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?

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

Yes, that's the normal use of the word "audit." But in MCPS parlance, since they didn't actually attach any action to the auditing, I assume change will be very slow to come. Or maybe they're take away honors designation for one or two classes...

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

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."

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see it until skimming your post but I agree.

It's basically the same as how the US News high school rankings used to be based on the number of AP tests taken divided by the number of seniors.

I don't remember the nitty gritty about it anymore. But I think that was why there was a big push to put as many kids in AP courses as possible and have as many take the tests as possible.

The issue is that a good portion of students at schools couldn't pass the AP exams. Which kind of points to AP courses not being taught at the same levels at every school. Where I knew someone that used to substitute teach the courses at different schools and would say which schools were learning on college level and which ones were AP courses by name only.

Yeah but I agree, this type of push ends up just pushing the number/quantity of students in the courses and kind of loses focus on the quality of teaching.

It's not the same, because AP exams are based upon curriculum set by a third party that is seen as college level rigorous. Nearly all the MCPS high school classes are labeled "honors."

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

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

I was hoping a Taylor would push back against this, but it sounds like we are going to keep this structure. Honors for all means honors for none.

I didn't see it until skimming your post but I agree.

It's basically the same as how the US News high school rankings used to be based on the number of AP tests taken divided by the number of seniors.

I don't remember the nitty gritty about it anymore. But I think that was why there was a big push to put as many kids in AP courses as possible and have as many take the tests as possible.

The issue is that a good portion of students at schools couldn't pass the AP exams. Which kind of points to AP courses not being taught at the same levels at every school. Where I knew someone that used to substitute teach the courses at different schools and would say which schools were learning on college level and which ones were AP courses by name only.

Yeah but I agree, this type of push ends up just pushing the number/quantity of students in the courses and kind of loses focus on the quality of teaching.

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?

Yawn. Another day another initiative.. That's great to state all this out but how do they plan to achieve it?

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.

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

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

No, I hadn't seen it. But as long as MCPS calls nearly everything "honors," and weights them similarly to actual AP classes, it's meaningless. The health requirement to graduate is called "honors" health, and there's nothing particularly advanced about it IMHO.

Not sure why MCPS would prioritize % of students enrolled in AP, IB classes, rather the outcomes related measures of how many students achieved a 3+ on AP exams since those are independently graded and verified. They either have a confused monitoring and evaluations team, or they're playing a dangerous game of trying to cram kids into classes they may not succeed at.

That’s why we have honors for all.

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?