Anonymous wrote:Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?

I would reach out to Taylor and the BOE members who seemed conerned about having all students at the same level. They are the ones who can change this. Principals are not going to without being given explicit instructions from on high.

Can someone speak to OPs other questions about how to advocate for it to be changed back? What has already been done, and does it seem like changing back is possible/ there is enough support?

Anonymous wrote:My kid was in 6th in 2020 when this change was announced at our school. This is the letter the principal sent:

The purpose of this letter is to share an exciting change that is occurring in regards to our English classes. Starting in School Year 20-21, all students will be enrolled in the Advanced English course, collapsing our two-tier course structure into one.

After analyzing our school performance data, soliciting student and staff feedback, and working with our leadership and supervisors in Central Office, we believe this move to heterogeneous Advanced English classes will allow all students access to rigorous instruction and better match the progressive levels of student performance we experienced this year.

As part of this process, a primary focus of the English Department will be to strengthen our capacity to differentiate instruction in heterogeneous classes using the features of the new StudySync curriculum. We are eager to embark on this journey with our students as they grow as readers, writers and speakers.

Too bad that didn't happen. Not enough mandated and covered differentiation training time, assuming that all teachers were geared in the first place to teach across the spectrum of ability levels, increases in class size (putting everyone together let them achieve labor "efficiencies" by maxxing out classes as much as they could, and then some in some cases), and vast differences among schools, some of which had greater homogeneity and then less differentiation burden while others were highly heterogeneous with greater burden. Doomed to fail if not well implemented, and definitely not resourced well enough to be well implemented.

The reason for heterogeneous grouping is so that all students get exposed to higher level thinking and tasks that were happening only in the Honors classes. The model is similar to elementary with multiple skill levels in one class. At the middle school level this can work well for English, Science, and World Studies when ~25% of kids are advanced, 50% of kids are grade level, and no more than 25% are behind. Strategic grouping and well structured assignments can keep the whole class moving forward with enough engaged & independent learners, and the teacher can effectively help a small number of students needing more support.

The problem really comes in when that mix of students gets to be more than 1/3 of the class. Things just grind down - it’s hard to keep pace, more % absent, fewer kids ready to learn. While it’s easy to say when this happens, we should split into two levels, but how do you draw the line? Student abilities and readiness for any given course fall on a bell curve. Parents, teachers, and administrators will all disagree on where to draw the line. Do we only separate the top 25% and really let them accelerate, leaving enough capable kids in the other group so there is a critical mass to still engage in rich content, although at a slower pace? Or do we separate the bottom 25% into remedial classes, which has shown us over decades to simply relegate that group of kid to never catching up or being exposed to higher level thinking.

This doesn’t have an easy solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

The crazy thing is that honors for all English is only 2 years old. They could change it back if they wanted to, all the teachers still know how to teach it

That's for HS. It's been Advanced for all in MS for longer than that.

And many HS have had honors for all for well longer than 2 years.

My kid was in 6th in 2020 when this change was announced at our school. This is the letter the principal sent:

The purpose of this letter is to share an exciting change that is occurring in regards to our English classes. Starting in School Year 20-21, all students will be enrolled in the Advanced English course, collapsing our two-tier course structure into one.

After analyzing our school performance data, soliciting student and staff feedback, and working with our leadership and supervisors in Central Office, we believe this move to heterogeneous Advanced English classes will allow all students access to rigorous instruction and better match the progressive levels of student performance we experienced this year.

As part of this process, a primary focus of the English Department will be to strengthen our capacity to differentiate instruction in heterogeneous classes using the features of the new StudySync curriculum. We are eager to embark on this journey with our students as they grow as readers, writers and speakers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

The crazy thing is that honors for all English is only 2 years old. They could change it back if they wanted to, all the teachers still know how to teach it

That's for HS. It's been Advanced for all in MS for longer than that.

Anonymous wrote:This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

The crazy thing is that honors for all English is only 2 years old. They could change it back if they wanted to, all the teachers still know how to teach it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

Sorry to be clear — having a regular and an honors course is something parents have king pushed for, and MCPS has said no to because of equity concerns.

Yes but at the same time-there are 3-4 different math levels for kids in the same MS grade depending on your school and 2 options for social studies. So equity is paramount only for some subjects.

Anonymous wrote:This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

Sorry to be clear — having a regular and an honors course is something parents have king pushed for, and MCPS has said no to because of equity concerns.

This is something that parents have pushed for for a long time for both MS and HS with no luck. I think it will only change if the superintendent wants it to change.

Anonymous wrote:It’s all about equity. The EML kids will feel bad about themselves if they are siloed in their own classes is what I’ve been told.

Yup. So Boone get their needs met.

It’s all about equity. The EML kids will feel bad about themselves if they are siloed in their own classes is what I’ve been told.

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.

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?