Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?
Yes
Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.
In our ES, 2/3 students are in compact math.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?
Yes
Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?
Yes
Where? Nearly half the grade in my kid's MCPS ES (not a particularly wealthy one) is in compacted math 4/5. If the parents ask, they basically take the kid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
We're not in a wealthier school and we got compacted math. It was virtual which isn't ideal, but we got it. Are there any places where compacted math isn't available?
Yes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
When CM was really for the advanced kids, and not for those whose parents were pushy, the 5 or 6 kids in our ES took a bus to the MS for acceleration.
Then some parents pushed for their kids to be in CM, so more than half the grade got pushed into CM which they then offered at the ES. I volunteered there, and it was clear that many kids did not belong in that class. I was thinking my youngest should probably be on track, not accelerated, but the teacher told me that because so many kids were pushed into CM, the kids left in the "on track" class were very behind, and my kid would be completely bored. It became opposite extremes with nothing in the middle.
That said, I'm super glad my kids will be out of MCPS. CM was necessary for one of my kids, who is now in college as a dual math/STEM major, getting a 4.0.
The dumbing down of MoCo kids. This will hurt those whom MCPS is trying to help the most. Some parents will just get tutors or teach their kids at home so their kids will be more advanced come HS so that they can take AP BC calc in 11th grade. It's the kids whose parents don't have the means/will to do the same who will suffer the most in the end.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused. On slide 13 they say that current compacted 4th graders will do "Math 5 w/Accel" next year. But on slide 17 it says that in 2026-2027, there will be "accelerated grade 5 completion" and that the cluster grouping will be for rising grade 4 next year?
Indicative that MCPS can't even get a basic planning PPT on curricular issues correct. It's terrible if this year's grade 4 have to repeat content next year if they're in Compacted math.
Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused. On slide 13 they say that current compacted 4th graders will do "Math 5 w/Accel" next year. But on slide 17 it says that in 2026-2027, there will be "accelerated grade 5 completion" and that the cluster grouping will be for rising grade 4 next year?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
When CM was really for the advanced kids, and not for those whose parents were pushy, the 5 or 6 kids in our ES took a bus to the MS for acceleration.
Then some parents pushed for their kids to be in CM, so more than half the grade got pushed into CM which they then offered at the ES. I volunteered there, and it was clear that many kids did not belong in that class. I was thinking my youngest should probably be on track, not accelerated, but the teacher told me that because so many kids were pushed into CM, the kids left in the "on track" class were very behind, and my kid would be completely bored. It became opposite extremes with nothing in the middle.
That said, I'm super glad my kids will be out of MCPS. CM was necessary for one of my kids, who is now in college as a dual math/STEM major, getting a 4.0.
The dumbing down of MoCo kids. This will hurt those whom MCPS is trying to help the most. Some parents will just get tutors or teach their kids at home so their kids will be more advanced come HS so that they can take AP BC calc in 11th grade. It's the kids whose parents don't have the means/will to do the same who will suffer the most in the end.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.
Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.
They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.
HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.
MCPS has NEVER utilized rigorous research methodology. WE pay people $200k per year to produce this drivel and put it forth as evidence before the board.
It's such a mistake to hire these FO teams with functionally fake PhDs. The expertise to make MCPS better absolutely exists, and the salaries are actually quite good, but there is a culture of "promoting from within" and allowing these mail-order ed/admin degrees that means you just aren't getting the cream of the crop.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.
Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.
They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.
HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.
MCPS has NEVER utilized rigorous research methodology. WE pay people $200k per year to produce this drivel and put it forth as evidence before the board.
Anonymous wrote:Except in the wealthier schools, many of our kids never got anything in ES or MS.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.
Here is the thing though, and I say this without even the kind of data expertise that many on DCUM have.
They are presenting the Option 1/Option 2 data as though they did A/B testing. They are comparing them against one another and telling us to trust the data.
HOWEVER, this was not randomized. If you want us to trust the data, you need to randomize the sample. The fact that principals were able to opt in based on the composition/ethos of the school makes it impossible to compare the outcomes with fidelity.
Anonymous wrote:For folks who are unaware because they were not in a cohorted class this year, Model 1 was poorly designed and in many schools there was zero enrichment provided to the kids-- it was not required to provide enrichment to them, instead it was just required to move through the CKLA units more quickly but without skipping activities or content, which you can't really do well (it's not the same as math where there is a whole unit on one topic and once the kids get it they can move on-- a day of CKLA has a bunch of individual units and topics and skipping some of it is tricky or impossible.). So no wonder the scores for that were bad.