Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, all middle schools English classes are taught in advanced level? What are AP and Honor English classes then? Are those for HS only?

All middle school ELA classes are "advanced" on paper, but in reality they are barely at grade level. I mean that literally. I have a current 6th grader. This year they have read two books in "Advanced" English. One had a lexile level of 810L and the other was in the low 900s. That's roughly the 25th percentile and 50th percentile for grade level in 6th grade. On the flip side, before this change in 2020, the norm for Advanced English in 6th grade was books in the 1400s, and that is still the norm at the Humanities Magnet (admission to which is now famously by lottery).

For HS, the current pathway is "Honors English 9" and "Honors English 10" both of which are again barely on grade level, and then AP Literature and AP Language in 11th and 12th. Some schools have begun offering AP Seminar in 10th to deal with the lack of a true Honors option, but that's not universal and it still means that highly able kids go from 6th - 9th grade barely reading at grade level for school.

That’s sadly better than the “honors” English 9 texts, which have some HL texts in the 400s.

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in advanced English at an MCPS middle school...

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in advanced English at an MCPS middle school...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

Yang is the best in this. But you need more than one. Agree SMOB is sympathetic, but he won’t make a difference. Skeptical on all other members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, all middle schools English classes are taught in advanced level? What are AP and Honor English classes then? Are those for HS only?

All middle school ELA classes are "advanced" on paper, but in reality they are barely at grade level. I mean that literally. I have a current 6th grader. This year they have read two books in "Advanced" English. One had a lexile level of 810L and the other was in the low 900s. That's roughly the 25th percentile and 50th percentile for grade level in 6th grade. On the flip side, before this change in 2020, the norm for Advanced English in 6th grade was books in the 1400s, and that is still the norm at the Humanities Magnet (admission to which is now famously by lottery).

For HS, the current pathway is "Honors English 9" and "Honors English 10" both of which are again barely on grade level, and then AP Literature and AP Language in 11th and 12th. Some schools have begun offering AP Seminar in 10th to deal with the lack of a true Honors option, but that's not universal and it still means that highly able kids go from 6th - 9th grade barely reading at grade level for school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

I think Stewart might be willing to at least start asking the questions, like "Can you show us the MAP-R and ELA MCAP data before and after this change, dis-aggregated by target groups?" and "Did this change lead to the improvements you believed it would?"

Montoya might be willing to ask from the perspective of educators, like "What are you hearing from MS and HS ELA teachers regarding this change?"

Well they don’t have MCAP data from before because it wasn’t administered and did not exist until several years ago.

The bottom line is that we all know scores on the bottom did not improve based on this change. It helps no one and harms many, many students. It’s amazing to me that Hazel and the district think it is acceptable to just let students languish with grade level or below grade level texts until 11th grade with a few crumbs for a select few who win a lottery and take on a commute.

There are many reasons why a student may be below grade level but plopping them next to high achieving peers isn’t going to just rub off on them. Putting my unathletic child on the basketball team isn’t going to turn him into a tall, talented basketball player. Everyone has strengths and gifts in different areas. Let kids learn at the appropriate level and pace.

But PARCC existed, so someone could ask "Did the performance of target groups increase vis-a-vis state norms over the course of this change?"

The reason I am pushing that point is that no MCPS board member is going to advocate FOR gifted/highly able learners. The only way to get the matter discussed is to highlight that the decision did not serve the goal/objectives they said it would.

I don’t know why no one would advocate for those students. The school system should care about all the students and try to do what is in the best interest of as many children as possible rather than erect institutional barriers that purposely leave kids with big deficits and gaps in their education, unprepared for college and career.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I really appreciate this comment. It’s probably true that more than the top say 25% can handle advanced content, but the bottom 1/3 or so can’t. Where and how to separate out is a really tricky question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

There are no allies to be had on the school board. They collude and work in unision behind closed doors. Even if they personally are sympathetic to your cause or issue, they won't go it alone. They will only back what they think a majority of the board will go along with.

This other thread talks about how the school board is in process (unfortunately super-delayed) of reviewing the options for a new middle school ELA curriculum. I'm just a parent, so I don't know much about this, but presumably the choice of new curriculum and the extent to which the chosen curriculum has materials available for differentiation, would be important.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1250259.page

The CKLA curriculum has "Challenge" and "Support" questions throughout the teacher guide, but I think it would be really complicated to use them in mixed-level classes. They seem like they're mostly about adding additional support or challenges to the class discussion as a whole, which would work if classes are separated by level. But in heterogenous classrooms, I can't see it working well/teachers having the time or ability to incorporate both kinds of questions into class on a regular basis. I don't think it's a question of needing a better curriculum, though, I think it's just an inherent tension with having mixed level classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

I think Stewart might be willing to at least start asking the questions, like "Can you show us the MAP-R and ELA MCAP data before and after this change, dis-aggregated by target groups?" and "Did this change lead to the improvements you believed it would?"

Montoya might be willing to ask from the perspective of educators, like "What are you hearing from MS and HS ELA teachers regarding this change?"

Well they don’t have MCAP data from before because it wasn’t administered and did not exist until several years ago.

The bottom line is that we all know scores on the bottom did not improve based on this change. It helps no one and harms many, many students. It’s amazing to me that Hazel and the district think it is acceptable to just let students languish with grade level or below grade level texts until 11th grade with a few crumbs for a select few who win a lottery and take on a commute.

There are many reasons why a student may be below grade level but plopping them next to high achieving peers isn’t going to just rub off on them. Putting my unathletic child on the basketball team isn’t going to turn him into a tall, talented basketball player. Everyone has strengths and gifts in different areas. Let kids learn at the appropriate level and pace.

But PARCC existed, so someone could ask "Did the performance of target groups increase vis-a-vis state norms over the course of this change?"

The reason I am pushing that point is that no MCPS board member is going to advocate FOR gifted/highly able learners. The only way to get the matter discussed is to highlight that the decision did not serve the goal/objectives they said it would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

I think Stewart might be willing to at least start asking the questions, like "Can you show us the MAP-R and ELA MCAP data before and after this change, dis-aggregated by target groups?" and "Did this change lead to the improvements you believed it would?"

Montoya might be willing to ask from the perspective of educators, like "What are you hearing from MS and HS ELA teachers regarding this change?"

Well they don’t have MCAP data from before because it wasn’t administered and did not exist until several years ago.

The bottom line is that we all know scores on the bottom did not improve based on this change. It helps no one and harms many, many students. It’s amazing to me that Hazel and the district think it is acceptable to just let students languish with grade level or below grade level texts until 11th grade with a few crumbs for a select few who win a lottery and take on a commute.

There are many reasons why a student may be below grade level but plopping them next to high achieving peers isn’t going to just rub off on them. Putting my unathletic child on the basketball team isn’t going to turn him into a tall, talented basketball player. Everyone has strengths and gifts in different areas. Let kids learn at the appropriate level and pace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)

I think Stewart might be willing to at least start asking the questions, like "Can you show us the MAP-R and ELA MCAP data before and after this change, dis-aggregated by target groups?" and "Did this change lead to the improvements you believed it would?"

Montoya might be willing to ask from the perspective of educators, like "What are you hearing from MS and HS ELA teachers regarding this change?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A couple of thoughts on advocacy.

First, I know the MCC PTA gifted committee was looking to take this on and wanted parent volunteers.

Second, look for an ally on the school board. This discussion around the Middle School curriculum provides a perfect opportunity to open the conversation. Know what you were advocating for. In this case, the most realistic request is probably an open door policy. Any kid can opt into honors or regular, without any gatekeeping

Ask that ally to officially inquire about whether test scores have gone up for target communities since the advent of honors for all ELA. By now, they should have at least 4 years of data for Middle School, and they will soon have 2 years of data for high school. Basically, did the hypothesis work? I'm guessing no.

This is a good time to be doing the advocacy because there does seem to be some swing back to common sense approaches that meet kids where they are.

Who would be the best board ally for this? Yang and Stewart both seemed pretty interested in this issue/skeptical about the challenges of differentiating in heterogenous classrooms (also the SMOB but obviously that doesn't help much.). Maybe Wolff too although I couldn't entirely tell where she was coming from on this. There might be others who care too but didn't speak about it last week (anyone know?)