Did anyone attend the Choice survey community meeting yesterday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but, it is not and should not be the job of MCPS to be their parents, to ensure the kids care about their school work, do their hw, etc. Unless MCPS takes every URM kid and parents them, they will never start at the same place.

Life is unfair. Most of us don't come from wealthy families. But, lower income kids whose parents still care about their education can succeed just as equally, no matter the color of their skin.

BTW, I've posted this before, not all URM kids are low income and start far behind in the race. I hope MCPS realizes this when making any changes to the entrance criteria.

And poor kids who picked the wrong parents are just out of luck. Sorry, kids. Life is unfair.

I guess to make life fair, parents of high achieving kids should be made to foster the low achieving kids? How else will be bridge the achievement gap if different kids have different types of parents?

At this point, I think it would be progress if people merely admitted that societal factors actually do affect a person's life and that it doesn't all depend on your own personal motivation, effort, and persistence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are absolutely correct that kids are not educated in a bubble, but MCPS will never actually acknowledge that.

Honestly, it's not just MCPS. So many school administrators from all over the country think this way -- that if the schools/teachers try harder, throw more money at the problem, you can close the achievement gap.

But what's the alternative? No public school administrator can publicly say, "The schools are a reflection of an unjust society, we can't fix that, that's just how it is." -- well, not and keep their job.

Or more accurately, the schools are a reflection of the intelligence and commitment to education of the parents of the students.

No, that is not accurate.

Sure, sure. Everybody is the same! It's just pure blind luck where one is born in this world. Nothing to see here... Move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but, it is not and should not be the job of MCPS to be their parents, to ensure the kids care about their school work, do their hw, etc. Unless MCPS takes every URM kid and parents them, they will never start at the same place.

Life is unfair. Most of us don't come from wealthy families. But, lower income kids whose parents still care about their education can succeed just as equally, no matter the color of their skin.

BTW, I've posted this before, not all URM kids are low income and start far behind in the race. I hope MCPS realizes this when making any changes to the entrance criteria.

And poor kids who picked the wrong parents are just out of luck. Sorry, kids. Life is unfair.

Please. Life is unfair. I tell my kids that all the time. I am a PP who grew up poor with uneducated parents who don't speak English. I know better than most of you how unfair life is to kids. It doesn't mean that we should expect less from them. They have more hurdles to over come, no doubt. But, it doesn't help them later in life if we keep expecting less and less of them.

I have no issues with the district spending more per student in lower income areas, smaller class sizes, more support. But, at the end of the day, they should still be held to the same standards as everyone else in terms of educational standards. It won't help them later in life if we keep lowering the bar for them. Provide them with more support, but don't dumb things down for them. That won't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Life is unfair. I tell my kids that all the time. I am a PP who grew up poor with uneducated parents who don't speak English. I know better than most of you how unfair life is to kids. It doesn't mean that we should expect less from them. They have more hurdles to over come, no doubt. But, it doesn't help them later in life if we keep expecting less and less of them.

I have no issues with the district spending more per student in lower income areas, smaller class sizes, more support. But, at the end of the day, they should still be held to the same standards as everyone else in terms of educational standards. It won't help them later in life if we keep lowering the bar for them. Provide them with more support, but don't dumb things down for them. That won't help.

Who is proposing to dumb things down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, sure. Everybody is the same! It's just pure blind luck where one is born in this world. Nothing to see here... Move along.

Yes, it actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Life is unfair. I tell my kids that all the time. I am a PP who grew up poor with uneducated parents who don't speak English. I know better than most of you how unfair life is to kids. It doesn't mean that we should expect less from them. They have more hurdles to over come, no doubt. But, it doesn't help them later in life if we keep expecting less and less of them.

I have no issues with the district spending more per student in lower income areas, smaller class sizes, more support. But, at the end of the day, they should still be held to the same standards as everyone else in terms of educational standards. It won't help them later in life if we keep lowering the bar for them. Provide them with more support, but don't dumb things down for them. That won't help.

Who is proposing to dumb things down?

One thing that was talked about was changing the admissions criteria to admit more urm. The indirect result is that less qualified students would be admitted compared to now. That, in effect, is dumbing down, or lowering the standards. Also, if some kids are admitted who under today's criteria wouldn't be, it is entirely possible such kids would not be able to keep up with the higher achieving kids in the magnet. I have no doubt that if they admit lesser qualified kids, the district will lower the standards within the magnets to prevent such kids from struggling too much in the magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please. Life is unfair. I tell my kids that all the time. I am a PP who grew up poor with uneducated parents who don't speak English. I know better than most of you how unfair life is to kids. It doesn't mean that we should expect less from them. They have more hurdles to over come, no doubt. But, it doesn't help them later in life if we keep expecting less and less of them.

I have no issues with the district spending more per student in lower income areas, smaller class sizes, more support. But, at the end of the day, they should still be held to the same standards as everyone else in terms of educational standards. It won't help them later in life if we keep lowering the bar for them. Provide them with more support, but don't dumb things down for them. That won't help.

Who is proposing to dumb things down?

One thing that was talked about was changing the admissions criteria to admit more urm. The indirect result is that less qualified students would be admitted compared to now. That, in effect, is dumbing down, or lowering the standards. Also, if some kids are admitted who under today's criteria wouldn't be, it is entirely possible such kids would not be able to keep up with the higher achieving kids in the magnet. I have no doubt that if they admit lesser qualified kids, the district will lower the standards within the magnets to prevent such kids from struggling too much in the magnets.

No, that's your assumption. Your assumption is:

1. The current admissions criteria select the best-qualified students.
2. Therefore, any changes to the admissions criteria will result in the selection of less-qualified students.

(Actually, your underlying assumption is -- it's not possible to admit more poor kids, black kids, or brown kids without lowering the admissions standards.)

[Anonymous]

Where is the proof that the current admission criteria is not selecting the best students. We know it is not selecting a racial diverse set of students that is all we know. Absolutely every metric of student performance shows the same disparities. Need to work on fixing that first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the proof that the current admission criteria is not selecting the best students. We know it is not selecting a racial diverse set of students that is all we know. Absolutely every metric of student performance shows the same disparities. Need to work on fixing that first.

How are we defining "best students", is that the right definition, and where is the proof that the current admission criteria are working to select those "best students", however defined?

[Anonymous]

different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

Good news! Nobody is proposing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

Good news! Nobody is proposing that.

Then what is recommendation 3a? What do you think they are proposing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

Good news! Nobody is proposing that.

Then what is recommendation 3a? What do you think they are proposing?

There is no recommendation 3a. Recommendation 3 is:

Implement modifications to the selection process used for academically competitive programs in MCPS, comprising elementary centers for highly gifted students and secondary magnet programs, to focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, and/or a process that offers automatic admissions to the programs for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district.

And I think that what they're proposing is exactly what they're proposing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

Good news! Nobody is proposing that.

Then what is recommendation 3a? What do you think they are proposing?

There is no recommendation 3a. Recommendation 3 is:

Implement modifications to the selection process used for academically competitive programs in MCPS, comprising elementary centers for highly gifted students and secondary magnet programs, to focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, and/or a process that offers automatic admissions to the programs for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district.

And I think that what they're proposing is exactly what they're proposing.

What do you think the bold part mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:different criteria for different race groups is a direct insult to every race

Good news! Nobody is proposing that.

Then what is recommendation 3a? What do you think they are proposing?

There is no recommendation 3a. Recommendation 3 is:

Implement modifications to the selection process used for academically competitive programs in MCPS, comprising elementary centers for highly gifted students and secondary magnet programs, to focus these programs on selecting equitably from among those applicants that demonstrate a capacity to thrive in the program, that include use of non-cognitive criteria, group-specific norms that benchmark student performance against school peers with comparable backgrounds, and/or a process that offers automatic admissions to the programs for students in the top 5-10% of sending elementary or middle schools in the district.

And I think that what they're proposing is exactly what they're proposing.

What do you think the bold part mean?

Why is it desirable to use non-cognitive criteria in the selection process to a competitive academic program? If the cognitive testing, which has long been in practice imperfect it may be, what could possibly give anyone confidence that the non-cognitive ability can be fairly and accurately assessed?