MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will equate to more screen time for all kids. While the teachers are meeting with cluster groups.

Yep. How are long-term subs supposed to handle this model as well? Seems impossible and unrealistic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a specific Cluster Grouping approach with a very specific mix and distribution. If MCPS enforces it, it is:

Group 1) Gifted kids (in this case presumably that would mean kids doing accelerated math)
Group 2) Above average kids who are not gifted
Group 3) Average/grade level kids
Group 4) Mildly below level kids
Group 5) Kids who are way behind

In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5.

What do kids in 3 & 4 do in the class with 1 when 1 is being accelerated?

How does this not track kids in 2 into a lower-exposure vicious cycle that would confound the idea that they might emerge as a group 1 candidate at a later point?

Teach at the group level not class level. Requires more preparation. Think Montessori style.

Doesn't answer the second question. How does this not establish exclusionary tracking to effectively the same extent as we have today with Compacted (except earlier, now, beginning in grade 3) if kids in group 2 don't get exposed to the lessons of group 1/gifted? Per the post a couple back:

"In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5."

Because no one will receive meaningful acceleration. It’s impossible. So the on and off ramps are easy because there is no real difference in what the groups are covering. Montessori type teaching works through 1:1 or close instruction followed by individual hard work. Even motivated kids like my younger one who learned multiplication in Montessori preschool can’t do it in a chaotic environment where you get put on a Chromebook as soon as you finish the bare minimum work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a specific Cluster Grouping approach with a very specific mix and distribution. If MCPS enforces it, it is:

Group 1) Gifted kids (in this case presumably that would mean kids doing accelerated math)
Group 2) Above average kids who are not gifted
Group 3) Average/grade level kids
Group 4) Mildly below level kids
Group 5) Kids who are way behind

In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5.

What do kids in 3 & 4 do in the class with 1 when 1 is being accelerated?

How does this not track kids in 2 into a lower-exposure vicious cycle that would confound the idea that they might emerge as a group 1 candidate at a later point?

Teach at the group level not class level. Requires more preparation. Think Montessori style.

Doesn't answer the second question. How does this not establish exclusionary tracking to effectively the same extent as we have today with Compacted (except earlier, now, beginning in grade 3) if kids in group 2 don't get exposed to the lessons of group 1/gifted? Per the post a couple back:

"In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5."

Because no one will receive meaningful acceleration. It’s impossible. So the on and off ramps are easy because there is no real difference in what the groups are covering. Montessori type teaching works through 1:1 or close instruction followed by individual hard work. Even motivated kids like my younger one who learned multiplication in Montessori preschool can’t do it in a chaotic environment where you get put on a Chromebook as soon as you finish the bare minimum work.

Perhaps? Or maybe only where the cohort is so supported with outside enrichment that it results in grouping manageable enough to provide it?

We'll have to see what "meaningful acceleration" they provide will be, as they clearly present it as such, and how they not plan not only to deliver it, but to make it such that it doesn't establish the same kind of "exclusionary tracking" they said they were being forced to eliminate with the removal of elementary Compacted Math 4/5 & 5/6.

Of course, I expect they won't provide that detail until well after any final public decisions/review. If the BOE is retreating to the "we only make policy/Superintendent makes all the implementation decisions" position, then it needs to up its policy game and accelerate that ten-fold so that the Superintendent's decisions are driven by timely, effects-aware, community-represented policy guidance.

Too bad the about-to-be-approved (for the foreseeable future) policy on policy-making doesn't do that, and that the County Council/MD Legislature still balk at the idea of the full-time-equivalent compensation that would be needed to enable that level of effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a specific Cluster Grouping approach with a very specific mix and distribution. If MCPS enforces it, it is:

Group 1) Gifted kids (in this case presumably that would mean kids doing accelerated math)
Group 2) Above average kids who are not gifted
Group 3) Average/grade level kids
Group 4) Mildly below level kids
Group 5) Kids who are way behind

In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5.

What do kids in 3 & 4 do in the class with 1 when 1 is being accelerated?

How does this not track kids in 2 into a lower-exposure vicious cycle that would confound the idea that they might emerge as a group 1 candidate at a later point?

Teach at the group level not class level. Requires more preparation. Think Montessori style.

Doesn't answer the second question. How does this not establish exclusionary tracking to effectively the same extent as we have today with Compacted (except earlier, now, beginning in grade 3) if kids in group 2 don't get exposed to the lessons of group 1/gifted? Per the post a couple back:

"In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5."

Because no one will receive meaningful acceleration. It’s impossible. So the on and off ramps are easy because there is no real difference in what the groups are covering. Montessori type teaching works through 1:1 or close instruction followed by individual hard work. Even motivated kids like my younger one who learned multiplication in Montessori preschool can’t do it in a chaotic environment where you get put on a Chromebook as soon as you finish the bare minimum work.

I agree that real acceleration and easier off/on ramps do not reconcile. Does this then violate the MD State policy? Are there any teeth to that at the state level? Could this clear-to-fail plan be halted by the state?

[Anonymous]

I'm catching up on this now and read through the state guidance that MCPS is claiming forbids them from continuing compacted math. They're either blatantly lying or have terrible comprehension skills. The guidance outlines a continuum of math acceleration, with the clustering they're proposing being the first step that is essentially just enrichment (not true acceleration!) and they describe it as "curriculum extensions must be delivered through cluster grouping and serve as a structured on-ramp to formal acceleration in subsequent years." The next step would be compacting/telescoping (like what compacted math already is doing) and if a student needs even more they would be considered for skipping a grade.

So, how does MCPS intend to meet the needs of those students who need more than just the first step (clustering)? They seem to be in direct violation of this guidance and cherry picking phrases to back up their claim that the current system is inflexible and needs to be scrapped entirely.

https://marylandpublicschools.org/about/documents/dcaa/math/math-acceleration-guidance-a.pdf

[Anonymous]

This is what I asked to Gemini:
"Following the gifted and talented education guideline in this document under https://marylandpublicschools.org/about/documents/dcaa/math/math-acceleration-guidance-a.pdf, come up with a practical math pathway from elementary to 12th grade for students that are strong in math"

This is what I got from Gemini:
Phase 1: Elementary School (Grades K–5)
Grades K–2: Enrichment & Extension (Cluster grouping)
Grade 3: The "On-Ramp" Evaluation (Curriculum compacting)
Grades 4–5: Telescoping. Instead of skipping a grade, students complete three years of content (Grades 4, 5, and 6) in two years.

4th Grade: Complete all 4th-grade and half of 5th-grade standards.

5th Grade: Complete the remaining 5th-grade and all 6th-grade standards.

Phase 2: Middle School (Grades 6–8)
Grade 6: Grade 7/8 Compacted Math.
Grade 7: Algebra 1 (or Integrated Algebra).

Then LLM thinks Grade 8 should be geometry, and Grade 9 for Algebra 2, Grade 10 for Pre-Calc... Basically ends up with the same math pathway for the HS, but suggestions for ES make much more sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a specific Cluster Grouping approach with a very specific mix and distribution. If MCPS enforces it, it is:

Group 1) Gifted kids (in this case presumably that would mean kids doing accelerated math)
Group 2) Above average kids who are not gifted
Group 3) Average/grade level kids
Group 4) Mildly below level kids
Group 5) Kids who are way behind

In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5.

What do kids in 3 & 4 do in the class with 1 when 1 is being accelerated?

How does this not track kids in 2 into a lower-exposure vicious cycle that would confound the idea that they might emerge as a group 1 candidate at a later point?

The cluster grouping model isn't really designed for acceleration-- it's more about making sure that at least intermittent enrichment actually happens in mixed-level classes because 1) teachers have a critical mass of gifted kids to provide enrichment to rather than just one or two; 2) teachers are not simultaneously trying to help kids way below grade level; and 3) if the model is implemented properly, all teachers with gifted kids in their class are well-trained on gifted education and the needs of gifted kids. For group 2, the idea is that non-gifted kids have a chance to shine in classes where they're in the lead academically (rather than being in the shadow of the gifted kids), and then in future years if they are identified gifted they would be considered group 2. (This is also assuming a tighter definition of gifted than used in MD/MCPS-- more like top 5% than top 15-20%.)

It all makes a lot of sense in some circumstances and I would love to see it in MCPS in grades 1-2 or even beyond to help provide enrichment that kids currently don't get. But it doesn't make sense for upper elementary math acceleration when kids in the same classroom are supposed to be learning different content at a different pace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a specific Cluster Grouping approach with a very specific mix and distribution. If MCPS enforces it, it is:

Group 1) Gifted kids (in this case presumably that would mean kids doing accelerated math)
Group 2) Above average kids who are not gifted
Group 3) Average/grade level kids
Group 4) Mildly below level kids
Group 5) Kids who are way behind

In cluster grouping, your classes with gifted kids always have groups 1, 3, and 4, and the other classes with no gifted kids have 2, 3, 4, and 5.

What do kids in 3 & 4 do in the class with 1 when 1 is being accelerated?

How does this not track kids in 2 into a lower-exposure vicious cycle that would confound the idea that they might emerge as a group 1 candidate at a later point?

The cluster grouping model isn't really designed for acceleration-- it's more about making sure that at least intermittent enrichment actually happens in mixed-level classes because 1) teachers have a critical mass of gifted kids to provide enrichment to rather than just one or two; 2) teachers are not simultaneously trying to help kids way below grade level; and 3) if the model is implemented properly, all teachers with gifted kids in their class are well-trained on gifted education and the needs of gifted kids. For group 2, the idea is that non-gifted kids have a chance to shine in classes where they're in the lead academically (rather than being in the shadow of the gifted kids), and then in future years if they are identified gifted they would be considered group 2. (This is also assuming a tighter definition of gifted than used in MD/MCPS-- more like top 5% than top 15-20%.)

It all makes a lot of sense in some circumstances and I would love to see it in MCPS in grades 1-2 or even beyond to help provide enrichment that kids currently don't get. But it doesn't make sense for upper elementary math acceleration when kids in the same classroom are supposed to be learning different content at a different pace.

I assume that what was meant was that if group 2 kids are later identified then they get considered group 1.

Just to clarify (not assuming you were espousing this), using top X% within a cohort for grouping definition tends to fail across cohorts, as someone in the 96th percentile among their current peers (at one school/group of schools or across the school system in one year) may have different capabilities/needs than someone in the same percentile at another school/group of schools or in the following year's class.

They'll need to use broadly standardized testing, both of ability and of content mastery, to identify the needs to meet (their presentation alludes to these), only create groupings associated with that (much more uncertain), and then employ the grouping-specific curricular delivery consistently across schools/years (really uncertain, given the significant differences across schools for past implementations). They'll need to do that even if there is only 1 student identified for group 1 within a school, and they'll need to provide differential implementation resourcing/funding to schools to support that. Same goes for only having 1 student within group 5...or no students within group 2...or... -- there should not be shoe-horning of students into a curriculum-delivery grouping for managerial ease.

I agree with your assessment of the early/late elementary dichotomy.

[Anonymous]

There are separate classes in MS and HS though?

Agree that will be difficult for teachers in 4/5 to do differentiation so likely won't happen.

Most true math kids will be fine though. Even compact math is too easy for them. I just hope there are options for them in HS with the regional programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are separate classes in MS and HS though?

Agree that will be difficult for teachers in 4/5 to do differentiation so likely won't happen.

Most true math kids will be fine though. Even compact math is too easy for them. I just hope there are options for them in HS with the regional programs.

I hope this, too, but I also hope that true math kids (or, really, all kids), wherever they are and no matter their effective access to outside resources, will see their needs met by MCPS reasonably well and with reasonable equivalence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are separate classes in MS and HS though?

Agree that will be difficult for teachers in 4/5 to do differentiation so likely won't happen.

Most true math kids will be fine though. Even compact math is too easy for them. I just hope there are options for them in HS with the regional programs.

For true math kids, it's also critically important to give them exposure opportunities to faster-paced and/or in-depth math challenge at elementary school level, or otherwise spending half-day everyday for 6 years for things they've already known several years ago is a killer to any interests that they inherently have.