Anonymous wrote:The only thing accelerating is MCPS’ decline.

100%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What can parents do now? Already emailed the school board.

Other than raise our voices I don't think there's much we can do -- it seems its already decided unless the Board stands up to MCPS which I doubt they'll do

I think if it matters to you, you have to raise your voice AND make it clear to the BOE that this is a voting issue for you. Anyone who wants your vote needs to push back.

Make it clear to Karla Silvestre and to Julie Yang, who are trying to move from BOE to County Council, that they won't be getting your vote (and that you will suggest the same to all your neighbors, etc.) either in next month's primary (early/mail-in voting starting soon -- perhaps before they have to vote on anything related at a Board Business Meeting if MCPS continues to slow-roll this). Those are the only possibly meaningful candidate situations at this point for anyone on the BOE. The others aren't up for re-election for another 2 years or are shoo-ins.

They don't have to vote to approve this. It is an MCPS decision. That said, they can pressure MCPS not to do it, and if they were willing they could publish a Board policy that requires cohorted acceleration in elementary school (which would stop the change.) But it's not like MCPS is going to ask them to vote on it and if they vote it down it doesn't happen.

Not sure what you are suggesting. Sure, they've clearly ceded all direct authority for implementation to Taylor (explicitly stated today, by both Grace and Brenda, I think) . But, as you noted, they could change the policy if they see implementation plans they don't like, or...now, follow me here...or they could do what such a board might to work with the school system through more thorough plan investigation and following expressions of interest in adjustment to better adhere to the community's desires given understanding of current policy such that playing the laborious trump card of policy change might not be needed.

If Julie and Karla aren't willing to do that, they likely aren't fit for the County Council office they seek.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Document Errors: Accelerate Enrich Learn Literacy Math 260507 PPT

Temporal and Logical Inconsistencies

[*] Future Data Reporting: The bar chart on page 21 lists "Fall 2026" MAP Growth Reading results as historical data, despite the presentation being dated May 7, 2026.
[*] Grade 10 Header Duplication: The articulation table on page 14 incorrectly lists "Grade 10" as the header for two separate school years: 2034-35 and 2036-37.
[*] Performance/Selection Contradiction: Page 23 states there is "No significant difference" between Literacy Model 1 and Model 2, yet the data table on page 22 shows Model 2 had positive growth in 4 out of 5 subgroups while Model 1 showed performance declines in all five.

Typographical and Render Errors

[*] Double Conjunction: Page 10 contains the phrase "enrichment and and acceleration services".

Mathematical Errors (Page 5 Chalkboard Graphic)

[*] Incorrect Pi Value: The chalkboard renders the value of Pi as "3.149590......", which is mathematically inaccurate.
[*] Difference of Squares Identity: The graphic incorrectly states "a² + b² = (a-b)(a+b)"; the correct identity for the difference of squares is a² - b².

They have 2nd graders (from another stock graphic -- that one with a happier theme) working on the quadratic equation on the inserted blackboard image to suggest that is typical of the acceleration they want to discard. This from the same group that brought you the melting-faced AI group "Will you abandon them?" (or equivalent phrase) image as propaganda for the Programs/Regions plan.

Especially frustrating when the truth is that 2nd graders typically get zero acceleration or enrichment because it is supposed to be delivered by teachers differentiating in a mixed classroom which in reality almost never happens. So let's expand that to all grades!

Anonymous wrote:
Document Errors: Accelerate Enrich Learn Literacy Math 260507 PPT

Temporal and Logical Inconsistencies

[*] Future Data Reporting: The bar chart on page 21 lists "Fall 2026" MAP Growth Reading results as historical data, despite the presentation being dated May 7, 2026.
[*] Grade 10 Header Duplication: The articulation table on page 14 incorrectly lists "Grade 10" as the header for two separate school years: 2034-35 and 2036-37.
[*] Performance/Selection Contradiction: Page 23 states there is "No significant difference" between Literacy Model 1 and Model 2, yet the data table on page 22 shows Model 2 had positive growth in 4 out of 5 subgroups while Model 1 showed performance declines in all five.

Typographical and Render Errors

[*] Double Conjunction: Page 10 contains the phrase "enrichment and and acceleration services".

Mathematical Errors (Page 5 Chalkboard Graphic)

[*] Incorrect Pi Value: The chalkboard renders the value of Pi as "3.149590......", which is mathematically inaccurate.
[*] Difference of Squares Identity: The graphic incorrectly states "a² + b² = (a-b)(a+b)"; the correct identity for the difference of squares is a² - b².

They have 2nd graders (from another stock graphic -- that one with a happier theme) working on the quadratic equation on the inserted blackboard image to suggest that is typical of the acceleration they want to discard. This from the same group that brought you the melting-faced AI group "Will you abandon them?" (or equivalent phrase) image as propaganda for the Programs/Regions plan.

Taylor is up now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Ms. Montoya -- we need more explicit typing instruction. We did hours of typing when I was an elementary student in the late 80s and early 90s....

I agree with this too. I have no idea why MCPS did away with typing instruction.

Yup... when students are doing slow hunt-and-peck typing, writing long (or even medium or short) writing assignments is slow and painful, and that makes them more likely to cheat and use AI instead.

Even hunt-and-peck is faster than handwriting.

Using keyboards causes increase in fluency. Dedicated typing practice isn't necessary.

Anonymous wrote:over 30 minutes behind schedule.

Still debating computers&phones in school.

And they still have a whole other policy inbetween. The Board members will be tired and apologetic about the meeting running over by the time they get to this subject, and likely to spend less time on comments and questions than they otherwise would. Which is of course exactly why MCPS set up the agenda the way they did.

over 30 minutes behind schedule.

Still debating computers&phones in school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Ms. Montoya -- we need more explicit typing instruction. We did hours of typing when I was an elementary student in the late 80s and early 90s....

I agree with this too. I have no idea why MCPS did away with typing instruction.

Yup... when students are doing slow hunt-and-peck typing, writing long (or even medium or short) writing assignments is slow and painful, and that makes them more likely to cheat and use AI instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Ms. Montoya -- we need more explicit typing instruction. We did hours of typing when I was an elementary student in the late 80s and early 90s....

I agree with this too. I have no idea why MCPS did away with typing instruction.

Do I remember what I learned in 4th grade social studies? Nope. Do I remember how to touch type and have a >100wpm typing rate... yep, and that's all thanks to explicit instruction on those old Apple computers

The only thing accelerating is MCPS’ decline.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Ms. Montoya -- we need more explicit typing instruction. We did hours of typing when I was an elementary student in the late 80s and early 90s....

I agree with this too. I have no idea why MCPS did away with typing instruction.