Serious Answers Only—How to Fix MCPS?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Allow High Schools to leave MCPS


Private school is your answer, there. Don't expect public funding for a local/town enclave in a state where K-12 education administration is delegated to the county level.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:As someone mentioned, split the county up. It’s too big. That’s one of the main problems. Let towns run districts like they do in New England and in addition, find ways to make sure funding is equitable. Town districts in New England are arguably much better, but they also have issues with inequality when property taxes fund schools.

But, if this can be addressed somehow - then MCPS should break up into a bunch of smaller districts. I’d be so happy to support a candidate with this platform.

How does that even happen? Splitting a district? Has it happened anywhere before?


Or build more schools. Some of the high schools have over 2500 kids. That's too many kids in a building. The one downside to a New England type system is that people will game it and schools will become overcrowded as people will move to higher quality districts.

Not sure how to implement a self-governing board under MD law.


The high schools are way too big. Many colleges are the same size.


Why is it relevant how big the colleges are compared to the high schools? Maybe the colleges that are smaller than the high schools are too small?


Basically all research supports smaller schools (once they reach a certain size). That's why.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I know that it's something that has to be addressed by a change in State law, but I agree with those advocating for splitting up the county into 2 or 3 separate school districts instead of one massive one.

And I know they did a study and decided that they couldn't repurpose some of all the empty suburban office spaces around to relieve school overcrowding, but still feels like a wasted opportunity to me.


MCPS is simply too large to be run effectively.

Name another school district that is as large as MCPS that performs well. There are none.


Not that Niche is authoritative, but of the 50 largest districts in the US (~75k students or more), only one (Katy Independent School District in Texas; about 88k, roughly half the size of MCPS, but on a similar scale) gets an A+. However, several, including Fairfax, Loudoun and, yes, MCPS, score As. There's a mixed bag of grades for others.

There are plenty of small districts that get an A+, most with under 10k students, and perhaps a majority of the top 200 or so with only a couple thousand. There are also a [i]ton[/] of small districts that are abject failures.

The question is, though, are there any of those A+ districts that when combined with all the nearby districts to add up to 100k+ students would achieve an A average. In pretty sure there are few or none that would hit the better-than-MCPS A+ mark.

Sure, you could carve off part of Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac and get an A+ district. Not sure where you think that marginal improvement justifies the expense of the overhaul, much less the presumed difficulty generated elsewhere if you'd also be trying to fund the separated districts only from the separated populations.

A much better use of the extra $ a separation would take would be to actually fund MCPS at levels that are requested. That hasn't happened in decades. Just let your Councilmember know you're up for the tax hit, including everything in arrears to get facilities back on track.


MCPS has plenty of money. We spend a large amount of money per pupil. Lack of funds is not the issue. The problem is that MCPS mismanages the money that it has.

No thanks. Not looking for more of my hard-earned money going towards such a corrupt school system with such inept leadership.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.


Obviously she’d never do that with her name attached to her statements. I’m sure she’s the same teacher that’s been posting for at least the last year that kids with special needs should go to segregated classrooms.

But it’s troubling that there are teachers in MCPS with such attitudes and such limited understandings of special needs and supports.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
No, I'm not. I'm specifically suggesting that students on an IEP stay in the general curriculum with non-IEP students. But if a child needs an IEP, then part of that IEP must include supplemental instruction that does not take them out of class during the school day - that's an LRE requirement. MCPS should mandate Saturday supplemental education as part of every IEP. Everything I've suggested is consistent with IDEA.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
No, I'm not. I'm specifically suggesting that students on an IEP stay in the general curriculum with non-IEP students. But if a child needs an IEP, then part of that IEP must include supplemental instruction that does not take them out of class during the school day - that's an LRE requirement. MCPS should mandate Saturday supplemental education as part of every IEP. Everything I've suggested is consistent with IDEA.


Your earlier post specifically called out removing students from the general education classroom if they didn’t improve. Then a later post suggested if a student wouldn’t be capable of transitioning to “normal instruction” (i.e., without supports, apparently) then they shouldn’t be with so-called non-IEP students.

You’ve posted before. Your dislike of neurodivergent students is perfectly clear. Perhaps you’d be better off teaching in private school that doesn’t allow such students to enroll.

You’re also making a series of leaps. Not all students with IEPs require pull outs. Further, some level of pull-outs, say, for speech therapy, are not unreasonable to expect general education teachers to be able to work around— students get pulled out for a variety of reasons, and this is simply one more. You’re also making a huge leap that Saturday services would be either necessary or sufficient. Some wouldn’t need it at all. For others, once-a-week wouldn’t be enough, and during or after-school services throughout the week would be more appropriate.

Your tone and emphasis on Saturday servivdes as a “mandatory” provision suggests this is intended as as some kind of disincentive, which is entirely counterproductive.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
No, I'm not. I'm specifically suggesting that students on an IEP stay in the general curriculum with non-IEP students. But if a child needs an IEP, then part of that IEP must include supplemental instruction that does not take them out of class during the school day - that's an LRE requirement. MCPS should mandate Saturday supplemental education as part of every IEP. Everything I've suggested is consistent with IDEA.


Your earlier post specifically called out removing students from the general education classroom if they didn’t improve. Then a later post suggested if a student wouldn’t be capable of transitioning to “normal instruction” (i.e., without supports, apparently) then they shouldn’t be with so-called non-IEP students.

You’ve posted before. Your dislike of neurodivergent students is perfectly clear. Perhaps you’d be better off teaching in private school that doesn’t allow such students to enroll.

You’re also making a series of leaps. Not all students with IEPs require pull outs. Further, some level of pull-outs, say, for speech therapy, are not unreasonable to expect general education teachers to be able to work around— students get pulled out for a variety of reasons, and this is simply one more. You’re also making a huge leap that Saturday services would be either necessary or sufficient. Some wouldn’t need it at all. For others, once-a-week wouldn’t be enough, and during or after-school services throughout the week would be more appropriate.

Your tone and emphasis on Saturday servivdes as a “mandatory” provision suggests this is intended as as some kind of disincentive, which is entirely counterproductive.

Some of your criticisms may be correct. Probably some of my suggestions do need to be refined to comply with IDEA. I'm NOT motivated by dislike of anyone. I'm motivated by seeing a system where resources get allocated to the squeaky-ist parents. Fwiw I'm ND myself.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is an important law with important protections. But the way it's implemented in MCPS leaves the door open for abuse. And yes, a disincentive for abuse should be built in.

Readers may be wondering why a parent in the know would want to get an IEP for their child. Well check out this HS internship program which is only open to students with an IEP. Sure, I'd like to get my kid a premium internship on their college apps too. https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/special-education/ecip---brochure.pdf

Or other college counseling
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/programs-services/transition-services-unit/
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
No, I'm not. I'm specifically suggesting that students on an IEP stay in the general curriculum with non-IEP students. But if a child needs an IEP, then part of that IEP must include supplemental instruction that does not take them out of class during the school day - that's an LRE requirement. MCPS should mandate Saturday supplemental education as part of every IEP. Everything I've suggested is consistent with IDEA.

Cute.

You'd be singing a different song if you had a kid with special needs. We scrimped and saved (and staycationed for 10 years) because all our money went into a laundry list of saturday therapy sessions. There was no f-ing way we couldn't have done saturday school as well - and MCPS is not set up to do most of the therapy many special needs kids need.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Offer parents supplemental support for special needs and behavioral problems OUTSIDE of the regular school day, like a Saturday class. While their kids are participating in the supplemental class, they stay in the regular core curriculum during the school day. Create separate curriculums for students that don't improve with supplemental support or decline supplemental support. Place double or triple staff in those special curriculum classes. Increase number of students per teacher in the core curriculum classes to free up staffing.

I think this will lead many parents of kids with mild deficiencies to think twice before claiming an iep, leading to more resources available for students that need it more. It will also incentivize parents who don't generally pay attention to their kids education, both by giving them a clear threat (your kid will move class) and a clear goal (improve behavior/learning). And it will give them help to improve.

Many parents may balk at this because of the extra time requirement placed on them or their kids. Well, they can choose to send their kids to the special curriculum and keep their time.


They already offer this. Saturday School. Been around for years and it’s free. Has not made a difference in outcomes.
Great. The second part of my suggestion is to mandate it for any child on an IEP or with behavioral issues, as a requirement for staying in the core curriculum classes. The third part is to create special curriculum classes for students who decline Saturday supplement or don't improve.

The point is to discourage parents from abusing the iep system, and also incentivize parents (and students) who aren't otherwise actively involved or refuse to even try to improve.


Not all kids with ieps have behavioral or academic concerns and Saturday school is a good idea but not the fix.
True, there are students with physical disabilities. All students should be helped, but the goal should be to transition to normal instruction in the core curriculum, not permanent special instruction until they graduate. If a student can't resume core curriculum without special instruction, they will be best served in a special curriculum class.

I realize that's probably not a popular opinion in this forum, filled with worried iep parents looking for ideas, but the silent majority of NT students need to speak up because our classroom instruction is being overwhelmed with administrative iep legal requirements. And no disincentive to claim any iep.


If you want this you need to go advocate for watering down the IDEA. By all means, speak up, please.
There's no need to water down any protections for individuals with disabilities. The problem is with how it's implemented, which has no disincentive for parents to seek IEP for any learning deficit. We're allowing a few parents to game the system and draw resources away from the kids with disabilities that IDEA was meant to protect.


You’re obviously arguing against inclusive classrooms, which is a a fundamental component of IDEA’s requirement to educate kids by bringing in services/supports into the least restrictive environment.
No, I'm not. I'm specifically suggesting that students on an IEP stay in the general curriculum with non-IEP students. But if a child needs an IEP, then part of that IEP must include supplemental instruction that does not take them out of class during the school day - that's an LRE requirement. MCPS should mandate Saturday supplemental education as part of every IEP. Everything I've suggested is consistent with IDEA.

Cute.

You'd be singing a different song if you had a kid with special needs. We scrimped and saved (and staycationed for 10 years) because all our money went into a laundry list of saturday therapy sessions. There was no f-ing way we couldn't have done saturday school as well - and MCPS is not set up to do most of the therapy many special needs kids need.


We did multiple therapies during the week. By Saturday we were exhausted. And, not all kids have academic issues. Ours didn't. Academic needs were fine. It was other issues.

Our school put all IEP kids in one classroom with a watered down curriculum. We had to fight hard the following year to make sure our child was not placed in it and the only way they allowed that was because we dropped the IEP as it was the only way out. MCPS fails so many kids.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I know that it's something that has to be addressed by a change in State law, but I agree with those advocating for splitting up the county into 2 or 3 separate school districts instead of one massive one.

And I know they did a study and decided that they couldn't repurpose some of all the empty suburban office spaces around to relieve school overcrowding, but still feels like a wasted opportunity to me.


MCPS is simply too large to be run effectively.

Name another school district that is as large as MCPS that performs well. There are none.


Making it smaller wouldn't change anything. It performs very well for people who value education but not so much for people who expect the county to raise their kids.


After way too many years reading DCUM, I've decided that the definition of "People who value education" on DCUM is "People who do what I do", and the definition of "People who don't value education" on DCUM is "People who do something different from what I do". Oddly, those are also the definitions of "Involved parent" and "Uninvolved parent", respectively. And also the definitions of "Parenting" and "Expecting others to do the parenting for them," respectively.

*I don't mean I, me, personally. I mean "I" from the perspective of the person who is using these phrases while posting.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I know that it's something that has to be addressed by a change in State law, but I agree with those advocating for splitting up the county into 2 or 3 separate school districts instead of one massive one.

And I know they did a study and decided that they couldn't repurpose some of all the empty suburban office spaces around to relieve school overcrowding, but still feels like a wasted opportunity to me.


MCPS is simply too large to be run effectively.

Name another school district that is as large as MCPS that performs well. There are none.


Not that Niche is authoritative, but of the 50 largest districts in the US (~75k students or more), only one (Katy Independent School District in Texas; about 88k, roughly half the size of MCPS, but on a similar scale) gets an A+. However, several, including Fairfax, Loudoun and, yes, MCPS, score As. There's a mixed bag of grades for others.

There are plenty of small districts that get an A+, most with under 10k students, and perhaps a majority of the top 200 or so with only a couple thousand. There are also a [i]ton[/] of small districts that are abject failures.

The question is, though, are there any of those A+ districts that when combined with all the nearby districts to add up to 100k+ students would achieve an A average. In pretty sure there are few or none that would hit the better-than-MCPS A+ mark.

Sure, you could carve off part of Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac and get an A+ district. Not sure where you think that marginal improvement justifies the expense of the overhaul, much less the presumed difficulty generated elsewhere if you'd also be trying to fund the separated districts only from the separated populations.

A much better use of the extra $ a separation would take would be to actually fund MCPS at levels that are requested. That hasn't happened in decades. Just let your Councilmember know you're up for the tax hit, including everything in arrears to get facilities back on track.


MCPS has plenty of money. We spend a large amount of money per pupil. Lack of funds is not the issue. The problem is that MCPS mismanages the money that it has.

No thanks. Not looking for more of my hard-earned money going towards such a corrupt school system with such inept leadership.


You both are right. MCPS is corrupt as hell (see operating budget point below) but it also faces a demographic baby boom burden - since everything but 10% goes to pensions and healthcare it likely sends more money to South Carolina (where large swath of retiree MCPS teachers relocated) than to Larlo in Kindergarten 2 at College Gardens Elementary.

The salaries are too high compared to all but Fairfax but at least a kid enrolled in an MCPS school today benefits from this expenditure. The rest of it funds a Red state. (MCPS budget 3.1 billion).

The operating budget is another 1.6 billion but that’s to keep lights on for all the schools (as well as the place where the vast corrupt deals are- promethium boards, bus camera contracts, HVAC upgrades and who knows what other no bid contracts over the years).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I know that it's something that has to be addressed by a change in State law, but I agree with those advocating for splitting up the county into 2 or 3 separate school districts instead of one massive one.

And I know they did a study and decided that they couldn't repurpose some of all the empty suburban office spaces around to relieve school overcrowding, but still feels like a wasted opportunity to me.


MCPS is simply too large to be run effectively.

Name another school district that is as large as MCPS that performs well. There are none.


Not that Niche is authoritative, but of the 50 largest districts in the US (~75k students or more), only one (Katy Independent School District in Texas; about 88k, roughly half the size of MCPS, but on a similar scale) gets an A+. However, several, including Fairfax, Loudoun and, yes, MCPS, score As. There's a mixed bag of grades for others.

There are plenty of small districts that get an A+, most with under 10k students, and perhaps a majority of the top 200 or so with only a couple thousand. There are also a [i]ton[/] of small districts that are abject failures.

The question is, though, are there any of those A+ districts that when combined with all the nearby districts to add up to 100k+ students would achieve an A average. In pretty sure there are few or none that would hit the better-than-MCPS A+ mark.

Sure, you could carve off part of Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac and get an A+ district. Not sure where you think that marginal improvement justifies the expense of the overhaul, much less the presumed difficulty generated elsewhere if you'd also be trying to fund the separated districts only from the separated populations.

A much better use of the extra $ a separation would take would be to actually fund MCPS at levels that are requested. That hasn't happened in decades. Just let your Councilmember know you're up for the tax hit, including everything in arrears to get facilities back on track.


MCPS has plenty of money. We spend a large amount of money per pupil. Lack of funds is not the issue. The problem is that MCPS mismanages the money that it has.

No thanks. Not looking for more of my hard-earned money going towards such a corrupt school system with such inept leadership.


You both are right. MCPS is corrupt as hell (see operating budget point below) but it also faces a demographic baby boom burden - since everything but 10% goes to pensions and healthcare it likely sends more money to South Carolina (where large swath of retiree MCPS teachers relocated) than to Larlo in Kindergarten 2 at College Gardens Elementary.

The salaries are too high compared to all but Fairfax but at least a kid enrolled in an MCPS school today benefits from this expenditure. The rest of it funds a Red state. (MCPS budget 3.1 billion).

The operating budget is another 1.6 billion but that’s to keep lights on for all the schools (as well as the place where the vast corrupt deals are- promethium boards, bus camera contracts, HVAC upgrades and who knows what other no bid contracts over the years).


The operating budget is $3.1 billion, it's Promethean boards, and somehow your information generally seems unreliable.
Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Go to: