What are the real facts about MCPS inequities?

[Anonymous]

The so called rich schools actually get LESS money, and in many cases significantly less than what you refer to as the poorer schools. The so called rich schools use parent contributions to supplement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The so called rich schools actually get LESS money, and in many cases significantly less than what you refer to as the poorer schools. The so called rich schools use parent contributions to supplement.

Well they have far fewer expenses since they have fewer kids with special needs. They also raise far more money from PTAs. Both of these leave them with far more $$$ for regular kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I applaud the BOE's efforts to analyze cluster boundaries and to bus the W kids away to other schools so that other kids can have these opportunities regardless of where their parents can afford to buy a home.

The BOE has not made any efforts "to bus the W kids away to other schools."

Yes to diversity bussing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Staff salaries are the same from school to school. Facilities are obviously in a wide range of conditions across the county, and there are examples of run-down schools in wealthier areas and brand-new schools in less wealthy areas, and vice versa.

Staff salary scales are the same.

Schools with more experienced staff have much higher staff salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:some parents care, some don't. it's not really an issue with MCPS. it's an issue w/ families' involvement (or lack thereof)

Some parents have the agency to be involved, both with job flexibility and income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some parents care, some don't. it's not really an issue with MCPS. it's an issue w/ families' involvement (or lack thereof)

Some parents have the agency to be involved, both with job flexibility and income.

Will agree the earlier poster is living in a bubble. Not everyone has the ability or flexibility to do this. In fact, many wealthier families just outsource it even which others can't even consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some parents care, some don't. it's not really an issue with MCPS. it's an issue w/ families' involvement (or lack thereof)

Some parents have the agency to be involved, both with job flexibility and income.

Will agree the earlier poster is living in a bubble. Not everyone has the ability or flexibility to do this. In fact, many wealthier families just outsource it even which others can't even consider.

Yes, the PP is missing the point and living in an elitist bubble, but I would argue something more: attributing outcomes to "lack of parental involvement" misses the point of public education in the United States. Our public education system was designed to provide opportunities to ALL kids. If you decide a child is not worthy of investment because you don't approve of their parents, or don't think their parents are wealthy enough to deserve for their child to have opportunities, you are making a fundamentaly unAmerican argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some parents care, some don't. it's not really an issue with MCPS. it's an issue w/ families' involvement (or lack thereof)

Some parents have the agency to be involved, both with job flexibility and income.

Will agree the earlier poster is living in a bubble. Not everyone has the ability or flexibility to do this. In fact, many wealthier families just outsource it even which others can't even consider.

Yes, the PP is missing the point and living in an elitist bubble, but I would argue something more: attributing outcomes to "lack of parental involvement" misses the point of public education in the United States. Our public education system was designed to provide opportunities to ALL kids. If you decide a child is not worthy of investment because you don't approve of their parents, or don't think their parents are wealthy enough to deserve for their child to have opportunities, you are making a fundamentaly unAmerican argument.

Research shows that education outcomes are most closely linked to mother's education level. Nobody is saying don't invest in education for everybody. The problem is attributing "performance" to teachers/administrators/"the school system" for outcomes that research shows they have little ability to influence.

[Anonymous]

There was a study a while back about how the order in which MCPS decided to renovate schools lacked any kind of transparency or clear criteria.

We also know rich schools have more experienced teachers. Less experienced teachers serve the highest need students.

Make no mistake, MCPS talks a big game about equity but they cave a lot to the squeakiest wheels which are wealthy white parents.

As far as sports go you have to understand that you have the wealthy schools which as others have said have booster clubs but also have kids coming in who have been playing since preschool. Kids in other parts of the county do not have the same opportunities to play sports before high school so those teams end up playing against kids with vastly more experience, which is not fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid goes to a DCC high school but is involved in a youth group with friends who go to "W" schools and other schools in wealthier neighborhoods. She is constantly saying things like "yeah, they have better uniforms because they go to a rich school," "they don't have bugs because they go to a rich school" etc. She loves her high school, but thinks that it is under-resourced in every way and that it is unfair that her friends schools have more because they're rich.

I don't really know any different - I don't have friends in that area and our kids have always been in DCC schools. My younger DC is bussed to a special needs program in a wealthier community but I don't see much difference but we aren't really involved in that community. Of course I have read and heard about the boundary issues, the racial disparities, etc. BUT, I don't feel like I can have an educated conversation with my kid or adults about the actual fiscal reality. Does MCPS actually provide more funding to certain schools? Is it taxes? Is it parent contributions to things like booster club that results in the sports and arts programs more wealthy and therefore better resourced? I know that the PTSA's can contribute to those programs, but not the actual academic programs (teacher salaries, school buildings and facilities, etc.), correct?

Is it all of the above?

I'm not trying to stir up debate, I just want to know the actual facts so that I can not only spew ideology but actually have an educated conversation. Of course DCUM will not be my only source for facts, but I am sure some will weigh in with information that will get me started.

Wait I don't get this one. Which MCPS school has uniforms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid goes to a DCC high school but is involved in a youth group with friends who go to "W" schools and other schools in wealthier neighborhoods. She is constantly saying things like "yeah, they have better uniforms because they go to a rich school," "they don't have bugs because they go to a rich school" etc. She loves her high school, but thinks that it is under-resourced in every way and that it is unfair that her friends schools have more because they're rich.

I don't really know any different - I don't have friends in that area and our kids have always been in DCC schools. My younger DC is bussed to a special needs program in a wealthier community but I don't see much difference but we aren't really involved in that community. Of course I have read and heard about the boundary issues, the racial disparities, etc. BUT, I don't feel like I can have an educated conversation with my kid or adults about the actual fiscal reality. Does MCPS actually provide more funding to certain schools? Is it taxes? Is it parent contributions to things like booster club that results in the sports and arts programs more wealthy and therefore better resourced? I know that the PTSA's can contribute to those programs, but not the actual academic programs (teacher salaries, school buildings and facilities, etc.), correct?

Is it all of the above?

I'm not trying to stir up debate, I just want to know the actual facts so that I can not only spew ideology but actually have an educated conversation. Of course DCUM will not be my only source for facts, but I am sure some will weigh in with information that will get me started.

Wait I don't get this one. Which MCPS school has uniforms?

They mean sports uniforms and marching band uniforms purchased by the boosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a study a while back about how the order in which MCPS decided to renovate schools lacked any kind of transparency or clear criteria.

We also know rich schools have more experienced teachers. Less experienced teachers serve the highest need students.

Make no mistake, MCPS talks a big game about equity but they cave a lot to the squeakiest wheels which are wealthy white parents.

As far as sports go you have to understand that you have the wealthy schools which as others have said have booster clubs but also have kids coming in who have been playing since preschool. Kids in other parts of the county do not have the same opportunities to play sports before high school so those teams end up playing against kids with vastly more experience, which is not fun.

Don't mistake more experienced teachers for "better" teachers. There is low turnover of staffing at higher income schools because teaching is easier there. Students have less academic and socio-emotional challenges and families will simply supplement with tutoring if their kid needs help. Teachers generally won't be terrible, because that would draw parent attention. But they also don't really have to be great.

The bigger equity issue is brand new teachers in low income schools without adequate support. It's really hard the first few years of teaching, and if that is compounded with a school that has a lot of challenges, new teachers struggle. They will leave for a better school at the first opportunity. State law has recently changed to incentivize more experienced teachers teaching at higher need schools to try to address this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a study a while back about how the order in which MCPS decided to renovate schools lacked any kind of transparency or clear criteria.

We also know rich schools have more experienced teachers. Less experienced teachers serve the highest need students.

Make no mistake, MCPS talks a big game about equity but they cave a lot to the squeakiest wheels which are wealthy white parents.

As far as sports go you have to understand that you have the wealthy schools which as others have said have booster clubs but also have kids coming in who have been playing since preschool. Kids in other parts of the county do not have the same opportunities to play sports before high school so those teams end up playing against kids with vastly more experience, which is not fun.

Don't mistake more experienced teachers for "better" teachers. There is low turnover of staffing at higher income schools because teaching is easier there. Students have less academic and socio-emotional challenges and families will simply supplement with tutoring if their kid needs help. Teachers generally won't be terrible, because that would draw parent attention. But they also don't really have to be great.

The bigger equity issue is brand new teachers in low income schools without adequate support. It's really hard the first few years of teaching, and if that is compounded with a school that has a lot of challenges, new teachers struggle. They will leave for a better school at the first opportunity. State law has recently changed to incentivize more experienced teachers teaching at higher need schools to try to address this problem.

Are you implying that the teachers that teach at wealthy schools are lazy, bad teachers and that's why it's okay for the low income schools to have less experienced teachers? Where is your evidence? Because there is plenty of evidence that more experienced teachers, all else being equal, are "better" teachers https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid goes to a DCC high school but is involved in a youth group with friends who go to "W" schools and other schools in wealthier neighborhoods. She is constantly saying things like "yeah, they have better uniforms because they go to a rich school," "they don't have bugs because they go to a rich school" etc. She loves her high school, but thinks that it is under-resourced in every way and that it is unfair that her friends schools have more because they're rich.

I don't really know any different - I don't have friends in that area and our kids have always been in DCC schools. My younger DC is bussed to a special needs program in a wealthier community but I don't see much difference but we aren't really involved in that community. Of course I have read and heard about the boundary issues, the racial disparities, etc. BUT, I don't feel like I can have an educated conversation with my kid or adults about the actual fiscal reality. Does MCPS actually provide more funding to certain schools? Is it taxes? Is it parent contributions to things like booster club that results in the sports and arts programs more wealthy and therefore better resourced? I know that the PTSA's can contribute to those programs, but not the actual academic programs (teacher salaries, school buildings and facilities, etc.), correct?

Is it all of the above?

I'm not trying to stir up debate, I just want to know the actual facts so that I can not only spew ideology but actually have an educated conversation. Of course DCUM will not be my only source for facts, but I am sure some will weigh in with information that will get me started.

Wait I don't get this one. Which MCPS school has uniforms?

They're referring to the sports teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP and that's what I thought - but my child insists that they are "richer schools" and that the county provides more money to them. Is it ONLY boosters? I mean, that could result in huge inequities I realize - I do know that the costumes and programs in my younger child's school theater program are extravagant and that my older child has crappy sports unforms and Churchill has a huge new scoreboard. But, I'm not sure I believe those things alone disadvantage our DCC kids that much. Does it make our programs scrappier and more desperate for funds? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. But it doesn't mean our kids are getting a sub-par education. In fact, I see no difference in the administration and teachers at one school over the other.

OP your DD probably isn't aware of what booster money can and does buy. I agree with you that admin and teachers can be equivalent across schools. Class sizes in poorer schools are sometimes smaller due to Title I money.