MCPS is cuttting compacted math and cohorted literacy enrichment

[Anonymous]

TT is going to go down as having decimated all of mcps’ higher level programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank maga

So clueless... It is most definitely not a "MAGA" principle to reduce opportunities for advanced students in the name of equity. - Actual MAGA supporter

I think it stems from maga perspectives. It is an approach that suggests leadership doesn't believe in racial equity (they could not define equity if their life depended on it), but this is MoCo so they pretend they do and are calling it equity when it is not equity.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TT is going to go down as having decimated all of mcps’ higher level programs.

Yes. Every last one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Thank you for posting this. I had not read it yet and it is shocking this is the document being used as an excuse to eliminate compacted math. This specifically includes the example of students who need additional acceleration being given the opportunity to complete all of Math 4 and much of Math 5! MCPS is just lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Thank you for posting this. I had not read it yet and it is shocking this is the document being used as an excuse to eliminate compacted math. This specifically includes the example of students who need additional acceleration being given the opportunity to complete all of Math 4 and much of Math 5! MCPS is just lying.

Is there any way to get state oversight on this? Or use this to advocate, even locally at our school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Thank you for posting this. I had not read it yet and it is shocking this is the document being used as an excuse to eliminate compacted math. This specifically includes the example of students who need additional acceleration being given the opportunity to complete all of Math 4 and much of Math 5! MCPS is just lying.

Is there any way to get state oversight on this? Or use this to advocate, even locally at our school?

You can write the BOE. I hope that teachers at individual schools will preserve curriculum. We will need it after Taylor is gone, in order to rebuild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Thank you for posting this. I had not read it yet and it is shocking this is the document being used as an excuse to eliminate compacted math. This specifically includes the example of students who need additional acceleration being given the opportunity to complete all of Math 4 and much of Math 5! MCPS is just lying.

Is there any way to get state oversight on this? Or use this to advocate, even locally at our school?

You can write the BOE. I hope that teachers at individual schools will preserve curriculum. We will need it after Taylor is gone, in order to rebuild.

There are the Math leads at MSDE who might clarify the intent of the new policy with respect to MoCo's existing CM, as well as provide examples of similar paradigms within other MD school systems which comply. The state Superintendent and state BOE could provide avenues of appeal, though I would think such action is rare and would hold some relatively high bar for formal consideration. The state legislature could pass new, related legislation, but that is unlikely in the extreme -- getting COMAR updated to support GT needs over a decade ago was a hurculean effort and resulted in vague language with no teeth such as has been enacted in relation to measures for other groups with differential needs.

If MCPS can show that it would be providing with fidelity to intent the acceleration options described in the new state policy, it is (formally, anyway, the way we have things set up) their choice to do so in the way they see fit. That is, absent the BOE stepping in to provide contrary policy guidance -- if you want to see really old policy/related regulation, dust off (all related, here):

Policy IFA, Curriculum (last revised 2/13/01)

Policy IIB, Evaluation and Selection [of instructional/library materials] (last revised 6/1/00)

Policy IFB, Citizen Review of Curricular and Instructional Materials (last revised 12/1/97)

IOA, Gifted and Talented Education (last revised 11/14/95)

Policy governs implementing regulation and regulations for the first three were updated last year, though one would think that enough had changed in 25-plus years to warrant citizen-representative policy input. That last one, GT education? No regulation update since back in '95, with the policy. Not even updated to reflect state law, COMAR 13A, Subtitle 04, Chapter 07 Gifted and Talented Education (enacted in 2012 with updates in 2019).

Also relevant but ancient are:

Regulation IHB-RA, School Academic Grouping Practices (last revised 10/20/95)

Regulation IEE-RA, Procedures for Establishing and Evaluating Special Programs (last revised 4/30/87)

Regulation IFB-RA, Development and Approval of Curriculum and Supporting Materials (last revised 12/31/86)

It's too bad people maintain an obsession with cost cutting to lower their taxes instead of targeted resourcing to get to more effective (and ultimately less costly, as a result) education. Central Office, for all the faults they may have (including obstinance in relation to their provision of GT education), hasn't had the legal staff to handle policy/regulation updates across the couple hundred (?) out there with all the other legal obligations (not even counting MCPS's shooting themselves in the foot in relation to the case that went to the Supreme Court). And the community can't wrap its head around the need for full-time-professional-equivalent compensation for BOE members so that they actually have the time (and so that we might attract the expertise) to handle all the work that should be done -- policy/regulation being just the tip of the iceberg.