Reply to Compacted Math- FYI

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Compacted Math- FYI"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If I were to wager, I would guess that you are a MCCPTA member, who is trying to assist followers of this thread, but also concerned about what the ¨mob of angry parents¨ might do to the more coordinated plan for advocacy.  If we´re writing on behalf of our community and not just our own kid, what is a good message to send to these folks?[/quote]

A couple of things.

My understanding is that anyone who is a member of their school PTA in MoCo is, by extension, a member of MCCPTA, MDPTA (whatever form that is taking after the legal action from national) and National PTA. [please imagine, here, whatever emoticon means "not trying to be snide"]

I've been a delegate from our PTA to MCCPTA.  As with all such bodies, it can't always speak with unanimity -- majority rule, and all.  From what I've seen, it does try to achieve relative consensus.  Though I think it does better with timing of engagement with/provision of information to the community than does MCPS (its job is considerably less complex, it has less information to divulge and it often has more leeway), it also is not flawless.

I'd hope that my role wouldn't matter.  I'm not in a mind-meld with MCCPTA leadership.  I don't take what they say at face value any more than I do so for other organizations that I feel have good intentions -- that is to say, I often will, but will question/probe to come to my own understanding when I find a subject to be of particular importance or see it as being contentious.  From that perspective, I wouldn't want anyone to take the earlier post as gospel, and tried to frame it such that nobody would.

I think that there is a need for a mob of angry parents sometimes.  Well, not a mob, really, but a group of folks willing to speak their displeasure forcefully and at the same time.  The kind of concession given to a mob more typically seems to be a "throw our hands up and deal with it later" thing, which just kicks the can down the road.  I'd prefer greater reason and coordination, forcing a similar response.  That doesn't mean it should all go through MCCPTA (and, really, its far more effective if it comes both from MCCPTA and from individuals/non-MCCPTA groups), but, unless one considers MCCPTA as acting with a nefarious ulterior motive, keeping the communication open would likely sway their leadership towards advocating for the voiced individual concerns.

What would I suggest for a message?  Well:

Get it in today, if at all possible.  The BOE meeting is tomorrow, and, as with earlier meetings, they haven't posted the recovery presentation, so we can't know what MCPS will be proposing.

Speak to your child's or community's particular needs.  Include examples or anecdotes (e.g., a child's positive experience with acceleration/enrichment, a school's ability to accommodate or challenge in accommodating an accelerated cohort, etc.), if applicable.  When there can be some serious engagement, there likewise might be a position of relative consensus, and many can sign on to that if it covers their thoughts well.  Without that engagement, giving all enough information to consider, the time in which to do it, the opportunity to provide initial feedback and the follow-up to show where that feedback has already been effective, signing on to a general statement risks missing aspects of the issue of importance.  Make them put the picture together across MCPS -- I'd wager that there would be enough similarities among such messages that they could figure what the community really wants, but enough differences that they will pay attention, knowing they are dealing with a more representative sample than just one advocacy group (they should also figure that they will need to build in flexibility to address some differences).

Getting into the particulars for which to advocate, I'd like to divorce that, somewhat, from the above and from that which I'd written earlier, since this gets a bit more into opinion (not that I'd strictly refrained from that).  With that as caveat:

Meet the needs of a broad range of students with capability of high achievement in math.  Don't stop offering acceleration -- don't even think about it.  If it is determined that students have missed some foundational content, be sure to prove that loss for each individual before restricting them from an accelerated class (rather than assuming learning loss), and be sure to provide them with a clear pathway to rejoin acceleration if they have the ability.  Don't use arbitrarily high litmus tests to reduce the population considered for acceleration.  If capacity for acceleration/enrichment is reduced, now, it may be harder in coming years to ramp it back up (e.g., with teacher training, etc.).

Ensure that students are not offered differentiation within a class instead of cohorted instruction with enrichment at an accelerated pace.  This is a bit esoteric, but my understanding is that "differentiation" in the context of enrichment means that there are occasional pull-outs from the main class/individual instruction, but that the curriculum offered is the standard curriculum; this results in a strain on teachers to provide differentiated instruction (and a greater strain as the student population has more diverse abilities) and a much less enriched experience for the students (again, even less so with greater variation in their classmates' abilities).  Establishing a cohort of similarly-able students and providing them an enriched/accelerated curriculum is far preferable.

Make sure that students of similar ability are offered the same opportunities across the school system.  ES A shouldn't have to add clearly below-the-margin students to make up a cohort and ES B shouldn't have to eliminate an acceleration option if they don't have enough to make up a class-sized cohort.  While schools/teachers/principals should be given some leeway to best identify the abilities of their students (they should know them better than any standardized test, even though test scores should be an important data point), principals should not be in the business of limiting the options available -- those should be county-wide, and, again, the silver lining of having gone through virtual schooling is that it opens up a reasonable option for managing the different numbers across schools.  Provide direct central support, financial and logistical/technological, to schools as needed to accommodate these groups.  A principal should not have to be limiting curricular options based on an assigned budget that might not take into consideration the ability diversity of their student population.

Communicate, communicate, communicate!  (And engage -- it isn't a one-way street!)  Provide a clear plan in timely fashion.  One which is actionable by local schools.  One which allows families, themselves, to plan for a child's needs and to advocate for them, if necessary -- as well as a child is known by their school, they are known far better by their families.  One which is flexible enough to allow for reasonably different populations and individual abilities.

Treat the gifted/AEI population with the same respect with regard to resources as other groups.  Too often, gifted students and their families are seen as entitled elitists -- "Your kids are already doing fine.  Why should we give them anything special?"  Sure, some may tend to be more vocal (and some may take a particularly negative/elitist approach to their advocacy), but that isn't the case for all or even most.  The fact is that these kids have different needs.  They should be seen as no less than the needs of more typical students, though the cost of addressing them may he higher, and no less than the needs of special education students, thought the cost of addressing them may be lower.

If the information I'd posted yesterday proves out, then some, though not all, of the above may be addressed.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't communicate our positions -- again, now/today appears to be the time to do so.  I've also probably left out some important considerations.  If you think of something, please post it here for others to review, and discuss, as you can, with fellow parents/guardians.

We also shouldn't assume it all turns out as hoped.  If there is a particularly boneheaded/tone-deaf approach offered by MCPS, whether from poor planning or from particularly political aims, then that might be the time to get out the pitchforks and torches -- metaphorically speaking, of course.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics