This ES is BS.

Anonymous wrote:ES = Exceeds Standards

Wrong-ES is exceptional at the grade level standard.

ES = Exceeds Standards

"Exceptional at the grade-level standard"

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear if you are in Kindergarten there are no ES grades, P is the highest. Its only in first grade and beyond that ES can be given.

What does the ES stand for?

correcton: DOESN'T mean the charitable organization is failing.

Anonymous wrote:Students can only earn a P with the new system and Teachers can only deliver "on grade" level subject material to all students in one classroom under curriculum 2.0. The strategic goal is to close the acheivement gap.

I am another 'old' teacher here who "used to teach". I said years ago that the only way MCPS was going to successfully close the achievement gap is to a) eliminate the scores of the lowest performing students from being counted (i.e take as many kids w/ IEPs that you can justify out of diploma track ASAP or frustrate the parents of kids with IEPs so much so that they throw their hands up and go private or send them to private at public expense) b) slow down the ever accelerating progress of the the ever increasing number of very high performing students (which would work in 2 ways: either thru brain drain to privates or by actually retarding their academic performance) or fastest way, c) both.

The sad truth is that the achievement gap is not something whose sole cause is underperforming schools and thus, the sole fix is not to improve the schools. It is a problem that stems from larger issues in society and it will persist until those problems are solved. Its like the lofty of goal of 'eliminating poverty'. A charitable organization can take a group of families and provide them with myriad supports, interventions, education, material goods, even money, all of which certainly helps and are good things when done properly, but that does not eliminate poverty. The fact that poverty persists does mean that the charitable organization is a failing. The achievement gap represents poverty of some kind, be it economic, social, cultural, psychological, etc. The schools are downstream from the problem.

Reading these posts makes me so concerned. What I see is a new system for the sake of a new system -- it isn't well thought out, it isn't really ready to be rolled out and the teachers don't all understand (and can't adequately explain) the grading system. Hard to see it as anything other that a new scheme to make everyone "equal" by eliminating pathways to excel. Imagine how kids in MCPS could have benefited if the system focused on raising the level of the kids who are struggling. This just makes everyone look the same on paper so that the county can feel equitable. This hurts kids at the top and bottom of the spectrum in MCPS. What a shame.

+1 The goal should not be to hide the achievement gap, it should be to provide an appropriate education for all children.

This means providing more resources to kids at the bottom to raise their level not falsely lower the top. I would argue that this new system disadvantages the bottom and middle children more than the higher level kids. The higher level kids are either uniquely talented or have parents that will continue to supplement their education at home. The middle kids are being taught that its OK not to challenge yourself and there is no incentive to do this anyway. They will glide along and not achieve their potential. The kids at the bottom are not getting more resources to help them overcome their learning challenges. They are simply getting a fake assessment systems that institutionalizes the idea that they can't do better.

This is all very wrong.

The new curriculum 2.0 (with no acceleration and advancement) and new grading system is designed to close the achievement gap. If the MCPS leadership can do this (with whatever numbers they can conjure) they all get a raise and promotion. The new policy is purely self-serving.

It's not about the students, stupid.

Just to be clear if you are in Kindergarten there are no ES grades, P is the highest. Its only in first grade and beyond that ES can be given.

Anonymous wrote:DD's second grade class is already broken into three different math groups. They rotate through independent work, math games and small group instruction with the teacher. They do differentiated work. For example, on the same game, one group was working on tens and ones, another group hundreds, tens and ones, and the third group thousands, hundreds, tens and ones.
Are others not getting differentiated math work?

In our school, yes, there are smaller ability-based groups for math. However, the highest level math group still has to do the on-grade math just like the lowest level group does. They may move faster, but then they just get a few more problems to work through...but they don't get to work on the next level concept until the entire class is ready to move on. In my opinion, this makes the small-group-differentiation virtually meaningless.

Reading these posts makes me so concerned. What I see is a new system for the sake of a new system -- it isn't well thought out, it isn't really ready to be rolled out and the teachers don't all understand (and can't adequately explain) the grading system. Hard to see it as anything other that a new scheme to make everyone "equal" by eliminating pathways to excel. Imagine how kids in MCPS could have benefited if the system focused on raising the level of the kids who are struggling. This just makes everyone look the same on paper so that the county can feel equitable. This hurts kids at the top and bottom of the spectrum in MCPS. What a shame.

This seems to depend on the school. Our ES continues to differentiate for reading (groups stay in the class) and math (entire grade is grouped and switches teachers for math, if necessary) We also accelerate a small group of students (who are working more than one year ahead) for math.

DD's second grade class is already broken into three different math groups. They rotate through independent work, math games and small group instruction with the teacher. They do differentiated work. For example, on the same game, one group was working on tens and ones, another group hundreds, tens and ones, and the third group thousands, hundreds, tens and ones.
Are others not getting differentiated math work?