Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elementary Enrichment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Students, parents urge MCPS to keep cohorted enriched‑literacy classes; district to present data

Montgomery County Board of Education · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple student and parent speakers told the Montgomery County Board of Education on June 10 that the cohorted Enriched Literacy Curriculum (ELC) model delivers deeper, fairer instruction than mixed‑ability alternatives; the superintendent agreed to return with data and guidance principals used to decide model adoption.

At a June 10 Montgomery County Board of Education meeting, elementary students and parents asked the district to retain the cohorted Enriched Literacy Curriculum (ELC) model for grades 4–5, saying the 90‑minute, grade‑level cohorts provide more consistent enrichment than mixed‑ability classrooms.

Fourth‑grader Lillian Johnson told the board her class has benefited from ELC and that Model 1 ‘‘puts less pressure on teachers’’ and ensures advanced students are challenged while others receive help. Fifth‑grader Cynthia Vignesh said ELC gave her confidence, arguing that Model 2’s mixed‑ability approach reduces enrichment time and leaves advanced learners ‘‘bored and acting out.’’ Parent Nerissa Johnson said her child and other families relied on the cohort model’s predictable 90‑minute block and warned that letting principals drop the model without clear guidance could create inconsistencies across schools.

The speakers cited capacity and equity concerns: Nerissa Johnson said MCPS faces about 16,000 rising fourth graders and roughly 240 CES (cohorted enrichment) slots at some schools, arguing cohorting helps meet demand equitably without pulling teachers in too many directions.

Superintendent Thomas Taylor told the board staff would prepare and present data and explain the decision process and any guidance given to principals, so the board and public can better understand why some schools chose Model 1 or Model 2. Several board members asked for information on what guidance principals received and whether community feedback was collected at the school level.

The board did not take formal action on the ELC model at the meeting. Instead, members asked staff to return with comparative data, an explanation of principal guidance, and evidence principals used to make their decisions. The board’s next business meeting is scheduled for June 24.