Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the head of AEI, Kristie Clark, has told parents that they are planning to get rid of the current rigorous/advanced humanities curriculum at the middle school magnets and just switch to CKLA (with "enrichment") starting next year (apparently in part because not all of the magnet kids are passing their MCAPs and they think it's because of the current curriculum?)

And then this is just speculation, but reading the tea leaves, I would assume they will roll this approach out to CESes next. And maybe to regular middle schools in place of HiGH too (I think they would have to revise HiGH anyway to meet the new state standards, so I suspect they will just drop it for on-level SS and instead do "enriched" English through CKLA.)

1) Why are they so obsessed with using the on-level CKLA for kids who need enrichment? It seems like a big downgrade at the ES level-- I have heard complaints that kids who loved ELC in 4th have been very disappointed with CKLA in 5th even when cohorted. Is this the typical perception and if so is there a way to come together to communicate that kids, parents, and teachers think that using CKLA in place of a truly enriched curriculum is a bad approach that they should roll back in ES rather than expand to MS?
2). Who is this Kristie Clark person? What is her background? Did she actually study gifted education (I don't see any indication of that) and if so how can she think this is a good plan for gifted kids? Or if she doesn't have a background in gifted education, why is she in charge of the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction office and able to make these decisions?

I think this is the right Kristie Clark? https://www.instagram.com/principalkclark?igsh=M21nYjc1cmhib3o4
https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/kristie-clark-b893956

Looks like she has a bachelors in Information Systems & Decision Science, a masters in Software Engineering, and a masters in Education Administration & Supervision, so I doubt there was time for many if any courses on gifted education in there. Her background in gifted education might just bei that she was principal of an elementary school in PG County for a few years that had a gifted program? Is that really all it takes to be the person in charge of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction for the entire district?

There are tons of masters and certificate programs in gifted education (see here for MD alone: https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/Gifted-Talented/grad-programs.aspx) Shouldn't the folks in charge of gifted education for the whole school district have to have that kind of background, or the equivalent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the head of AEI, Kristie Clark, has told parents that they are planning to get rid of the current rigorous/advanced humanities curriculum at the middle school magnets and just switch to CKLA (with "enrichment") starting next year (apparently in part because not all of the magnet kids are passing their MCAPs and they think it's because of the current curriculum?)

And then this is just speculation, but reading the tea leaves, I would assume they will roll this approach out to CESes next. And maybe to regular middle schools in place of HiGH too (I think they would have to revise HiGH anyway to meet the new state standards, so I suspect they will just drop it for on-level SS and instead do "enriched" English through CKLA.)

1) Why are they so obsessed with using the on-level CKLA for kids who need enrichment? It seems like a big downgrade at the ES level-- I have heard complaints that kids who loved ELC in 4th have been very disappointed with CKLA in 5th even when cohorted. Is this the typical perception and if so is there a way to come together to communicate that kids, parents, and teachers think that using CKLA in place of a truly enriched curriculum is a bad approach that they should roll back in ES rather than expand to MS?
2). Who is this Kristie Clark person? What is her background? Did she actually study gifted education (I don't see any indication of that) and if so how can she think this is a good plan for gifted kids? Or if she doesn't have a background in gifted education, why is she in charge of the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction office and able to make these decisions?

I think this is the right Kristie Clark? https://www.instagram.com/principalkclark?igsh=M21nYjc1cmhib3o4
https://www.linkedin.com/mwlite/profile/in/kristie-clark-b893956

Looks like she has a bachelors in Information Systems & Decision Science, a masters in Software Engineering, and a masters in Education Administration & Supervision, so I doubt there was time for many if any courses on gifted education in there. Her background in gifted education might just bei that she was principal of an elementary school in PG County for a few years that had a gifted program? Is that really all it takes to be the person in charge of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction for the entire district?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. As a parents of kids who completely qualified and would have thrived at a CES or MS magnet, I am tired of paying for other kids to get what my kids need, while my kids are ignored. Without magnets there will be more high achievers at my schools.

+1. They could do pull outs for advanced kids at their home schools for far cheaper than what they’re doing for a few lucky kids who get into CES.

If I can't have it, no one can.

Wait what? That is ridiculous. I have a kid who got a spot at a CES and we turned it down for a variety of reasons. We’ve generally said we don’t plan to allow our child to go to a magnet because they would really struggle with the bussing situation (it’s FAR for us). Kids absolutely shouldn’t have to 1) get lucky 2) be up for a long bus ride and 3) be fine starting over socially to get advanced instruction. The emphasis on the magnets is a huge distraction from the legal requirement to provide enrichment to all kids. If the magnet programs are good, fine keep them but there should be a STRONG home school equivalent, which it sounds like there is not, at all.

I believe that PP is just using sarcasm. But seriously, whoever believes gutting magnet programs is equivalent to boosting local school enrichment opportunities is beyond naiveness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. As a parents of kids who completely qualified and would have thrived at a CES or MS magnet, I am tired of paying for other kids to get what my kids need, while my kids are ignored. Without magnets there will be more high achievers at my schools.

+1. They could do pull outs for advanced kids at their home schools for far cheaper than what they’re doing for a few lucky kids who get into CES.

If I can't have it, no one can.

Wait what? That is ridiculous. I have a kid who got a spot at a CES and we turned it down for a variety of reasons. We’ve generally said we don’t plan to allow our child to go to a magnet because they would really struggle with the bussing situation (it’s FAR for us). Kids absolutely shouldn’t have to 1) get lucky 2) be up for a long bus ride and 3) be fine starting over socially to get advanced instruction. The emphasis on the magnets is a huge distraction from the legal requirement to provide enrichment to all kids. If the magnet programs are good, fine keep them but there should be a STRONG home school equivalent, which it sounds like there is not, at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. As a parents of kids who completely qualified and would have thrived at a CES or MS magnet, I am tired of paying for other kids to get what my kids need, while my kids are ignored. Without magnets there will be more high achievers at my schools.

+1. They could do pull outs for advanced kids at their home schools for far cheaper than what they’re doing for a few lucky kids who get into CES.

If I can't have it, no one can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. As a parents of kids who completely qualified and would have thrived at a CES or MS magnet, I am tired of paying for other kids to get what my kids need, while my kids are ignored. Without magnets there will be more high achievers at my schools.

+1. They could do pull outs for advanced kids at their home schools for far cheaper than what they’re doing for a few lucky kids who get into CES.

Anonymous wrote:Good. As a parents of kids who completely qualified and would have thrived at a CES or MS magnet, I am tired of paying for other kids to get what my kids need, while my kids are ignored. Without magnets there will be more high achievers at my schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the head of AEI, Kristie Clark, has told parents that they are planning to get rid of the current rigorous/advanced humanities curriculum at the middle school magnets and just switch to CKLA (with "enrichment") starting next year (apparently in part because not all of the magnet kids are passing their MCAPs and they think it's because of the current curriculum?)

And then this is just speculation, but reading the tea leaves, I would assume they will roll this approach out to CESes next. And maybe to regular middle schools in place of HiGH too (I think they would have to revise HiGH anyway to meet the new state standards, so I suspect they will just drop it for on-level SS and instead do "enriched" English through CKLA.)

1) Why are they so obsessed with using the on-level CKLA for kids who need enrichment? It seems like a big downgrade at the ES level-- I have heard complaints that kids who loved ELC in 4th have been very disappointed with CKLA in 5th even when cohorted. Is this the typical perception and if so is there a way to come together to communicate that kids, parents, and teachers think that using CKLA in place of a truly enriched curriculum is a bad approach that they should roll back in ES rather than expand to MS?
2). Who is this Kristie Clark person? What is her background? Did she actually study gifted education (I don't see any indication of that) and if so how can she think this is a good plan for gifted kids? Or if she doesn't have a background in gifted education, why is she in charge of the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction office and able to make these decisions?

Wow, this is basically saying all CES and MS humanity magnet programs are going to be eliminated, right? Where did you get the source, OP? This is some big and unsettling change.

It was on the listserv for the gifted committee of the MCCPTA this weekend. There wasn't anything said about them not continuing as magnets, just that the curriculum would be watered down.

To be clear there was nothing said at all about CES as far as I know-- that is entirely my personal speculation. (But "switching the middle school humanities magnet curriculum from a specialized one designed for gifted kids to the on-level CKLA with enrichment" plus "switching 4th and 5th graders at local schools from the specialized ELC curriculum designed for gifted kids to the on-level CKLA with enrichment" certainly points in that direction to me...)

If you don't mind, could you post the email you mentioned here?

I don't feel comfortable sharing the email without permission of the writer, but apparently there is a public "action alert" on this in progress that should be ready to be shared soon and I will link or copy it here when it's done.

Here is the action alert: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vAnyPLxfh0vR9JMncj3SlqpM6R3N6JDYVx_-Y9Z2qtk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the head of AEI, Kristie Clark, has told parents that they are planning to get rid of the current rigorous/advanced humanities curriculum at the middle school magnets and just switch to CKLA (with "enrichment") starting next year (apparently in part because not all of the magnet kids are passing their MCAPs and they think it's because of the current curriculum?)

And then this is just speculation, but reading the tea leaves, I would assume they will roll this approach out to CESes next. And maybe to regular middle schools in place of HiGH too (I think they would have to revise HiGH anyway to meet the new state standards, so I suspect they will just drop it for on-level SS and instead do "enriched" English through CKLA.)

1) Why are they so obsessed with using the on-level CKLA for kids who need enrichment? It seems like a big downgrade at the ES level-- I have heard complaints that kids who loved ELC in 4th have been very disappointed with CKLA in 5th even when cohorted. Is this the typical perception and if so is there a way to come together to communicate that kids, parents, and teachers think that using CKLA in place of a truly enriched curriculum is a bad approach that they should roll back in ES rather than expand to MS?
2). Who is this Kristie Clark person? What is her background? Did she actually study gifted education (I don't see any indication of that) and if so how can she think this is a good plan for gifted kids? Or if she doesn't have a background in gifted education, why is she in charge of the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction office and able to make these decisions?

Wow, this is basically saying all CES and MS humanity magnet programs are going to be eliminated, right? Where did you get the source, OP? This is some big and unsettling change.

It was on the listserv for the gifted committee of the MCCPTA this weekend. There wasn't anything said about them not continuing as magnets, just that the curriculum would be watered down.

To be clear there was nothing said at all about CES as far as I know-- that is entirely my personal speculation. (But "switching the middle school humanities magnet curriculum from a specialized one designed for gifted kids to the on-level CKLA with enrichment" plus "switching 4th and 5th graders at local schools from the specialized ELC curriculum designed for gifted kids to the on-level CKLA with enrichment" certainly points in that direction to me...)

If you don't mind, could you post the email you mentioned here?

I don't feel comfortable sharing the email without permission of the writer, but apparently there is a public "action alert" on this in progress that should be ready to be shared soon and I will link or copy it here when it's done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re changing the Eastern magnet, what does that mean for CAP at Blair? Will they change that too?

CAP will remain for the new Region 1 as an application program, so far.

They have it as an interest-based communications regional program. The criteria-based regional humanities program will be at BCC (alongside the criteria-based regional IB program.)

Do you have a link to that information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re changing the Eastern magnet, what does that mean for CAP at Blair? Will they change that too?

CAP will remain for the new Region 1 as an application program, so far.

They have it as an interest-based communications regional program. The criteria-based regional humanities program will be at BCC (alongside the criteria-based regional IB program.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the head of AEI, Kristie Clark, has told parents that they are planning to get rid of the current rigorous/advanced humanities curriculum at the middle school magnets and just switch to CKLA (with "enrichment") starting next year (apparently in part because not all of the magnet kids are passing their MCAPs and they think it's because of the current curriculum?)

And then this is just speculation, but reading the tea leaves, I would assume they will roll this approach out to CESes next. And maybe to regular middle schools in place of HiGH too (I think they would have to revise HiGH anyway to meet the new state standards, so I suspect they will just drop it for on-level SS and instead do "enriched" English through CKLA.)

1) Why are they so obsessed with using the on-level CKLA for kids who need enrichment? It seems like a big downgrade at the ES level-- I have heard complaints that kids who loved ELC in 4th have been very disappointed with CKLA in 5th even when cohorted. Is this the typical perception and if so is there a way to come together to communicate that kids, parents, and teachers think that using CKLA in place of a truly enriched curriculum is a bad approach that they should roll back in ES rather than expand to MS?

My kid LOVED ELC in 4th, and really didn't like CKLA in 5th. Got into the Humanities magnet but didn't want the long commute and humanities only focus as DC is an all rounder and enjoys STEM. Is happy with the home MS but CKLA in 6th seems to be the same - slower pace, at least yet, not a lot of writing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they’re changing the Eastern magnet, what does that mean for CAP at Blair? Will they change that too?

CAP will remain for the new Region 1 as an application program, so far.