MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue about taking AB or BC after pre-Calc isn't about what is right for some students, or even for the majority, it's about what is right for each student. For those for whom Calc BC is right, no MCPS school should be dissuading them from taking it or, if taken prior to Senior year, failing to provide reasonably equivalent access to logically following courses as is available at any other MCPS school (exclusive for that equivalence, perhaps, of STEM magnet programs, but then those should have ample seating).

The same goes for the early enrichment/acceleration that is the main subject of this thread, where MCPS's burden includes equitable identification (not well handled to date), practicable/effective differentiation, where the currently planned curricular approach clearly could use better public explication and, perhaps, considerably more thought, and flexible school/classroom resourcing models to help ensure these.

The process and standards for differential course recommendation should be clear, consistent across the county and, along with the options, themselves, communicated well enough in advance to allow students and caregivers agency with regard to prerequisite action.

In his first year, Superintendent Taylor espoused eschewing a model of scarcity for a climate of plenty. Let's make sure he is making his subordinates follow through on that on the one hand as we ensure the resources to do so (looking at you, County Council) on the other.

Its up to the principal and some are against advanced classes and stem. That's why you see the disparities.

Our ES principal told parents there can no longer be separate classes for math according to the new rules on cohorts. So the school is trying to figure out how to have teachers manage several different math levels within the same class. Which means that both accelerated and lagging kids will lose out as per usual

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the long and short of it is that more moms care about being able to brag that their 4th grader is in advanced math than thinking ahead to long term outcomes. Honestly in favor of what they are doing here

This sums it up.

No, it’s just an opinion that you’re stating as fact. And a fairly stupid opinion without evidence at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the long and short of it is that more moms care about being able to brag that their 4th grader is in advanced math than thinking ahead to long term outcomes. Honestly in favor of what they are doing here

This sums it up.

No, it’s just an opinion that you’re stating as fact. And a fairly stupid opinion without evidence at that.

+1 the tell is the snark towards parents. Everything they do they justify either with how parents are horribly privileged or how parents are too poor for their kids to be smart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue about taking AB or BC after pre-Calc isn't about what is right for some students, or even for the majority, it's about what is right for each student. For those for whom Calc BC is right, no MCPS school should be dissuading them from taking it or, if taken prior to Senior year, failing to provide reasonably equivalent access to logically following courses as is available at any other MCPS school (exclusive for that equivalence, perhaps, of STEM magnet programs, but then those should have ample seating).

The same goes for the early enrichment/acceleration that is the main subject of this thread, where MCPS's burden includes equitable identification (not well handled to date), practicable/effective differentiation, where the currently planned curricular approach clearly could use better public explication and, perhaps, considerably more thought, and flexible school/classroom resourcing models to help ensure these.

The process and standards for differential course recommendation should be clear, consistent across the county and, along with the options, themselves, communicated well enough in advance to allow students and caregivers agency with regard to prerequisite action.

In his first year, Superintendent Taylor espoused eschewing a model of scarcity for a climate of plenty. Let's make sure he is making his subordinates follow through on that on the one hand as we ensure the resources to do so (looking at you, County Council) on the other.

Its up to the principal and some are against advanced classes and stem. That's why you see the disparities.

Our ES principal told parents there can no longer be separate classes for math according to the new rules on cohorts. So the school is trying to figure out how to have teachers manage several different math levels within the same class. Which means that both accelerated and lagging kids will lose out as per usual

Tell the principal to express these concerns to central office!

[Anonymous]

I have not had a chance to read all of the pages, but I am a current 5th grade elementary math teacher in a school which is working closely with the county and state monitoring our math scores.

1) How did MCPS say they were going to determine the 5 groups?
2) Did they explicitly state that group 1 had to be with group 5 and 2,3,4 together? Or were those the suggestions?

I ask because if the county is identifying the 5 groups, isn’t it the schools who will determine class placement? Most schools have 4 or so teachers so why couldn’t there be a class just of 5’s, a class just of 1’s and a mix of the others based on individual school numbers? Is the county really going to monitor which students are grouped together? They never have in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue about taking AB or BC after pre-Calc isn't about what is right for some students, or even for the majority, it's about what is right for each student. For those for whom Calc BC is right, no MCPS school should be dissuading them from taking it or, if taken prior to Senior year, failing to provide reasonably equivalent access to logically following courses as is available at any other MCPS school (exclusive for that equivalence, perhaps, of STEM magnet programs, but then those should have ample seating).

The same goes for the early enrichment/acceleration that is the main subject of this thread, where MCPS's burden includes equitable identification (not well handled to date), practicable/effective differentiation, where the currently planned curricular approach clearly could use better public explication and, perhaps, considerably more thought, and flexible school/classroom resourcing models to help ensure these.

The process and standards for differential course recommendation should be clear, consistent across the county and, along with the options, themselves, communicated well enough in advance to allow students and caregivers agency with regard to prerequisite action.

In his first year, Superintendent Taylor espoused eschewing a model of scarcity for a climate of plenty. Let's make sure he is making his subordinates follow through on that on the one hand as we ensure the resources to do so (looking at you, County Council) on the other.

Its up to the principal and some are against advanced classes and stem. That's why you see the disparities.

Our ES principal told parents there can no longer be separate classes for math according to the new rules on cohorts. So the school is trying to figure out how to have teachers manage several different math levels within the same class. Which means that both accelerated and lagging kids will lose out as per usual

100% everyone loses out. Thanks, Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue about taking AB or BC after pre-Calc isn't about what is right for some students, or even for the majority, it's about what is right for each student. For those for whom Calc BC is right, no MCPS school should be dissuading them from taking it or, if taken prior to Senior year, failing to provide reasonably equivalent access to logically following courses as is available at any other MCPS school (exclusive for that equivalence, perhaps, of STEM magnet programs, but then those should have ample seating).

The same goes for the early enrichment/acceleration that is the main subject of this thread, where MCPS's burden includes equitable identification (not well handled to date), practicable/effective differentiation, where the currently planned curricular approach clearly could use better public explication and, perhaps, considerably more thought, and flexible school/classroom resourcing models to help ensure these.

The process and standards for differential course recommendation should be clear, consistent across the county and, along with the options, themselves, communicated well enough in advance to allow students and caregivers agency with regard to prerequisite action.

In his first year, Superintendent Taylor espoused eschewing a model of scarcity for a climate of plenty. Let's make sure he is making his subordinates follow through on that on the one hand as we ensure the resources to do so (looking at you, County Council) on the other.

Its up to the principal and some are against advanced classes and stem. That's why you see the disparities.

Our ES principal told parents there can no longer be separate classes for math according to the new rules on cohorts. So the school is trying to figure out how to have teachers manage several different math levels within the same class. Which means that both accelerated and lagging kids will lose out as per usual

100% everyone loses out. Thanks, Taylor.

+1

[Anonymous]

They used to do this...like reading groups. One group is with the teacher. The others work independently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the long and short of it is that more moms care about being able to brag that their 4th grader is in advanced math than thinking ahead to long term outcomes. Honestly in favor of what they are doing here

This sums it up.

What about the moms whose kids are losing interest in school because they have never experienced challenge in the classroom

[Anonymous]

Thank maga

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They used to do this...like reading groups. One group is with the teacher. The others work independently

Back when behaviors weren’t what they are today…
Today is an f’ing joke.

[Anonymous]

I think the big thing people (central office) aren’t remembering is that it used to be that any child who was two grade levels below in elementary school was placed in a separate class for both language arts and math (the LAD program). Now those kids are all mixed in. There is no way a teacher can differentiate with kids who need handholding the entire class! The kids can’t read or do anything independently. Teachers are stuck with these kids and can’t work with the higher kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They used to do this...like reading groups. One group is with the teacher. The others work independently

What happened was the teacher met weekly with the good readers and daily with thise struggling. It was a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the big thing people (central office) aren’t remembering is that it used to be that any child who was two grade levels below in elementary school was placed in a separate class for both language arts and math (the LAD program). Now those kids are all mixed in. There is no way a teacher can differentiate with kids who need handholding the entire class! The kids can’t read or do anything independently. Teachers are stuck with these kids and can’t work with the higher kids.

We never had a separate class for English.

[Anonymous]

In 4th and 5th grade we never had kids who were still working on sight words, or a k-1 level. Now every class has kids at this level and every assignment has to be modified from ELA down to science and ss. It’s crazy.