Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Cluster grouping would be a solid approach to shift to in K-3 (well, probably 1-3 since you wouldn't know the rising kindergarteners well enough yet to do it) to move the needle on enrichment in those grades and make things easier on teachers.

But it's a crazy way to try to do math acceleration when you are literally trying to teach entirely different content on an entirely different pace to different groups of kids

My son was in group #1 and the only student in group #1 at 3rd grade. He had an outlier MAP-M score so the result he got was zero instruction of math for the entire 3rd grade. He was given unlimited computer time back when MCPS still held desktops in every class room. That was a pessimistic year for us. We couldn't afford private education. He got saved at 4th grade by CES. Now compacted math is gone, and CES is on the edge to be eliminated in the next few years. I don't know how these "top 5%" truly gifted kids that need acceleration can survive within the enrichment-only framework.

They will survive because families will leave MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:It's also ridiculous to measure this years 5th graders achievements and base anything on that. They were the kids who went to a full year of remote K and then masked 1st grade. They missed so much in their school development and it's still showing. Using their scores to make any new policy is forgetting what we all lived through.

You clearly missed the fact that kids are resilient and aren't impacted by losing time in school s/

It's also ridiculous to measure this years 5th graders achievements and base anything on that. They were the kids who went to a full year of remote K and then masked 1st grade. They missed so much in their school development and it's still showing. Using their scores to make any new policy is forgetting what we all lived through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Cluster grouping would be a solid approach to shift to in K-3 (well, probably 1-3 since you wouldn't know the rising kindergarteners well enough yet to do it) to move the needle on enrichment in those grades and make things easier on teachers.

But it's a crazy way to try to do math acceleration when you are literally trying to teach entirely different content on an entirely different pace to different groups of kids

Interesting doc from Baltimore County which sounds like they do exactly this-- recommend cluster grouping broadly at the elementary level but say that accelerated math in upper elementary needs to be cohorted: https://cdnsm5-ss3.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_2744/File/Advanced%20Academics/2024_Elem_Groupings_Best_Practices.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- do other counties like Howard County still do meaningful differentiation even at younger grades (e.g. before high school?) I don’t think we can move realistically but if we could I would be looking at Howard County elementary schools tonight. I really thought we were making a good choice for our kids when we bought in MOCO but every year it seems to disappoint more for gifted kids.

Would love additional perspective on this. The slide deck makes it seem like they are doing this to align to state requirements to stop “tracking” kids. Just trying to figure out who to direct advocacy/outrage…and if moving to hoco would even help avoid this issue.

The state guidance says that you have to have onramps and offramps, not that you can't have standalone classes. But MCPS already has this. Kids is math 4 can take math 5/6 the next year if they do really well. On the other hand, kids in math 4/5 who don't do well take math 5 the following year. Both of these happened when my kid was in ES.

MCPS is blaming this on the state, but it's what they have been trying to do for a long time. I remember well when they tried to do it just before the pandemic. Parents rallied and saved it. But Taylor seems much savvier than Smith was at the time. He is timing it so they won't have time to create compacted math classes for next year.

How did parents manage to save it then? Like, what was the actual process in getting the changes rolled back?

They flooded central office, the Board of Education, and school principals with calls and emails. They were furious.

Is there any movement this this year? Or is it so late after so much change people are fatigued?

The only way to find out is to do it.

Who at central office should we email.

Also I’m encouraging everyone to make sure those who aren’t here on DCUM or on the GEC listserv get this out to other parents in your neighborhood and your principals and teachers. Many have no idea this is happening. I just talked to a friend who assumed his 3rd grade son would start compacted next year. He was so upset when I told him what was happening.

Yes I think getting the word out about this is hugely important! Here are emails for the BOE and the Superintendent and Central office staff in charge of accelerated/enriched learning.

Let’s flood them with emails.

Graciela_Rivera-oven@mcpsmd.org, Brenda_Wolff@mcpsmd.org, Rita_M_Montoya@mcpsmd.org, Karla_Silvestre@mcpsmd.org, Laura_M_Stewart@mcpsmd.org, Julie_Yang@mcpsmd.org, natalie_zimmerman@mcpsmd.org, Anuva_C_Maloo@mcpsmd.org, thomas_w_taylor@mcpsmd.org, Niki_T_Porter@mcpsmd.org, stephanie_d_brant@mcpsmd.org, sheila_j_berlinger@mcpsmd.org, kristie_l_clark@mcpsmd.org

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Cluster grouping would be a solid approach to shift to in K-3 (well, probably 1-3 since you wouldn't know the rising kindergarteners well enough yet to do it) to move the needle on enrichment in those grades and make things easier on teachers.

But it's a crazy way to try to do math acceleration when you are literally trying to teach entirely different content on an entirely different pace to different groups of kids

My son was in group #1 and the only student in group #1 at 3rd grade. He had an outlier MAP-M score so the result he got was zero instruction of math for the entire 3rd grade. He was given unlimited computer time back when MCPS still held desktops in every class room. That was a pessimistic year for us. We couldn't afford private education. He got saved at 4th grade by CES. Now compacted math is gone, and CES is on the edge to be eliminated in the next few years. I don't know how these "top 5%" truly gifted kids that need acceleration can survive within the enrichment-only framework.

My DD goes to a title 1 school (just saying this for context). It seems to me like they grouped the kids in this fashion where there were a few top students in each class. My DD did fine in the mixed groupings because she got pulled for WIN time and also because she had some teachers that were anti technology. She could tell she was one of the smarter kids in her class.
However, when she got to the cohorted class which started in 4th grade, she knew that most in the class were equally if not more smart than she was. The expectations were much higher and the work more challenging. However there are a fair amount of behaviors even in that class of higher achieving students. I am concerned about that if the classes will no longer be cohorted in 5th. And coming from a title 1 school (that has done fine academically by my child) I worry about middle school and "honors for all" if that kids coming in have the behaviors I am seeing now at the elementary level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Cluster grouping would be a solid approach to shift to in K-3 (well, probably 1-3 since you wouldn't know the rising kindergarteners well enough yet to do it) to move the needle on enrichment in those grades and make things easier on teachers.

But it's a crazy way to try to do math acceleration when you are literally trying to teach entirely different content on an entirely different pace to different groups of kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

Then how is that any different than what happens when grouping kids into compact math? The reality has always been that there needed to be less kids in compacted math. Compacted math isn’t supposed to “skip content” it’s suppose to cover it at the higher level more often because the kids are able to pickup the topics quicker and more easily and don’t require as much repetition. It should have always had depth included.

The reality is for math you either just naturally get it, learn it at whatever prescribed pace, or get some personalized attention such that you are able to move along quicker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Yeah, in theory you can do enrichment for a subset of the class. But you can accelerate a subset without that group finishing the material in February. Then they either twiddle their thumbs for 3 months, or else move on to the next level, and have to spend the next fall doing review?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

No, cluster grouping is a model with a specific approach that spans 4 levels-- no teacher is supposed to both have "very high" and "very low" kids in the same class, but they are explicitly supposed to do classes of either "very high" to "below average" or "above average" to "very low.". https://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/gt/download/pdf/scgm_summary.pdf

However, this model is generally used and recommended to support enrichment, not acceleration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

DP. If that was their goal, they probably shouldn't have made a slide showing teachers with three groups (seemingly out of five). It's possible you're right though, the idea is bad but the presentation was also incompetent.

They actually talked about this in response to a question from Laura Stewart: they admitted that maybe the slide shouldn’t show “groups 1, 4, & 5” in the same class, but it should be something like “2, 4, 5.”

Which just raises the obvious question: why not 3, 4, 5?

I’m finding that a lot of parents of our compacted math class cohort don’t even know about it. My first order of business is to email them to try to get them engaged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get this model. Clustering just seems like groups in the classroom, which teachers already have. The students can change groups based on where they are at any given point. The challenge is that the most advance groups get the least amount of attention.

And without kids moving classrooms or schools moving to a functional model for teachers, how do they expect that students are going to move forward to the next grade level standards in an area? Most teachers don’t have the time or knowledge to provide a) increased depth of math in the current grade level, let alone an understanding of all the standards for say 2-3 grade levels.

And on behalf of the teachers, who is about to be writing all these individual acceleration plans?

I think their goal is to limit the number of levels within a classroom by grouping kids into 6 levels or whatever and then only giving each teacher 2 of them. That seems kind of nonsensical. It's not like by grouping kids they make all the kids within each group the same. It is just lipstick on a pig. And I think they are well, well aware of that.

DP. If that was their goal, they probably shouldn't have made a slide showing teachers with three groups (seemingly out of five). It's possible you're right though, the idea is bad but the presentation was also incompetent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question- do other counties like Howard County still do meaningful differentiation even at younger grades (e.g. before high school?) I don’t think we can move realistically but if we could I would be looking at Howard County elementary schools tonight. I really thought we were making a good choice for our kids when we bought in MOCO but every year it seems to disappoint more for gifted kids.

Would love additional perspective on this. The slide deck makes it seem like they are doing this to align to state requirements to stop “tracking” kids. Just trying to figure out who to direct advocacy/outrage…and if moving to hoco would even help avoid this issue.

The state guidance says that you have to have onramps and offramps, not that you can't have standalone classes. But MCPS already has this. Kids is math 4 can take math 5/6 the next year if they do really well. On the other hand, kids in math 4/5 who don't do well take math 5 the following year. Both of these happened when my kid was in ES.

MCPS is blaming this on the state, but it's what they have been trying to do for a long time. I remember well when they tried to do it just before the pandemic. Parents rallied and saved it. But Taylor seems much savvier than Smith was at the time. He is timing it so they won't have time to create compacted math classes for next year.

How did parents manage to save it then? Like, what was the actual process in getting the changes rolled back?

They flooded central office, the Board of Education, and school principals with calls and emails. They were furious.

Is there any movement this this year? Or is it so late after so much change people are fatigued?

The only way to find out is to do it.

Who at central office should we email.

Also I’m encouraging everyone to make sure those who aren’t here on DCUM or on the GEC listserv get this out to other parents in your neighborhood and your principals and teachers. Many have no idea this is happening. I just talked to a friend who assumed his 3rd grade son would start compacted next year. He was so upset when I told him what was happening.