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.

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.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the claim is that heterogeneous classes are more equitable to children of color. However, the reason why administrators chose to make this change to all “advanced “is because it makes scheduling easier. They no longer have to worry about which English class fits with a kids schedule, because they are all the same. This means that English classes can be filled to maximum capacity. It’s the same reason why schools are getting rid of teams.

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, when you try to differentiate in the classroom, the children always see and understand which group is the advanced group, and which group is the on level group. Try as a teacher might, the children perceive the difference and are embarrassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My two kids were in the CES for two years then back to her home middle school where the admin insisted that the teachers would differentiate within the classroom. They didn’t and I completely understand why the teachers cant. It took until 11th grade when they could take IB/AP English to finally feel challenged. It makes no sense—they level for math, why not English? I agree it’s just for ease of scheduling.

[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.)

Good for Montoya. Now let's put the pressure on for others to follow. Politicians are not going to "lead" on this but they will follow public pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, when you try to differentiate in the classroom, the children always see and understand which group is the advanced group, and which group is the on level group. Try as a teacher might, the children perceive the difference and are embarrassed.

Are we trying to educate kids or tend to their fragile egos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Good for Montoya. Now let's put the pressure on for others to follow. Politicians are not going to "lead" on this but they will follow public pressure.

I mean, Montoya sounded really skeptical but when Hazel and the other person said "oh we'll give them lots of training and they're adaptable, we'll get mixed classrooms right" she ultimately said "thanks" and moved on.

Does the Board actually have any power to push for changes like this or not really? Because it seems to me like they act like Central Office makes the decisions on this stuff and all the Board can do is ask questions and express general concerns. Are they right about that, or is there any real decision-making authority on this at the Board level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were in fact two levels several years back: regular on-level, and advanced. Then regular gradually went away and everyone was put into advanced. I never saw a comprehensible explanation for why the change was made.

I have a kid who his a Senior in MCPS. So, she was in MS 7 years ago. It was all one level when she was in 6th grade. All the kids were placed in Advanced English, even the ones who could barely write sentences.

It's such a poor model and makes the English classes miserable for the kids who enjoy reading/writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, all middle schools English classes are taught in advanced level? What are AP and Honor English classes then? Are those for HS only?

No, all MS English classes are taught at a remedial level. MCPS just labels them 'advanced' to appease parents and to make it look like they are closing the Achievement Gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, all middle schools English classes are taught in advanced level? What are AP and Honor English classes then? Are those for HS only?

All middle school ELA classes are "advanced" on paper, but in reality they are barely at grade level. I mean that literally. I have a current 6th grader. This year they have read two books in "Advanced" English. One had a lexile level of 810L and the other was in the low 900s. That's roughly the 25th percentile and 50th percentile for grade level in 6th grade. On the flip side, before this change in 2020, the norm for Advanced English in 6th grade was books in the 1400s, and that is still the norm at the Humanities Magnet (admission to which is now famously by lottery).

For HS, the current pathway is "Honors English 9" and "Honors English 10" both of which are again barely on grade level, and then AP Literature and AP Language in 11th and 12th. Some schools have begun offering AP Seminar in 10th to deal with the lack of a true Honors option, but that's not universal and it still means that highly able kids go from 6th - 9th grade barely reading at grade level for school.

That’s sadly better than the “honors” English 9 texts, which have some HL texts in the 400s.

I'm sure the excerpts the kids are getting in MS are equally bad, but I was shocked at how low level the books were.

My kid was assigned 'The Pact' in MS. She thought it was terrible and asked me to read it. She was right. But at least they read the entire book. Sometimes it's just random excerpts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

Good for Montoya. Now let's put the pressure on for others to follow. Politicians are not going to "lead" on this but they will follow public pressure.

I mean, Montoya sounded really skeptical but when Hazel and the other person said "oh we'll give them lots of training and they're adaptable, we'll get mixed classrooms right" she ultimately said "thanks" and moved on.

Does the Board actually have any power to push for changes like this or not really? Because it seems to me like they act like Central Office makes the decisions on this stuff and all the Board can do is ask questions and express general concerns. Are they right about that, or is there any real decision-making authority on this at the Board level?

Unfortunately, that is PRECISELY how several board members view their role. Several County Councilmembers feel differently and believe boardmembers can and should be exercising more oversight authority than they do.