Is MCPS Superintendent Starr stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools of Educations are liberal indoctrination factories where it is taught that reducing inequality, the gap between high and low achievers, is more important than teaching each student to their level or aggregate performance. Superintendent Starr is a product of this system. Rest assured if you are unsatisfied with the results, it is because you are a racist who does not want your white child taught alongside children of color, or because your white privilege cannot understand the societal need for your child to make sacrifices for the greater good of reducing inequality.

And of course this post shows exactly how objectively you look at all sides of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Proficient not excellence is the goal. It's so sad. I feel like listening to Starr is akin to what must have been like back in the day to listening to Eastern Bloc pols.

since when does proficient not mean excellence?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert; an adept.
[Latin prficins, prficient-, present participle of prficere, to make progress; see profit.]
pro·ficient·ly adv.
Synonyms: proficient, adept, skilled, skillful, expert
These adjectives mean having or showing knowledge, ability, or skill, as in a profession or field of study. Proficient implies an advanced degree of competence acquired through training

[Anonymous]

Then clearly enlighten me, guru.

And am I correct in claiming you are NOT in the field?

Anonymous wrote: Clearly you have no understanding of public policy. I am not going to argue with you. And I am not going to be rude either.

My point on the ed school types being uniquely powerful on how our children are taught is not even controvesial in education policy circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools of Educations are liberal indoctrination factories where it is taught that reducing inequality, the gap between high and low achievers, is more important than teaching each student to their level or aggregate performance. Superintendent Starr is a product of this system. Rest assured if you are unsatisfied with the results, it is because you are a racist who does not want your white child taught alongside children of color, or because your white privilege cannot understand the societal need for your child to make sacrifices for the greater good of reducing inequality.

All high achieving students are not white.

Very true, but outliers are never to be considered or analyzed because according to Progressive ideology everything is the product of group power dynamics as opposed to individual attitudes effort ect.. Also note that Asians are counted as White (if not more White than White people) under the Progressive Racial Classification System.

WTH does this mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Policies that don't group kids according to ability. Ones that lets the top kids languish as they will do fine on tests anyway. Bringing up the bottom to the exclusion of meeting the needs of everyone else.

exactly where is the proof that this is happening?? I've yet to see any real evidence except for ancedotal comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Policies that don't group kids according to ability. Ones that lets the top kids languish as they will do fine on tests anyway. Bringing up the bottom to the exclusion of meeting the needs of everyone else.

exactly where is the proof that this is happening?? I've yet to see any real evidence except for ancedotal comments.

That is because it is impossible to show this by data collected by the school district. The assessments and teaching are at a low level that the top kids will always do well whether they are taught or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Policies that don't group kids according to ability. Ones that lets the top kids languish as they will do fine on tests anyway. Bringing up the bottom to the exclusion of meeting the needs of everyone else.

Good news! MCPS does not have these policies! Now you can send your kids to public school!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Very true, but outliers are never to be considered or analyzed because according to Progressive ideology everything is the product of group power dynamics as opposed to individual attitudes effort ect.. Also note that Asians are counted as White (if not more White than White people) under the Progressive Racial Classification System.

Why are Asians counted as White? Is this for convenience? Does this make it easier and more palatable for the MCPS performance gap analysis to lump Asians with Whites the way policy wonks lump Blacks with Hispanics? Do you think Asians support the policies of MCPS and Starr?

PP, please do some basic research. Here are the demographic categories MCPS uses:

African American
American Indian
Asian American
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Two or more races

This is not a secret. It's at the top of the at-a-glance report for every school in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Policies that don't group kids according to ability. Ones that lets the top kids languish as they will do fine on tests anyway. Bringing up the bottom to the exclusion of meeting the needs of everyone else.

exactly where is the proof that this is happening?? I've yet to see any real evidence except for ancedotal comments.

That is because it is impossible to show this by data collected by the school district. The assessments and teaching are at a low level that the top kids will always do well whether they are taught or not.

Shorter PP: I can't prove it, but I know it's true because I just know.

[Anonymous]

"PP, please do some basic research. Here are the demographic categories MCPS uses:

African American
American Indian
Asian American
Hispanic
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Two or more races

This is not a secret. It's at the top of the at-a-glance report for every school in MCPS."


The only secret is this statistical slicing and dicing (manipulation) that comes up with only one statisticallt significant gap in all these variables. Not believable. SES is a far better variable to uses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Policies that don't group kids according to ability. Ones that lets the top kids languish as they will do fine on tests anyway. Bringing up the bottom to the exclusion of meeting the needs of everyone else.

exactly where is the proof that this is happening?? I've yet to see any real evidence except for ancedotal comments.

That is because it is impossible to show this by data collected by the school district. The assessments and teaching are at a low level that the top kids will always do well whether they are taught or not.

Shorter PP: I can't prove it, but I know it's true because I just know.

So defensive you are that you must work foe the school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools of Educations are liberal indoctrination factories where it is taught that reducing inequality, the gap between high and low achievers, is more important than teaching each student to their level or aggregate performance. Superintendent Starr is a product of this system. Rest assured if you are unsatisfied with the results, it is because you are a racist who does not want your white child taught alongside children of color, or because your white privilege cannot understand the societal need for your child to make sacrifices for the greater good of reducing inequality.

All high achieving students are not white.

Very true, but outliers are never to be considered or analyzed because according to Progressive ideology everything is the product of group power dynamics as opposed to individual attitudes effort ect.. Also note that Asians are counted as White (if not more White than White people) under the Progressive Racial Classification System.

WTH does this mean?

It means that according to Liberal dogma, Asian Americans (like Whites but more so) need to be held back as much as possible in order to reduce the gap between high and low achieving ethnicities.

[Anonymous]

It means that according to Liberal dogma, Asian Americans (like Whites but more so) need to be held back as much as possible in order to reduce the gap between high and low achieving ethnicities

Do Asian Americans subcribe to this liberal dogma? If they do not, who in fact are the ethnic group (s) espousing this dogma? Are they ethnic group (s) in leading educational policy making? Who are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools of Educations are liberal indoctrination factories where it is taught that reducing inequality, the gap between high and low achievers, is more important than teaching each student to their level or aggregate performance. Superintendent Starr is a product of this system. Rest assured if you are unsatisfied with the results, it is because you are a racist who does not want your white child taught alongside children of color, or because your white privilege cannot understand the societal need for your child to make sacrifices for the greater good of reducing inequality.

All high achieving students are not white.

Very true, but outliers are never to be considered or analyzed because according to Progressive ideology everything is the product of group power dynamics as opposed to individual attitudes effort ect.. Also note that Asians are counted as White (if not more White than White people) under the Progressive Racial Classification System.

WTH does this mean?

It means that according to Liberal dogma, Asian Americans (like Whites but more so) need to be held back as much as possible in order to reduce the gap between high and low achieving ethnicities.

?liberal dogma? I am liberal and I think you're on crack.

[Anonymous]

Q. Is superintendent Starr stupid?
A. Yes, very.