MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

MCPS should add an extra class that covers what they took out before students take regular/honors pre-calculus. This is a recipte for disaster. Fine that kids who aren't going to take precalc skip standards, but it's not fine for kids who are on that pathway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

In theory they aren’t wrong for nonstem kids. They should have different math tracks with different options for all kids given how large the schools are. Offer the new path plus the traditional path. I didn’t need all that math so the new path would have been great for me but not my stem kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't Natalie Zimmerman, as a recent MCPS elementary classroom teacher, be the loudest voice on this issue? What is she saying?

She's not there.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

She needs to leave the board. She picked today's meeting of all days to miss??? On the day they're rolling out new math structure pathways? She's a joke.

There's only a few of them still there. The meeting was supposed to be over 1.5 hours ago.

They also started it an hour late. And they had postponed the Special Populations committee meeting that might have provided a preview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

MCPS should add an extra class that covers what they took out before students take regular/honors pre-calculus. This is a recipte for disaster. Fine that kids who aren't going to take precalc skip standards, but it's not fine for kids who are on that pathway.

Agree, there should at least be an option for 2 years of pre-Calc given A2 isn’t the same A2 as before. Maybe some advanced kids could do it in 1 year, but it seems like a larger lift than grade 3/4/5 math in 2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like it just wait 3 years. A new curriculum will be here and things will change and we will have another Super. lol!

+1

For those with older kids how often have they been taught through curricula that were in place for less than 2 years?

My kid is in 1st grade last year CKLA was new and next year desmos will be new.

The whole process of choosing curricula, implementing them immediately for thousands of kids and the n changing them 5 years later seems at best dumb, at worst signals corruption

Mcps was doing curriculum 2.0 for a really long time

They adopted Eureka in 2019. I think that had msde not change the guidelines they probably would have continued with eureka.

They also adopted Benchmark in fall of 2019 using a cohort model. Covid happened and everybody had to adopt benchmark. They adopted ckla in 2024(?) due to political pressure about making sure the curriculum was aligned to science of reading.

Correction. MCPS had already made the shift to the science of reading when the adopted CKLA. Benchmark has an updated version that aligns more to it, but the committee choose CKLA.

Same with Eireka. The committee preferred Amplift Desmos over Eureka. But Eureka still got high marks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great job America. This is why we have to hire h1bs from other countries to do our tech work.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like it just wait 3 years. A new curriculum will be here and things will change and we will have another Super. lol!

+1

For those with older kids how often have they been taught through curricula that were in place for less than 2 years?

My kid is in 1st grade last year CKLA was new and next year desmos will be new.

The whole process of choosing curricula, implementing them immediately for thousands of kids and the n changing them 5 years later seems at best dumb, at worst signals corruption

j

Trust me, you should be grateful they implemented CKLA for everyone at once. Benchmark was truly awful.

Why didn't they pilot benchmark before rolling it out to everyone?

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

MCPS should add an extra class that covers what they took out before students take regular/honors pre-calculus. This is a recipte for disaster. Fine that kids who aren't going to take precalc skip standards, but it's not fine for kids who are on that pathway.

Agree, there should at least be an option for 2 years of pre-Calc given A2 isn’t the same A2 as before. Maybe some advanced kids could do it in 1 year, but it seems like a larger lift than grade 3/4/5 math in 2 years.

I agree that 2nd track will be a disaster for most.

There’s also that other slower track—the kid doesn’t have to take that pre-algebra in 6th path. There’s also the accel math 6 path (above).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp mentions that the REAL issue is that this model has kids doing Pre-Calculus in 9th grade, but then Calculus A/B and B/C in succession.What is wrong here? I am not familiar with the math progression here. I am a foreigner. The issue is too difficult or should not break caclcus in A to C, or miss the curriculum of geometry or statistics? Does that mean parents should supplement on their own like IXL, RSM, or AOPS outside of school in some years? I am from Asia, so I am confused what all these mean.

I'm that PP, and here's my issue with that progression.

Current system

Right now, your standard "bright" kid who took compacted math in 4th grade will end up in Honors Pre-Calculus in 10th grade. That's a real crucible year for a lot of kids, and it's not uncommon for kids to take the "off-ramp" in 10th and drop down to On-Level Pre-Calculus.

Whether they did Honors or On-Level, the kids who finished Pre-Calculus then choose between Calculus AB and Calculus BC. This is another "off-ramp" of sorts because kids who did okay in Honors Pre-Calculus but are not interested in STEM will often take Calculus AB their junior year. The kids who want a STEM career or for whom math comes a bit easier take BC immediately after Pre-Calculus.

It's pretty uncommon to take AB and then BC because it means repeating the entire B section. A kid who is good at math isn't going to want or need that repeated material.

Proposed new system

The proposed new system seems "off" in two ways.

First, Pre-Calculus is moved to 9th grade for the vast majority of kids. Now, we know that under the current system even kids who were "compacted" struggle mightily in Pre-Calculus, and MCPS wants to move it a year earlier AND put more kids into that class?

But then they screw it up a different way, by projecting those kids out to taking Calculus AB in 10th and BC in 11th.

That's a stupid progression and I suspect they know it. It forces "bright-but-not math-oriented" kids into Calculus a year earlier than the current progression, and it ALSO screws over kids ready for BC directly after Pre-Calculus.

What they are trying to cover up is that they don't have enough math available for kids to take in HS if they take Pre-Calculus in 9th. That's why I said parents need to keep their eye on the ball here. They are stretching Calculus into two years so that you don't notice that a math-oriented kid will run out of math classes in 11th grade.

Also no advanced math student needs to take calc AB and then BC. They should look at the SMCS pathways for very advanced learners.

I do agree with the current broken state of acceleration. Way too many kids pushed ahead and the wealthy ones propped up with tutors.

I'm this PP and I agree, BUT....MCPS did this to themselves.

I have a kid who probably should have been on the regular track, and has been "propped up" (successfully!) by tutors ever since Honors Pre-Calculus. However, we didn't really have a choice. At the time, MCPS put more than half of the kids in my child's (Title 1) school into compacted math. That meant that the on-level math progression was basically all kids who were far behind grade level for whatever reason. So they created a too-fast track and put every single English speaking middle class kid onto that track and then wished them luck moving forward.

agree, MCPS swings wildly one way, then wildly the other way.

They first put too many kids in CM. Now they want to take it away completely.

They took away SROs completely (even though all HS Principals asked them not to), then decided to bring in CEOs because, gosh darn it, who knew problem kids wouldn't stop their bad behavior, then now after several gun incidents, there's talk again of bringing back SROs.

They are constantly trying the best new thing on our kids and treating them like guinea pigs. I feel like it's a way to justify the existence of some central office staff.

I actually think it's that none of them expect to be in the job long enough for their actions to have consequences, so they are looking for quick wins.

Where I grew up, teachers/administrators expected to be in their specific jobs for a decade+ which meant that they were held accountable if their experiments didn't work.

In MCPS, these folks come in and take a big swing. "Oh, I put 50% more kids on the path to Algebra by 8th grade."

Then they move to the next thing and by the time those kids crash out in 10th grade, they are long gone.

Equity too often means putting students in classes they aren’t prepared for, setting them up for failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t like it just wait 3 years. A new curriculum will be here and things will change and we will have another Super. lol!

+1

For those with older kids how often have they been taught through curricula that were in place for less than 2 years?

My kid is in 1st grade last year CKLA was new and next year desmos will be new.

The whole process of choosing curricula, implementing them immediately for thousands of kids and the n changing them 5 years later seems at best dumb, at worst signals corruption

Mcps was doing curriculum 2.0 for a really long time

They adopted Eureka in 2019. I think that had msde not change the guidelines they probably would have continued with eureka.

They also adopted Benchmark in fall of 2019 using a cohort model. Covid happened and everybody had to adopt benchmark. They adopted ckla in 2024(?) due to political pressure about making sure the curriculum was aligned to science of reading.

Correction. MCPS had already made the shift to the science of reading when the adopted CKLA. Benchmark has an updated version that aligns more to it, but the committee choose CKLA.

Same with Eireka. The committee preferred Amplift Desmos over Eureka. But Eureka still got high marks.

My kid was in K at a school that piloted the new Benchmark. It was bad. Did not have good phonics. We were really upset we didn't get RGR like the other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

MCPS should add an extra class that covers what they took out before students take regular/honors pre-calculus. This is a recipte for disaster. Fine that kids who aren't going to take precalc skip standards, but it's not fine for kids who are on that pathway.

Agree, there should at least be an option for 2 years of pre-Calc given A2 isn’t the same A2 as before. Maybe some advanced kids could do it in 1 year, but it seems like a larger lift than grade 3/4/5 math in 2 years.

I agree that 2nd track will be a disaster for most.

There’s also that other slower track—the kid doesn’t have to take that pre-algebra in 6th path. There’s also the accel math 6 path (above).

Even if that's the case, they won't be ready for pre-calc in 10th if the integrated algebra classes don't cover all the content needed. They need another course for those who are doing that course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is about making sure every child has what they need to thrive to their fullest potential. The board and district are not doing equity. Instead they're cutting gifted students off at the knees. This isn't okay.

Keep voting the Apple Ballot! This is their goal.

Oh come on. Stop blaming teachers, they don't like this either. It's central office's fault, not classroom staff.

(And yes, theoretically MCEA should be endorsing BOE members who will hold central office accountable. But apparently it is impossible to find people like that. Year after year, when they're candidates they sound like they're going to take on MCPS and make things better, and then they get into office and roll over. Not sure there's anything else MCEA can do about that.)

MCEA has other priorities. Like rent control and freezing out opposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is about making sure every child has what they need to thrive to their fullest potential. The board and district are not doing equity. Instead they're cutting gifted students off at the knees. This isn't okay.

Keep voting the Apple Ballot! This is their goal.

Oh come on. Stop blaming teachers, they don't like this either. It's central office's fault, not classroom staff.

(And yes, theoretically MCEA should be endorsing BOE members who will hold central office accountable. But apparently it is impossible to find people like that. Year after year, when they're candidates they sound like they're going to take on MCPS and make things better, and then they get into office and roll over. Not sure there's anything else MCEA can do about that.)

MCEA has other priorities. Like rent control and freezing out opposition.

I’m old enough to remember everyone yelling at me on here to vote for Laura Stewart because she was Apple Ballot approved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 5 years they are going cite the absolute failure of 10th grade Calc AB after skipping honors geometry and algebra content, and then cancel the whole thing.

What exactly is "honors geometry" and "algebra" content? You mean Honors Algebra 2? I don't think there's any differentiation before then. Just trying to understand (I'm pro-tracking and my kids actually tended to complain that the compacted track was still too easy - would prefer enrichment to acceleration, but that doesn't exist before Honors Algebra 2.)

Integrated Math 1 and 2 is a stripped down version of Alg 1, Alg 2 and Geometry, removing content to save time (3 year -> 2 year) , not accelerating

That's the knock supposedly against compacted math, that it skips over material, but that's literally what they're changing to later on. And I would argue skipping/rushing over algebra and geometry is more detrimental than going through elementary math quickly.

The state-mandated move from Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 to Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 is very different from the compacting that makes up Math 4/5 & 5/6, AMP6+ & 7+ and PreAlgebra. Those accelerated classes don't really skip concepts of the grade-level classes they accelerate. In contrast, IA is not meant to cover all the concepts that A1/Geo/A2 cover -- it cuts out a lot, like Trig, and this is why it can be delivered in two years without putting kids on a particularly accelerated pace.

The idea MSDE has with IA is that some of the current HS Math (like that Trig) is unnecessary to the (state-defined/industry-desired) career needs of many students. Of course, that presumption may not be true, but there we have it. Only one of the four delineated post-Integrated Algebra pathways envisions needing the content that would lead to Calc, and MCPS is assuming it can fit all of that into an already-difficult PreCalc, since they are not planning to introduce a bridge course on the Calc pathway.

Of course, the spectre of an even-more-daunting path to Calc will tend to dissuade some of those who currently expect to access Calc on their way to college. Or it might see more students, after struggling with that, willing to take Calc AB first instead of going directly to Calc BC. From MCPS's perspective, that might be a good thing


It is so telling of their interests that, whether presenting the regions/programs/"advanced classes at all schools" model over the past year or presenting the HS pathways with this new approach to elementary acceleration/enrichment, they maintain an unwillingness to specify the courses they would need to ensure are available (for all, not just at more fortunate schools) after AP Calc BC. Except AP Stats, of course

In theory they aren’t wrong for nonstem kids. They should have different math tracks with different options for all kids given how large the schools are. Offer the new path plus the traditional path. I didn’t need all that math so the new path would have been great for me but not my stem kids.

Problem is that they have, for some long time, angled away from broadly (across the system) serving the needs of GT students on a level similar to their service of other groups' needs. Sure, they are a minority. Sure, not all of even these are STEM-focused.

But history has seen its share of over-focus on the needs of the majority, with additional attention only to politically select minority populations, with those in charge shrugging and calling it the best they can do. How do we feel about those times, now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity is about making sure every child has what they need to thrive to their fullest potential. The board and district are not doing equity. Instead they're cutting gifted students off at the knees. This isn't okay.

Keep voting the Apple Ballot! This is their goal.

Oh come on. Stop blaming teachers, they don't like this either. It's central office's fault, not classroom staff.

(And yes, theoretically MCEA should be endorsing BOE members who will hold central office accountable. But apparently it is impossible to find people like that. Year after year, when they're candidates they sound like they're going to take on MCPS and make things better, and then they get into office and roll over. Not sure there's anything else MCEA can do about that.)

MCEA has other priorities. Like rent control and freezing out opposition.

I’m old enough to remember everyone yelling at me on here to vote for Laura Stewart because she was Apple Ballot approved

Let's not forget against whom she was running.