Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAQ and links to the "research" they are citing is now up: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/

It mentions amplify coaches. Is anyone able to find out if this is an extra expense?

Those were approved as part of the budget and quote for adopting Amplify before the nonsense about clustered grouping was announced

Anonymous wrote:FAQ and links to the "research" they are citing is now up: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/

It mentions amplify coaches. Is anyone able to find out if this is an extra expense?

Anonymous wrote:Have they said they are planning cluster grouping for both CKLA and math or just math?

For those attending the listening sessions, please find out how long-term substitutes and new teachers hired in late summer (who have not had this specialized professional development) will implement the clustered curriculum. Also, what will the other children be doing when the teacher is teaching the other cluster? What if they finish early? Any answer involving a computer is not acceptable and please point to the research that shows zearn is not working.

Have they said they are planning cluster grouping for both CKLA and math or just math?

Anonymous wrote:FAQ and links to the "research" they are citing is now up: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/

Thanks for sharing. I found the last link on this website to defend their clustering method profoundly different from what MCPS CO shared to BOE:

In this article, it explicitly said:
"In gifted cluster classes, any student may try to demonstrate that he or she has already mastered the upcoming standards and thus participate in the various differentiated tasks planned for gifted students. For advanced learners, however, differentiation is only part of what they need. Effective differentiation must be accompanied by curriculum or lesson compacting, a process of giving students credit for what they already know. Compacting also occurs when advanced students are allowed to work more quickly through grade-level material.

For an approach like this to be successful, students must recognize that they are not doing more work than others, just different work. Students must also understand that their recorded grade will not be lower than it would have been had they completed the regular class work instead of the more challenging work they tackled. Because teachers are required to assess only the grade-level standards—this is what the recorded grade reflects—they can give alternative credit to students who successfully complete extension activities.
"

This is nowhere close to what MCPS CO put in their slides. For the second paragraph, CKLA model 2 is exactly implementing the opposite: enrichment students only get more workloads with zero instruction and zero reward. They often feel been punished for being good at reading/writing.

FAQ and links to the "research" they are citing is now up: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

So why isn't the Banner describing these interactions and pressing MCPS for comment on them?

Maybe ask the reporter this!?

Why do we ask any questions about MCPS on DCUM? Just ask MCPS!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

So why isn't the Banner describing these interactions and pressing MCPS for comment on them?

Maybe ask the reporter this!?

+1 This isn't the Banner--it's DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

Julie is good. It will be a loss when she leaves behind BOE. She had kids in MCPS and knows what it's like, just like Montoya. But it's a failure of oversight---the Board members get paid $25k a year for what should be a full-time job and just rubber stamp the lies from the central office for the most part.

She's not good. She doesn't do what's right but what gets her further. She makes promises she doesn't keep. Its not a full time job.

BOE is not there to make promises. BOE is there to provide oversight to MCPS (and make sure they keep their promises and don't tell lies about what they're doing allegedly to meet requirements that don't exist from the state of Maryland.)

And it's a shame that BOE isn't a full time job, but clearly MCPS doesn't want the oversight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

So why isn't the Banner describing these interactions and pressing MCPS for comment on them?

Maybe ask the reporter this!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

Julie is good. It will be a loss when she leaves behind BOE. She had kids in MCPS and knows what it's like, just like Montoya. But it's a failure of oversight---the Board members get paid $25k a year for what should be a full-time job and just rubber stamp the lies from the central office for the most part.

She's not good. She doesn't do what's right but what gets her further. She makes promises she doesn't keep. Its not a full time job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

Julie is good. It will be a loss when she leaves behind BOE. She had kids in MCPS and knows what it's like, just like Montoya. But it's a failure of oversight---the Board members get paid $25k a year for what should be a full-time job and just rubber stamp the lies from the central office for the most part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

So why isn't the Banner describing these interactions and pressing MCPS for comment on them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Julie had pointed out as well. She even read out the policy citations to point out that MCPS's new design was facing direct violation of the state requirements, but no one gave it a sh*t (except Montoya since she cared it so much because of her daughter in compacted math).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article on this from the Banner:
https://www.thebanner.com/education/k-12-schools/montgomery-county-compacted-math-F4K7W5HXC5DJTKCLXWD7DIGITY/?bis=article-action-link

Why has nobody asked them why they can't improve compacted math instead of eliminating it? Why has nobody pointed out that the state guidance does not prohibit compacted math?

Montoya pointed it out when they were presenting to the BOE. She seemed like the only one who cared about that and Rivera-Oven told her to stop asking the questions.

Sounds about right. Let’s just green light what these PHDs have to say even though these are the same people who got the science of reading wrong for years.