Why is there no levelling for middle school English/ELA (is there a backstory?), and is that possible to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

6th-8th Is "Advanced English"
HS is "Honors English"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Ok, but they aren't actually reading those books. They might read excerpts from R&J or OM&M but they are not reading the book start to finish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Ok, but they aren't actually reading those books. They might read excerpts from R&J or OM&M but they are not reading the book start to finish.

My kid read both. I think there can be variances from school to school or even teacher to teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes. The model is similar to elementary with multiple skill levels in one class. At the middle school level this can work well for English, Science, and World Studies when ~25% of kids are advanced, 50% of kids are grade level, and no more than 25% are behind. Strategic grouping and well structured assignments can keep the whole class moving forward with enough engaged & independent learners, and the teacher can effectively help a small number of students needing more support.

The problem really comes in when that mix of students gets to be more than 1/3 of the class. Things just grind down - it’s hard to keep pace, more % absent, fewer kids ready to learn. While it’s easy to say when this happens, we should split into two levels, but how do you draw the line? Student abilities and readiness for any given course fall on a bell curve. Parents, teachers, and administrators will all disagree on where to draw the line. Do we only separate the top 25% and really let them accelerate, leaving enough capable kids in the other group so there is a critical mass to still engage in rich content, although at a slower pace? Or do we separate the bottom 25% into remedial classes, which has shown us over decades to simply relegate that group of kid to never catching up or being exposed to higher level thinking.

This doesn’t have an easy solution.

I think this statement lacks supportive evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes...

Or do we separate the bottom 25% into remedial classes, which has shown us over decades to simply relegate that group of kid to never catching up or being exposed to higher level thinking.

This doesn’t have an easy solution.

The thing is, the kids at the bottom of these classes are often struggling just to read the material. They do not catch up under the current model. I'm not exactly sure how you think they benefit from listening to someone else's "higher level thinking." Many districts continue this model and put all kids into AP Lang. It does not have the intended effect. - AP Lang teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the discussion about the new middle school ELA curriculum at last week's BOE meeting, a number of board members talked about the challenges of having mixed levels in the same middle school English classes-- that it seems like not the most helpful option either for students who are behind, for students who are gifted/advanced, or for teachers who have to try to differentiate for such a wide range of students.

Why is it like this? Is there a backstory? Did there used to be differences in levels? Are there good reasons MCPS/schools have articulated not to do this? (If you're going to say "it's about equity," can you explain some of the specifics of why? Because it seems like for English you don't have the same "tracking" concerns you might have in subjects like math where a kid gets locked into a pathway early and it's harder to go up or down-- it should be pretty easy to change English levels from year to year-- and besides, in math where that might be more of a real concern, that hasn't stopped them from having different levels! So why not English?)

Assuming this is a better pathway, is this something where there's room to advocate for changes? Board members seem supportive, could a group of people lobby them to push the issue and get MCPS to make changes? Or is this something that they basically defer to central office on and so it would be better to lobby central office on this? (And if so, what offices are the most sympathetic/opposed and what arguments might they be most responsive to? How does change actually get made at Central Office?) Is this something MCCPTA has done in the past or could do now, and/or are there other parent groups MCPS might listen to more?

By bringing every one down to the LCD they can consider the achievement gap closed!

And that is the goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Ok, but they aren't actually reading those books. They might read excerpts from R&J or OM&M but they are not reading the book start to finish.

What is the deal with reading excerpts instead of entire books. And what happened to raising the bar, not lowering it to the LCD? Such mediocrity, mcps.

[Anonymous]

This happened because of maga parents

All their babies were genius hence they badgered teachers and principals etc for years finally the system gave up

Everyone takes same class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in advanced English at an MCPS middle school...

This comment is why we need more parent education. "Advanced" English is literally the only option, PP. Your child is learning reading and writing with a totally heterogenous group of kids, from the 99.9th percentile kid who had bad lottery luck, to the kid who has never visited a public library and is reading at a 3rd grade level.

That's literally the point of this entire discussion.

Or MCPS could just title things accurately and call the class “Grade 9 English” or “English for All.” It’s not parents who need to be educated about how to interpret MCPS title inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Ok, but they aren't actually reading those books. They might read excerpts from R&J or OM&M but they are not reading the book start to finish.

My kid read both. I think there can be variances from school to school or even teacher to teacher.

Some schools have kids watch Romeo and Juliet rather than read the play. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Not even at grade level, and not typical. Look at MP1. There are two books with lexile levels HL made for struggling readers who need low lexiles and interesting content. One is a graphic novel (The Magic Fish - Lexile 400HL) and one is an easy book (All American Boys, Lexile 770HL). Then there is a classic, much harder book, whic is actually at grade level, A Separate Peace (Lexile 1030L). Yet teachers are not actually choosing the challenging, grade-level text. They are going with the much easier options. In an honors course.

It's ridiculous but not surprising in MCPS.

BTW here is what Lexile says about HL books:

A text designated as "HL" has a Lexile measure much lower than the average reading ability of the intended age range of its readers. Librarians and booksellers sometimes refer to young adult books with disproportionately low Lexile measures as "high-low" books, meaning "high-interest" plus "low-readability." These books receive an HL code. Often fiction, HL books are useful when matching older (grade 7 and beyond) struggling or reluctant readers with text at both an appropriate difficulty level and an appropriate developmental level. Despite their short sentences and basic vocabulary, HL books are designed to appeal to readers at a more mature developmental level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any examples of books kids are reading in 9th grade English?

Texts are listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XsG7HxnXcr5tO7u7HpE7I28XTur-dKuQmAkJ1T0z_I/edit

Thanks! That looks pretty typical to me (e.g. Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men)... so not too bad? But certainly not "advanced"; probably at least 25% of MCPS 9th graders would be up for more.

Not even at grade level, and not typical. Look at MP1. There are two books with lexile levels HL made for struggling readers who need low lexiles and interesting content. One is a graphic novel (The Magic Fish - Lexile 400HL) and one is an easy book (All American Boys, Lexile 770HL). Then there is a classic, much harder book, whic is actually at grade level, A Separate Peace (Lexile 1030L). Yet teachers are not actually choosing the challenging, grade-level text. They are going with the much easier options. In an honors course.

It's ridiculous but not surprising in MCPS.

BTW here is what Lexile says about HL books:

A text designated as "HL" has a Lexile measure much lower than the average reading ability of the intended age range of its readers. Librarians and booksellers sometimes refer to young adult books with disproportionately low Lexile measures as "high-low" books, meaning "high-interest" plus "low-readability." These books receive an HL code. Often fiction, HL books are useful when matching older (grade 7 and beyond) struggling or reluctant readers with text at both an appropriate difficulty level and an appropriate developmental level. Despite their short sentences and basic vocabulary, HL books are designed to appeal to readers at a more mature developmental level.

Yeah, I'd agree... if teachers are choosing to not even assign A Separate Peace, or Of Mice and Men, or R&J, and instead using only the lower-level books, then they're probably teaching to the bottom 25-30% of the class, leaving a majority of students with a course that isn't meeting them at their level.

[Anonymous]

Rita Montoya seemed to be really speaking to this at the latest board meeting-- that while it sounds good in theory for teachers to differentiate, that it's incredibly hard to do well in a class of 30 students.

(It seemed like Niki Hazel was just saying they'd be in the same classes, but divide kids into a below-level small group and an on-or-above small group, and that the teacher would work with the below-level kids and then could maybe have someone else to come in to keep working with below-level kids while the teacher works with the other kids? Which I would guess in most cases means the on-or-above kids get very little teacher attention.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rita Montoya seemed to be really speaking to this at the latest board meeting-- that while it sounds good in theory for teachers to differentiate, that it's incredibly hard to do well in a class of 30 students.

(It seemed like Niki Hazel was just saying they'd be in the same classes, but divide kids into a below-level small group and an on-or-above small group, and that the teacher would work with the below-level kids and then could maybe have someone else to come in to keep working with below-level kids while the teacher works with the other kids? Which I would guess in most cases means the on-or-above kids get very little teacher attention.)

Niki Hazel's version of reality sounded more like wishful thinking. MCPS has been saying for years that it can do rigorous, heterogeneous instruction and they haven't. Rita's line of questioning was on point and she was gaslit by Niki and Dr. Cage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the discussion about the new middle school ELA curriculum at last week's BOE meeting, a number of board members talked about the challenges of having mixed levels in the same middle school English classes-- that it seems like not the most helpful option either for students who are behind, for students who are gifted/advanced, or for teachers who have to try to differentiate for such a wide range of students.

Why is it like this? Is there a backstory? Did there used to be differences in levels? Are there good reasons MCPS/schools have articulated not to do this? (If you're going to say "it's about equity," can you explain some of the specifics of why? Because it seems like for English you don't have the same "tracking" concerns you might have in subjects like math where a kid gets locked into a pathway early and it's harder to go up or down-- it should be pretty easy to change English levels from year to year-- and besides, in math where that might be more of a real concern, that hasn't stopped them from having different levels! So why not English?)

Assuming this is a better pathway, is this something where there's room to advocate for changes? Board members seem supportive, could a group of people lobby them to push the issue and get MCPS to make changes? Or is this something that they basically defer to central office on and so it would be better to lobby central office on this? (And if so, what offices are the most sympathetic/opposed and what arguments might they be most responsive to? How does change actually get made at Central Office?) Is this something MCCPTA has done in the past or could do now, and/or are there other parent groups MCPS might listen to more?

By bringing every one down to the LCD they can consider the achievement gap closed!

Nailed it.