Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just offer enriched classes at all elementary and middle schools instead? They are already doing that, they just have an unfair and unwieldy regional program on top of it, where they’ve locked away a different curriculum behind a lottery. Why can’t they just pick what they want their enriched curriculum to be (the CES curriculum or ckla/ whatever they use at MS magnet vs whatever they use for enriched social studies) and then offer that at each elementary school and each middle school? This two tiered system is unfair and a mess.

Enrichment curriculum means totally different thing for CES/MS humanity magnet vs. CKLA enrichment. My kids had experienced the former, I've been attending and listening every BOE sessions since this year so am following the CKLA curriculum, and I've read posts here about first-hand user experience, so I think I have enough background knowledge to make a comparison.

CKLA enrichment is about answering a few more open-ended questions (e.g., do you like the title? If not, what title will you give? Do you agree with the author on their conclusions?). That's about it. For MS, it's certainly better than the current MS ELA curriculum in that at least CKLA requires students to read a full book every quarter, and write essays in its entirety. That sounds like bare minimum requirement to a middle schooler, right? But it was only reading chapters and writing paragraphs before. So it should technically be better in local MSs. For ESs, not the case. ELC collected a much better feedback so far.

For CES and MS humanity magnet, they use completely different curriculum, which is project-oriented, and is hence cross-pollinated to several classes. The requirements for writing are much higher standards. At 4th grade, kids are asked to write their own story about a hero they made up, from which they learn to construct personality, environment, and even changing their hero's characters along the story development. In 5th grade, they read Shakespeares (yes the original version with old English). In MS magnet, they will make documentaries which often win state or national recognitions.

For MCPS, CKLA enrichment is what they can easily implement to every ES and MS. Yet, I believe nearly every ES and MS adopt it without differentiation. The CES and MS humanity magnet curriculum requires much more effort in implementation, so they gut it out completely. That's MCPS' way to do enrichment: all stay at a lower level and no differentiation. And that's what they believe the ultimate solution for equity.

That’s a very long way of saying that your kid gets access to a superior curriculum than mine does because yours won a lottery. I’m sure there’s a way to provide advanced/enriched instruction to all the elementary and middle students who qualify in a way that can reasonably be implemented at all schools. These classes are not taught by wizards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just offer enriched classes at all elementary and middle schools instead? They are already doing that, they just have an unfair and unwieldy regional program on top of it, where they’ve locked away a different curriculum behind a lottery. Why can’t they just pick what they want their enriched curriculum to be (the CES curriculum or ckla/ whatever they use at MS magnet vs whatever they use for enriched social studies) and then offer that at each elementary school and each middle school? This two tiered system is unfair and a mess.

Enrichment curriculum means totally different thing for CES/MS humanity magnet vs. CKLA enrichment. My kids had experienced the former, I've been attending and listening every BOE sessions since this year so am following the CKLA curriculum, and I've read posts here about first-hand user experience, so I think I have enough background knowledge to make a comparison.

CKLA enrichment is about answering a few more open-ended questions (e.g., do you like the title? If not, what title will you give? Do you agree with the author on their conclusions?). That's about it. For MS, it's certainly better than the current MS ELA curriculum in that at least CKLA requires students to read a full book every quarter, and write essays in its entirety. That sounds like bare minimum requirement to a middle schooler, right? But it was only reading chapters and writing paragraphs before. So it should technically be better in local MSs. For ESs, not the case. ELC collected a much better feedback so far.

For CES and MS humanity magnet, they use completely different curriculum, which is project-oriented, and is hence cross-pollinated to several classes. The requirements for writing are much higher standards. At 4th grade, kids are asked to write their own story about a hero they made up, from which they learn to construct personality, environment, and even changing their hero's characters along the story development. In 5th grade, they read Shakespeares (yes the original version with old English). In MS magnet, they will make documentaries which often win state or national recognitions.

For MCPS, CKLA enrichment is what they can easily implement to every ES and MS. Yet, I believe nearly every ES and MS adopt it without differentiation. The CES and MS humanity magnet curriculum requires much more effort in implementation, so they gut it out completely. That's MCPS' way to do enrichment: all stay at a lower level and no differentiation. And that's what they believe the ultimate solution for equity.

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just offer enriched classes at all elementary and middle schools instead? They are already doing that, they just have an unfair and unwieldy regional program on top of it, where they’ve locked away a different curriculum behind a lottery. Why can’t they just pick what they want their enriched curriculum to be (the CES curriculum or ckla/ whatever they use at MS magnet vs whatever they use for enriched social studies) and then offer that at each elementary school and each middle school? This two tiered system is unfair and a mess.

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t they just offer enriched classes at all elementary and middle schools instead? They are already doing that, they just have an unfair and unwieldy regional program on top of it, where they’ve locked away a different curriculum behind a lottery. Why can’t they just pick what they want their enriched curriculum to be (the CES curriculum or ckla/ whatever they use at MS magnet vs whatever they use for enriched social studies) and then offer that at each elementary school and each middle school? This two tiered system is unfair and a mess.

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?

I found the job description for director of AEI: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0287-46. Under education requirements it says "Master^s degree in education from an accredited college or university with specialization and course work in curriculum, administration, and education of the gifted. Doctorate degree preferred."

So good on MCPS for putting appropriate qualifications in the job description, but then how did Clark get the job? I'm not seeing any gifted ed courses offered by Capella University (where she got her education administration masters) at all, although that was like 15 years ago so maybe they had some gifted ed classes as part of that masters back then?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have any intel on this, and my kids are past this age. But I’m just SO tired of AEI and MCPS finding every possible way to prevent gifted and above grade level kids from accessing appropriate curricula and programs that meet their needs. It’s as though their goal is to block these children from learning or challenging themselves. It’s super weird and seems honestly pretty toxic and cruel.

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?

I found the job description for director of AEI: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0287-46. Under education requirements it says "Master^s degree in education from an accredited college or university with specialization and course work in curriculum, administration, and education of the gifted. Doctorate degree preferred."

So good on MCPS for putting appropriate qualifications in the job description, but then how did Clark get the job? I'm not seeing any gifted ed courses offered by Capella University (where she got her education administration masters) at all, although that was like 15 years ago so maybe they had some gifted ed classes as part of that masters back then?

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?

I found the job description for director of AEI: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0287-46. Under education requirements it says "Master^s degree in education from an accredited college or university with specialization and course work in curriculum, administration, and education of the gifted. Doctorate degree preferred."

So good on MCPS for putting appropriate qualifications in the job description, but then how did Clark get the job? I'm not seeing any gifted ed courses offered by Capella University (where she got her education administration masters) at all, although that was like 15 years ago so maybe they had some gifted ed classes as part of that masters back then?

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: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?

Reading the 1st post: why does AEI assume kids not passing MCAP is due to the curriculum? They should be reassessing their student selection process (ahem the use of lottery, local norms).

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.

Bitter pill. "completely qualified" by whom? That's rather subjective.

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?