MCPS is cutting ELC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery

Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.

Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.

I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.

MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.

Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?

We already have a successful model for this with the four local CES schools. They should expand that program to any school with a large enough cohort to populate at least one classroom. If schools don't have a large enough cohort, their students should be able to attend a regional CES. I don't understand why they have not implemented this.

That is essentially what ELC was offering, and that is the model they are destroying for the next school year. MCPS had literally just finished rolling ELC (magnet level ELA curriculum) to almost every ES in the county, training teachers, helping schools figure out scheduling and then BAM, a year later they destroy it.

It makes no sense. They were on their way to the model you describe.

It makes no sense that they are letting schools disband the ELC class just because there is a new curriculum. The curriculum is on grade level. And while better than the previous curriculum, student ability at certain points will still be divided and should be able to be met.

Is it possible that this is just a temporary move? Maybe they want to get teachers trained in the new curriculum before they’re expected to add in enrichment?

ELC is a curriculum that has been in place for many years and is offered in place of the regular curriculum for students who qualify. They would not need to train teachers on it. There is no way that what they are doing is temporary. It is to move schools away from separate classes for advanced students. That is the MCPS way. As someone said above, they would get rid of compacted math if they could. They in fact tried to a few years ago until parents were up in arms about it. And that's what parents should be doing here.

It seems like they’re making a commitment to move to the new curriculum, so they’re dropping ELC and plan to offer enriched CKLA. Has there been any word on what English curriculum they will be offering in the CES? Is it changing too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery

Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.

Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.

I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.

MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.

Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?

We already have a successful model for this with the four local CES schools. They should expand that program to any school with a large enough cohort to populate at least one classroom. If schools don't have a large enough cohort, their students should be able to attend a regional CES. I don't understand why they have not implemented this.

That is essentially what ELC was offering, and that is the model they are destroying for the next school year. MCPS had literally just finished rolling ELC (magnet level ELA curriculum) to almost every ES in the county, training teachers, helping schools figure out scheduling and then BAM, a year later they destroy it.

It makes no sense. They were on their way to the model you describe.

It makes no sense that they are letting schools disband the ELC class just because there is a new curriculum. The curriculum is on grade level. And while better than the previous curriculum, student ability at certain points will still be divided and should be able to be met.

Is it possible that this is just a temporary move? Maybe they want to get teachers trained in the new curriculum before they’re expected to add in enrichment?

No. There was teacher training on CKLA for ES last summer before it was implemented. Now ES has been in use for a full year. Central Office indicated that Model1 is the preferred choice so they should be making sure that is the one choose by schools most often unless there is really good reason to choose otherwise. And really good reason is not just, because it’s easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery

Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.

Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.

I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.

MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.

Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?

We already have a successful model for this with the four local CES schools. They should expand that program to any school with a large enough cohort to populate at least one classroom. If schools don't have a large enough cohort, their students should be able to attend a regional CES. I don't understand why they have not implemented this.

That is essentially what ELC was offering, and that is the model they are destroying for the next school year. MCPS had literally just finished rolling ELC (magnet level ELA curriculum) to almost every ES in the county, training teachers, helping schools figure out scheduling and then BAM, a year later they destroy it.

It makes no sense. They were on their way to the model you describe.

It makes no sense that they are letting schools disband the ELC class just because there is a new curriculum. The curriculum is on grade level. And while better than the previous curriculum, student ability at certain points will still be divided and should be able to be met.

Is it possible that this is just a temporary move? Maybe they want to get teachers trained in the new curriculum before they’re expected to add in enrichment?

No. There was teacher training on CKLA for ES last summer before it was implemented. Now ES has been in use for a full year. Central Office indicated that Model1 is the preferred choice so they should be making sure that is the one choose by schools most often unless there is really good reason to choose otherwise. And really good reason is not just, because it’s easier.

When has central office indicated that Model 1 is preferred?

[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:I am so so so glad we made it into the CES next year. This is a complete bait and switch for those who didn’t get into the lottery

Well that’s great for you. How is any of this fair for the kids who qualified for the CES but didn’t get a seat through the lottery. I don’t understand how MCPS justifies keeping CES. Disband them and offer enrichment at local schools.

Advocating to disband the CES isn't going to help, PP. I agree with you that all of this is unfair, and counterproductive, but I'm old enough to remember that ELC was introduced in order to redress concerns that arose after MCPS adjusted the cut-off for CES. It was introduced explicitly in response to parent outrage, which means it can be brought back the same way.

I don’t think it should be disbanded for sour grapes reasons, I just don’t see the point in it. The fact that they moved to a system that now identifies kids who qualify and then lotteries off the spots exposes that more kids qualify for the program than MCPS will provide spots for. Why? Why can’t MCPS offer an enriched curriculum to everyone who qualifies based on the criteria that they set? The solution to me is that it should be provided at the local school level for all the kids in the pool, instead of creating winners and losers arbitrarily based on a lottery, and then bussing those winners to other schools and leaving the losers with no enrichment. Why are there now essentially two systems for the same pool of kids? This makes no sense.

MCPS hasn’t always used a lottery system for admissions to the CES (or previously, for the HGC), but they have always had more students who qualified than seats for qualified students. That part isn’t new. In fact, there are fewer seats in the middle school magnets than at CES. They should expand these magnet programs or limit them to the very most advanced learners. They should not randomly select a small portion of students who are in the top half of performers for the CES and then offer no enrichment to most of the qualified students. The ways they plan to offer an enriched curriculum to students isn’t satisfactory to anyone.

Yes, I know how the prior system worked and how the current system works. I think the lottery process exposes that they do not provide access to all who qualify. They set the criteria, they identify students, and then they say sorry, no access for you to a segment of the identified students. Why do we need to expand magnets when the curriculum could be provided in the local schools? Same with the middle school magnets. Don't people want their kids to stay at their local schools but have access to the best programs MCPS has to offer? Why the gate keeping, the two tiered system, the busing kids around? Who wants this other than maybe current magnet parents who fear that somehow bringing the curriculum to the local schools will feel less special?

We already have a successful model for this with the four local CES schools. They should expand that program to any school with a large enough cohort to populate at least one classroom. If schools don't have a large enough cohort, their students should be able to attend a regional CES. I don't understand why they have not implemented this.

That is essentially what ELC was offering, and that is the model they are destroying for the next school year. MCPS had literally just finished rolling ELC (magnet level ELA curriculum) to almost every ES in the county, training teachers, helping schools figure out scheduling and then BAM, a year later they destroy it.

It makes no sense. They were on their way to the model you describe.

It makes no sense that they are letting schools disband the ELC class just because there is a new curriculum. The curriculum is on grade level. And while better than the previous curriculum, student ability at certain points will still be divided and should be able to be met.

Is it possible that this is just a temporary move? Maybe they want to get teachers trained in the new curriculum before they’re expected to add in enrichment?

No. There was teacher training on CKLA for ES last summer before it was implemented. Now ES has been in use for a full year. Central Office indicated that Model1 is the preferred choice so they should be making sure that is the one choose by schools most often unless there is really good reason to choose otherwise. And really good reason is not just, because it’s easier.

When has central office indicated that Model 1 is preferred?

My understanding was that the AEI team was going to encourage use of Model1 by schools with large enough numbers to support a cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi I am Evelyn Chung, MCCPTA VP of Ed. I am just hopping on because it made me laugh thst someone said Chatgpt wrote the post. Yes, I am verbose and so I use ChatGPT to edit. This is because for years people asked me to write more simply so now I ask ChatGPT to simplify my emails to make them readable for PTAs. But I did provide the content and edit it. In my original emails, I note that I use ChatGPT. (I wasn’t the one to repost my email). I wish I had time to try to answer more questions but I am a volunteer and this is my weekend. But hopefully others can fill in.

Not sure if you will see this, but you have been incredible in your advocacy for years and I am really grateful for the extensive work you have done and the info you’ve provided for parents.

[Anonymous]

Has there been any response fro central office/AEI about why they’re back tracking? Are there any plans to try to sue?

[Anonymous]

All of this makes me think about the lottery-based CES programs.
Imagine if special education and EML programs were lottery-based.
Why is it that only the low performing students are guaranteed the services/programs they need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this makes me think about the lottery-based CES programs.
Imagine if special education and EML programs were lottery-based.
Why is it that only the low performing students are guaranteed the services/programs they need?

Because gifted students will still score high on standardized tests regardless of what they’re offered. That’s the sad truth. They only care about raising the bottom in our accountability based system.

Also because the IDEA guarantees FAPE for students with disabilities. No such federal law for gifted students. Although with the dismantling of civil rights at the federal level, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this makes me think about the lottery-based CES programs.
Imagine if special education and EML programs were lottery-based.
Why is it that only the low performing students are guaranteed the services/programs they need?

Low performing students aren’t guaranteed services/programs they need either. I have a child who has developmental coordination disorder and the school wouldn’t consider occupational therapy. DC is also on the spectrum and it took us 3 attempts to get an IEP. You have no idea how much determination and hard work and frankly, luck, it takes to get a special placement for a struggling child who needs one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this makes me think about the lottery-based CES programs.
Imagine if special education and EML programs were lottery-based.
Why is it that only the low performing students are guaranteed the services/programs they need?

Because gifted students will still score high on standardized tests regardless of what they’re offered. That’s the sad truth. They only care about raising the bottom in our accountability based system.

Also because the IDEA guarantees FAPE for students with disabilities. No such federal law for gifted students. Although with the dismantling of civil rights at the federal level, who knows.

In fairness, that is the goal of public education. The goal is a sort of minimum competency for our citizenry, not to help every student reach their full potential.

[Anonymous]

There is no a federal right to GT education, but MD requires it. The law says “shall” not “can.” See COMAR here: https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf

Excerpt:
Programs and Services.
A. Each school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program from an annually reviewed Maryland State Department of Education approved list of programs and
services in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential. Appropriately differentiated, evidenced-based programs and services shall accelerate, extend, or enrich instructional content, strategies, and
products to demonstrate and apply learning.
B. Each school system shall review the effectiveness of its programs and services.
C. Each school system shall implement programs and services for gifted and talented students that:
(1) Provide a continuum of appropriately differentiated curriculum and evidence-based academic programs and services in grades PreK—12 during the regular school day for identified gifted and talented students.
(2) Provide programs and services to support the social and emotional growth of gifted and talented students.
(3) Provide programs and services to inform and involve parents/guardians of gifted and talented students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no a federal right to GT education, but MD requires it. The law says “shall” not “can.” See COMAR here: https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf

Excerpt:
Programs and Services.
A. Each school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program from an annually reviewed Maryland State Department of Education approved list of programs and
services in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential. Appropriately differentiated, evidenced-based programs and services shall accelerate, extend, or enrich instructional content, strategies, and
products to demonstrate and apply learning.
B. Each school system shall review the effectiveness of its programs and services.
C. Each school system shall implement programs and services for gifted and talented students that:
(1) Provide a continuum of appropriately differentiated curriculum and evidence-based academic programs and services in grades PreK—12 during the regular school day for identified gifted and talented students.
(2) Provide programs and services to support the social and emotional growth of gifted and talented students.
(3) Provide programs and services to inform and involve parents/guardians of gifted and talented students.

But no one is enforcing this or defining it. MCPS thinks that by designating some kids as gifted in 2nd grade and giving “enrichment” aka extra worksheets they’re abiding by the letter of the law.

[Anonymous]

Another important benefit of Model 1 (cohorted classes) is that my understanding is that teachers of ELC classes get mandatory, focused training on how to teach and support gifted kids. General elementary school teachers get little to no training on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another important benefit of Model 1 (cohorted classes) is that my understanding is that teachers of ELC classes get mandatory, focused training on how to teach and support gifted kids. General elementary school teachers get little to no training on this.

+1. And it is needed. Gifted kids can have a whole range of social-emotional needs that go along with needing deeper/more accelerated instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no a federal right to GT education, but MD requires it. The law says “shall” not “can.” See COMAR here: https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/Gifted-Talented/COMAR_13A0407_GT_Education.pdf

Excerpt:
Programs and Services.
A. Each school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program from an annually reviewed Maryland State Department of Education approved list of programs and
services in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential. Appropriately differentiated, evidenced-based programs and services shall accelerate, extend, or enrich instructional content, strategies, and
products to demonstrate and apply learning.
B. Each school system shall review the effectiveness of its programs and services.
C. Each school system shall implement programs and services for gifted and talented students that:
(1) Provide a continuum of appropriately differentiated curriculum and evidence-based academic programs and services in grades PreK—12 during the regular school day for identified gifted and talented students.
(2) Provide programs and services to support the social and emotional growth of gifted and talented students.
(3) Provide programs and services to inform and involve parents/guardians of gifted and talented students.

But no one is enforcing this or defining it. MCPS thinks that by designating some kids as gifted in 2nd grade and giving “enrichment” aka extra worksheets they’re abiding by the letter of the law.

Well, it's the law, and part of how they did this was by providing advanced classes like ELC that met students' needs. Now they are taking that away. Parents should be organizing to hold them accountable.