The only way to have equity is to drag down the top performers

[Anonymous]

I believe an effective way to reduce the scores on the AP exams by certain groups of students in MCPS is to stop offering AP classes.

Doing so will bring about more equitable outcomes for all students, in addition to helping close the racial achievement gap.

Do you agree we need to end or reduce AP class offerings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Bethesda schools in particular you'll find that parents and top students actually have found a way around being "dragged down". They take multiple AP classes early, they take more than one "difficult" language to AP, or CC classes outside of school and really over-do the SSL hours in obsessive ways. All to stand out when it comes to college applications.

SSL hours are easy to get depending on the school. The difference is those kids have the access to ap classes unlike kids at other schools.

What high schools don't offer AP classes? All of them claim to.

They all offer AP classes. The eight IB schools tend to have fewer APs because they also have IBs.

So was the pp complaining about the IB program?

There is one PP, who wanted her kid to go to Wheaton, but he didn't get in and is now at Einstein, and she writes about the "inequity" of being provided IB instead of AP on every thread.

IB is not equal to AP. The lack of AP offerings at Einstein is terrible.

Einstein offers 19 AP courses in addition to the 38 IB courses.

Can every kid get a textbook in those classes? Are some kids forced into those classes? Are the teachers actually preparing students for these tests? Does the school AP/IB pathway align with developmentally appropriate skills or other grade level curriculum?

Einstein is a hot mess in this area. Less than 10% of kids getting the IB diploma. Why not offer AP where kids can get college credit for a one year course versus needing the HL Ib courses? Not everyone is trying to go to UMD!

People keep spouting these figures, but I've never seen anything published about schools' IB diploma rates.

It’s published on office of accountability website, every year. The calculation is total # of students get IB diploma divided by total # of senior students, so RM diploma rate appears low. I’m not familiar with Einstein. If IB is provided to everyone in Einstein, the diploma rate is a good measure.

Those reports don't show diploma rates.

Ah, I went to that websites and checked, and I believe you are correct. I remotely remember some PP in this thread posted a link to Einstein BTSN slides from last year or so, which stated the diploma rate. That might be where the information came to mark in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe an effective way to reduce the scores on the AP exams by certain groups of students in MCPS is to stop offering AP classes.

Doing so will bring about more equitable outcomes for all students, in addition to helping close the racial achievement gap.

Do you agree we need to end or reduce AP class offerings?

Yes, let's do it. Drag everyone done, and make U.S. the new world factory!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

It's the other 1% that drives the most advancement of humanity or science/technology, or possibly making U.S. not beaten down by China. But whatever....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe an effective way to reduce the scores on the AP exams by certain groups of students in MCPS is to stop offering AP classes.

Doing so will bring about more equitable outcomes for all students, in addition to helping close the racial achievement gap.

Do you agree we need to end or reduce AP class offerings?

That’s fine. Only a select group of schools have more than a handful of ap offerings so it makes no difference to the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

It’s not about need. So, do we get rid of all the ap and magnets as kids don’t need them they want it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Bethesda schools in particular you'll find that parents and top students actually have found a way around being "dragged down". They take multiple AP classes early, they take more than one "difficult" language to AP, or CC classes outside of school and really over-do the SSL hours in obsessive ways. All to stand out when it comes to college applications.

SSL hours are easy to get depending on the school. The difference is those kids have the access to ap classes unlike kids at other schools.

What high schools don't offer AP classes? All of them claim to.

They all offer AP classes. The eight IB schools tend to have fewer APs because they also have IBs.

So was the pp complaining about the IB program?

There is one PP, who wanted her kid to go to Wheaton, but he didn't get in and is now at Einstein, and she writes about the "inequity" of being provided IB instead of AP on every thread.

IB is not equal to AP. The lack of AP offerings at Einstein is terrible.

Einstein offers 19 AP courses in addition to the 38 IB courses.

Can every kid get a textbook in those classes? Are some kids forced into those classes? Are the teachers actually preparing students for these tests? Does the school AP/IB pathway align with developmentally appropriate skills or other grade level curriculum?

Einstein is a hot mess in this area. Less than 10% of kids getting the IB diploma. Why not offer AP where kids can get college credit for a one year course versus needing the HL Ib courses? Not everyone is trying to go to UMD!

People keep spouting these figures, but I've never seen anything published about schools' IB diploma rates.

It’s published on office of accountability website, every year. The calculation is total # of students get IB diploma divided by total # of senior students, so RM diploma rate appears low. I’m not familiar with Einstein. If IB is provided to everyone in Einstein, the diploma rate is a good measure.

Those reports don't show diploma rates.

Ah, I went to that websites and checked, and I believe you are correct. I remotely remember some PP in this thread posted a link to Einstein BTSN slides from last year or so, which stated the diploma rate. That might be where the information came to mark in my mind.

It was posted somewhere and it was very low compared to the number graduating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe an effective way to reduce the scores on the AP exams by certain groups of students in MCPS is to stop offering AP classes.

Doing so will bring about more equitable outcomes for all students, in addition to helping close the racial achievement gap.

Do you agree we need to end or reduce AP class offerings?

That’s fine. Only a select group of schools have more than a handful of ap offerings so it makes no difference to the rest of us.

This is not correct, Einstein whiner, look at the latest AP reports to see the number at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

Problem is with how CKLA works, there are no books. And when a teacher is dealing with 15 students who cannot read, 10 who can but are still struggling, they’re not going to have time to meet with the 5 advanced readers. Ask me how I know.

Having ELC be its own, contained class meant they were a priority and could really focus on advanced learning. The cohort is so, so important.

As long as you're in the "right" one at the beginning of the year.

4th grade is too early to start segregating kids. The harms outweigh the benefits.

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

It's the other 1% that drives the most advancement of humanity or science/technology, or possibly making U.S. not beaten down by China. But whatever....

With AI, it won't even matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

99% of successful professionals don't need organic chemistry. What even is this post?

It's the other 1% that drives the most advancement of humanity or science/technology, or possibly making U.S. not beaten down by China. But whatever....

With AI, it won't even matter

If you are fine to be slaves of AI ...
By the way, more than 50% of AI publications nowadays are from China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe an effective way to reduce the scores on the AP exams by certain groups of students in MCPS is to stop offering AP classes.

Doing so will bring about more equitable outcomes for all students, in addition to helping close the racial achievement gap.

Do you agree we need to end or reduce AP class offerings?

That’s fine. Only a select group of schools have more than a handful of ap offerings so it makes no difference to the rest of us.

This is not correct, Einstein whiner, look at the latest AP reports to see the number at each school.

Why don't you send your kids to Einstein or another school without advanced offerings if you think they aren't necesary and free up your kids spots for kids who really want them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

Problem is with how CKLA works, there are no books. And when a teacher is dealing with 15 students who cannot read, 10 who can but are still struggling, they’re not going to have time to meet with the 5 advanced readers. Ask me how I know.

Having ELC be its own, contained class meant they were a priority and could really focus on advanced learning. The cohort is so, so important.

As long as you're in the "right" one at the beginning of the year.

4th grade is too early to start segregating kids. The harms outweigh the benefits.

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcomes. There is no vast amount of untapped talent. Throwing resources at low performers won't significantly lift them. If equity is the goal, the only way to get there is to handicap the very top performers. This is exactly what MCPS is doing.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

MCPS when it decided to destroy its gifted offerings.

Such rhetoric hurts your credibility. It suggests you don't have well-justified complaints when you refuse to state them.

Gifted kids thrive when they are able to be academically challenged in a cohort of their peers. MCPS in implementing things like “honors for all” or getting rid of ELC is making it so gifted students no longer have that opportunity. Period, end stop.

Exactly, so we need to create more opportunities for the gifted kids like mine who get no support and schools don't have enough AP and other classes for them to thrive in. So, does it make sense to spend that kind of money for a few hundred kids, when many other kids have zero opportunities, not even a stem club at their school?

DP. Whatever you think of the proposed changes, I think this is an accurate description of the stakes. Do you serve the very top performers very well or do you serve a broader group but with less acceleration. There's arguments both ways, but destroying education for gifted students isn't one of the possibilities.

Tell that to all of the 4th grade students who scored a 99th percentile on their MAP but didn’t make the lottery into the CES and their schools have chosen to do model 1 of the “new” ELA program (they may get enrichment, they may not).

That sounds like an argument against the CES model. Maybe that was intended.

As it stands now the CES model, based in a lottery based on MAP and not a true cognitive assessment is not serving the needs of the students who could most benefit — back pre-Covid when it was truly focused on gifted it was better equipped to serve those needs. ELC was established to make up for not enough seats at the CES… and now that’s gone.

So what do you want to see now? Create reading groups across the classes in a grade at all elementary schools?

Yes. That would be a huge start.

I'm good with reading groups. I wouldn't want to see entire classes grouped that way, but you can create reading groups in a way that allows mobility between groups during the year.

Problem is with how CKLA works, there are no books. And when a teacher is dealing with 15 students who cannot read, 10 who can but are still struggling, they’re not going to have time to meet with the 5 advanced readers. Ask me how I know.

Having ELC be its own, contained class meant they were a priority and could really focus on advanced learning. The cohort is so, so important.

As long as you're in the "right" one at the beginning of the year.

4th grade is too early to start segregating kids. The harms outweigh the benefits.

+10000

Why aren't more people talking about this?

Because, for some, segregation is the goal. And everyone likes to think their kid will be one of the chosen ones.

Have schools do something about misbehaving students and then parents wouldn't be trying to flee classrooms. Teachers might stop leaving in droves too.