statement. A child that does not hit the Map score is not allowed to be considered even if he/she hits all other requirements.

What will be interesting to see is if some schools go around this guideline while others stick with it. My school has stated that it is strict guidance with no wiggle room.

My DD was below the target score I just talked to her conselor and bam she was in the IM so maybe that's their line but it isn't really true.

This has nothing to do with AIM or middle school classes. This entire thread is about current 4th graders and the new requirements to continue in compacted math for 5th grade.

It is related since it's also being discussed here and the county uses the same criteria which schools do have some wiggle room on as the Pp stated.

There's always wiggle room. They just say there isn't to some since they can't accommodate everyone.