MCPS plans to rate schools on #s of kids in advanced classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why we have honors for all.

I think Taylor's plan is to not have honors for all.

https://theblackandwhite.net/80785/news/mcps-to-change-grading-policy-for-the-2025-2026-school-year/

MCPS also plans to audit course designations of the “honors” label, to ensure continued difficulty and the integrity of weighted GPAs.

What does that mean "audit course designations"? Does that mean that they'll observe the issue for a few years and do nothing about it til the next Superintendent?

Changes are supposed to be implemented in 2025/26 cal year.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DFHRPN6EFA43/$file/Grading%20and%20Reporting%20Regulation%20Revision%20250410%20PPT%20REV.pdf

But what changes--what does audit mean in this context?
"Audit courses for use of honors designations and benchmark weighting models."

Earlier this year a group from central office came through our high school and reviewed an honors science course. They felt it lacked adequate student "inquiry," and therefore was too easy for honors and needed to be fixed. I am not sure how they're going to go about fixing it, but I assume this is the model for audits

("Inquiry" is code for dumbing down the class with activities that replace learning.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

I don't disagree with you, but it's almost impossible to have these conversations without looking at past practice, and at the intersection of race and perceptions of success.

Right now, I think we can all agree that the standards for "Honors" classes are low, to the detriment of almost everyone. Kids who truly need remediation aren't getting it, and kids who need/want an academic challenge are also not getting it.

However, moving to a system where schools are "ranked" by percentage of kids who pass an AP exam also has issues, because it creates an incentive for schools to gatekeep who gets to take AP courses. I'm sure that sounds fine if you have a kid who teachers/administration tend to see as a "good student." If your kid is white/Asian, female, well-organized, listens well, and speaks up in class not too much and not too little, it's going to sound like a fine system. But if your kid is Black/Hispanic, a boy, has learning differences, or is marked as ELL even if they finished ELL programming in elementary school, you might start to think this is not the best system after all.

+1 the bias -- both conscious and subconscious -- against certain groups, and the perception that they are not 'prepared' or capable of succeeding in AP/advanced classes, is real and a well-documented concern that systemically and persistently contributes to the underrepresentation of certain population groups in such classes. Using AP scores as the metric by which to evaluate schools just exacerbates that.

Who is the audience for reporting these data?
Many colleges know MCPS is not credible since so many courses receive the honors weighting.
Parents either don't care, and the ones who do care know that the outcomes of the students in the course are more important than the % of students taking the course.

students and families? The community? The school district/decision makers? I guess I may be misunderstanding your question. There are loads and loads of people who care about equal access and representation in advanced courses and would want to see that data.

Great! Wonderful! I'm glad there are loads and loads of people who care about this. But I don't understand why they would care only about data on % of kids taking these courses, and not include alongside these data, the far more important data about outcomes for these courses .

Learning isn't about getting a participation trophy for an honors class which is clearly not honors--or for participating and doing poorly in a class that is honors level, due to not actually learning the material.

Not sure why you feel the need to mock.

Both are important data. Both can and should be reported. Just responding to your statement that "enrollment is not meaningful" and the notion that "parents don't care and those who do know outcomes are more important." Because that's subjective, not settled fact, and you have now been provided reasons why people would care about the 'input' data in addition to the outcome data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

I don't disagree with you, but it's almost impossible to have these conversations without looking at past practice, and at the intersection of race and perceptions of success.

Right now, I think we can all agree that the standards for "Honors" classes are low, to the detriment of almost everyone. Kids who truly need remediation aren't getting it, and kids who need/want an academic challenge are also not getting it.

However, moving to a system where schools are "ranked" by percentage of kids who pass an AP exam also has issues, because it creates an incentive for schools to gatekeep who gets to take AP courses. I'm sure that sounds fine if you have a kid who teachers/administration tend to see as a "good student." If your kid is white/Asian, female, well-organized, listens well, and speaks up in class not too much and not too little, it's going to sound like a fine system. But if your kid is Black/Hispanic, a boy, has learning differences, or is marked as ELL even if they finished ELL programming in elementary school, you might start to think this is not the best system after all.

+1 the bias -- both conscious and subconscious -- against certain groups, and the perception that they are not 'prepared' or capable of succeeding in AP/advanced classes, is real and a well-documented concern that systemically and persistently contributes to the underrepresentation of certain population groups in such classes. Using AP scores as the metric by which to evaluate schools just exacerbates that.

Who is the audience for reporting these data?
Many colleges know MCPS is not credible since so many courses receive the honors weighting.
Parents either don't care, and the ones who do care know that the outcomes of the students in the course are more important than the % of students taking the course.

students and families? The community? The school district/decision makers? I guess I may be misunderstanding your question. There are loads and loads of people who care about equal access and representation in advanced courses and would want to see that data.

Great! Wonderful! I'm glad there are loads and loads of people who care about this. But I don't understand why they would care only about data on % of kids taking these courses, and not include alongside these data, the far more important data about outcomes for these courses .

Learning isn't about getting a participation trophy for an honors class which is clearly not honors--or for participating and doing poorly in a class that is honors level, due to not actually learning the material.

Not sure why you feel the need to mock.

Both are important data. Both can and should be reported. Just responding to your statement that "enrollment is not meaningful" and the notion that "parents don't care and those who do know outcomes are more important." Because that's subjective, not settled fact, and you have now been provided reasons why people would care about the 'input' data in addition to the outcome data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

No way! I was about to mention Goodhart’s law too! [phone]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s why we have honors for all.

I think Taylor's plan is to not have honors for all.

https://theblackandwhite.net/80785/news/mcps-to-change-grading-policy-for-the-2025-2026-school-year/

MCPS also plans to audit course designations of the “honors” label, to ensure continued difficulty and the integrity of weighted GPAs.

What does that mean "audit course designations"? Does that mean that they'll observe the issue for a few years and do nothing about it til the next Superintendent?

Changes are supposed to be implemented in 2025/26 cal year.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DFHRPN6EFA43/$file/Grading%20and%20Reporting%20Regulation%20Revision%20250410%20PPT%20REV.pdf

But what changes--what does audit mean in this context?
"Audit courses for use of honors designations and benchmark weighting models."

Earlier this year a group from central office came through our high school and reviewed an honors science course. They felt it lacked adequate student "inquiry," and therefore was too easy for honors and needed to be fixed. I am not sure how they're going to go about fixing it, but I assume this is the model for audits

When you say they said it "needed to be fixed" did you get the sense the school was supposed to change it or that central was going to be changing it?

PP here. The answer to that question is above my pay grade.

How can an individual school fix that? If “honors” health or “honors” English are insufficiently rigorous, that’s a curricular issue for the most part.

I would imagine if MCPS finds it "insufficiently rigorous", then the "honors" designation would be removed. Or, yes, MCPS would have to change the curriculum, which I highly doubt will happen next year. You would think that MCPS would know already whether the curriculum was "rigorous" since they are the ones that pick the curriculum.

How does curriculum stuff work in high school? Does MCPS pick (or design in-house) an on-grade-level and honors-level curriculum for each core class and require schools use them? Or do schools have flexibility to pick/design their own!

Depends on the course. Some of the has specifically selected textbooks and curriculum from vendors. Some has extras that have been developed by MCPS CO. Other particularly pilot courses and magnet courses have been developed from a variety of sources and approved and then are taught by usually are very very limited number of people.

Are those decisions all made at the central office level, though? Or are some of them made by schools/teachers? For the core classes in the core subjects, I mean.

They are all APPROVED at CO and BOE. But like I said what the curriculum is and the approval process is handled will vary depending on the class. For example AP English vs English 9. And externally purchased curriculum vs an in-house designed one by a teacher and curriculum design department.

Oh interesting. Are there any common courses where the curriculum is dictated top-down and look the same at most high schools (like, say, English 9 & 10 and Honors English 9 & 10, or Biology & Chemistry and Honors Biology & Chemistry)? Or are even common courses like those generally submitted by the school for approval by CO, so could be very different from school to school?

The English 9-12 courses and Math courses through Geometry are all top down. There is some commonality in the beginning science courses like Bio and Chem. That said, they most definitely don’t look the same across HS, heck even from classroom to classroom in the same building. That is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

I don't disagree with you, but it's almost impossible to have these conversations without looking at past practice, and at the intersection of race and perceptions of success.

Right now, I think we can all agree that the standards for "Honors" classes are low, to the detriment of almost everyone. Kids who truly need remediation aren't getting it, and kids who need/want an academic challenge are also not getting it.

However, moving to a system where schools are "ranked" by percentage of kids who pass an AP exam also has issues, because it creates an incentive for schools to gatekeep who gets to take AP courses. I'm sure that sounds fine if you have a kid who teachers/administration tend to see as a "good student." If your kid is white/Asian, female, well-organized, listens well, and speaks up in class not too much and not too little, it's going to sound like a fine system. But if your kid is Black/Hispanic, a boy, has learning differences, or is marked as ELL even if they finished ELL programming in elementary school, you might start to think this is not the best system after all.

+1 the bias -- both conscious and subconscious -- against certain groups, and the perception that they are not 'prepared' or capable of succeeding in AP/advanced classes, is real and a well-documented concern that systemically and persistently contributes to the underrepresentation of certain population groups in such classes. Using AP scores as the metric by which to evaluate schools just exacerbates that.

Who is the audience for reporting these data?
Many colleges know MCPS is not credible since so many courses receive the honors weighting.
Parents either don't care, and the ones who do care know that the outcomes of the students in the course are more important than the % of students taking the course.

students and families? The community? The school district/decision makers? I guess I may be misunderstanding your question. There are loads and loads of people who care about equal access and representation in advanced courses and would want to see that data.

Great! Wonderful! I'm glad there are loads and loads of people who care about this. But I don't understand why they would care only about data on % of kids taking these courses, and not include alongside these data, the far more important data about outcomes for these courses .

Learning isn't about getting a participation trophy for an honors class which is clearly not honors--or for participating and doing poorly in a class that is honors level, due to not actually learning the material.

Not sure why you feel the need to mock.

Both are important data. Both can and should be reported. Just responding to your statement that "enrollment is not meaningful" and the notion that "parents don't care and those who do know outcomes are more important." Because that's subjective, not settled fact, and you have now been provided reasons why people would care about the 'input' data in addition to the outcome data.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

No way! I was about to mention Goodhart’s law too! [phone]

We’ll share that feedback with Taylor and the BOE, so they ensure the “Target” is achievement of the Objectives for all, with improvement in the measures each year (or maintenance if significantly high).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you see the new strategic plan from MCPS? https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Hdm1k6oUdCCzMYUguo1u79btxoF22MP/view?usp=drivesdk

There are some things I like about it but I'm concerned that one of the things they'll be measuring schools on with their new scorecard is "% of students enrolled in advanced,
enriched, or accelerated courses and
programming (e.g., honors, AP, IB, dual
enrollment, centers for enriched studies)
disaggregated by reporting groups." In fact that is the only metric they have for the objective around enrichment.

Pushing schools to bulk up the numbers of kids in advanced classes seems like a terrible idea to me, especially if it is not mitigated by any other more appropriate measures around enrichment. It feels like it will either lead to more and more classes that are called "advanced" but actually are at or below grade level and don't actually provide enrichment to kids that need it, or they will try to put below-level kids in advanced classes where they'll struggle and it will be harder on everyone (kids at all levels and teachers trying to serve them all at the same time.)

I got the impression from the Board meeting yesterday that while the strategic plan goals are now final, the metrics might not be-- not 100% sure that's true, but might be worth a try to weigh in and try to get the goal amended or replaced with something that's not so counterproductive, or at least to add some other goal to counterbalance it? Who would be the right people to contact about this?

+1
This is how we got honors for all. Everyone's advanced in MCPS, even if they are struggling to get basic skills.

Enrollment is not meaningful. They should use objective measures, like scoring a 4 or 5 on an AP exam.

I don't disagree with you, but it's almost impossible to have these conversations without looking at past practice, and at the intersection of race and perceptions of success.

Right now, I think we can all agree that the standards for "Honors" classes are low, to the detriment of almost everyone. Kids who truly need remediation aren't getting it, and kids who need/want an academic challenge are also not getting it.

However, moving to a system where schools are "ranked" by percentage of kids who pass an AP exam also has issues, because it creates an incentive for schools to gatekeep who gets to take AP courses. I'm sure that sounds fine if you have a kid who teachers/administration tend to see as a "good student." If your kid is white/Asian, female, well-organized, listens well, and speaks up in class not too much and not too little, it's going to sound like a fine system. But if your kid is Black/Hispanic, a boy, has learning differences, or is marked as ELL even if they finished ELL programming in elementary school, you might start to think this is not the best system after all.

Well, no. The incentive would be to actually prepare kids to pass AP exams because gate-keeping would mean that a lower percentage of total students passed AP exams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this addresses the hard to solve and long lead items like physical space for students and teachers. To have smaller classrooms you need more teachers and more of those classrooms. Sub 20 kids in class does a lot more for learning than stocking grade level and below kids in a honors class or trying to differentiate instruction for 25-30 kids.

We never really had problems with larger class sizes when people were willing to divide kids by ability. Look at class sizes during the 60s and 70s. But expecting one teacher to teach kids across a 70 point IQ range in one classroom is nearly impossible, even if there are 18 kids in the classroom.