I want a school without parents who want "pathways for advanced students"

[Anonymous]

I wonder how the parents of those other threads would feel if MCPS did actually make the classes so challenging that the normal distribution of grades would be that only 10 percent of a class earns an A grade. I'm guessing they would still be complaining.

A hearty vote for grade inflation, watered down curricula and a ribbon for every student...America's contribution to education.

[Anonymous]

Re:I want a school without parents who want "pathways for advanced students"

I also want a school without parents who want "pathways for disabled or learning disabled students"

[Anonymous]

Re:I want a school without parents who want "pathways for advanced students"

I also want a school without parents who want "pathways for disabled or learning disabled students"

It does not matter that the parents of these students pay real estate and other federal, state and county taxes. The public education system is designed for parents of advance or learning disabled students to subsidize my average kids!

[Anonymous]

I find it horrible when parents of advanced but not gifted children try to equate their child's needs with those of special needs children. There is a difference and you know it.

[Anonymous]

I am sure you would not find it horrible if MCPS met the needs of all children. This is the point. There is a spectrum whether you care to acknowledge this or not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have a really skewed idea about what people mean by advanced classes. There's a lot more memorization and rote homework in on-grade-level MCPS classes.

Other than that, you are right -- sounds like your kid isn't right for advanced level classes and that's perfectly ok.

What's a hagwon, by the way?

You should read some of the GT related threads. Though the vocal parents seem to have children who are almost-GT and not the parents of GT children. I personally think that the GT centers are great and needed; went to one myself back in the day. However, there seems to be a group of parents whose children were not selected for the GT program who want their children treated as if they were in the GT program. Fine. Give them their own school or center. Or give parents who want their children to have an education that is not focused on tests, measurements and rankings their own school. To me, achievement is not measured by a grade or class ranking.

Oh, I read all the threads. I have a kid in a GT center who is very well served and a kid in a regular school who is bored to death and drowning in worksheets. I don't care what her label is, or her classs ranking, but I'm alarmed at the level of work she's given and the fact that there's nothing more, despite her mastery of the subjects. And she is GT I think -- high IQ and waitlisted for GT center. But even if she weren't, why shouldn't she have access to more challenging material if she wants it and can do the work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it horrible when parents of advanced but not gifted children try to equate their child's needs with those of special needs children. There is a difference and you know it.

I think you are missing the point. The idea is that MCPS tries to cram everyone in the same academic box and then let the teachers deal with the outliers. Some outliers are LD and others are GT. Where I see an array of colors, MCPS sees one color. No one is saying a special needs child is the same as a gifted kid, quite the contrary in fact.

[Anonymous]

I guess I am confused as to why this is causing such anger. My view is that the GT (the truly GT) may need their own schools. That leaves below average, average, and above average students in the home school (or GTs that couldn't get into a program because of lottery which is another issue). With 15, 20, 25 students in a class, it doesn't seem possible for a single teacher to meet everyone's needs. If she teaches to the middle, some students may be left behind because they are still trying to solidify concepts. The above average kids are not learning anything because they may be one or two grades ahead.

Homogeneous classrooms may not be the solution (a child may be advanced in math but behind in writing and vice versa) but there should be some mechanism for children to be grouped during a portion of the day to ensure they are being challenged. In addition, individualized attention will help those behind to catch up.

My child is not many grades above level but he is advanced in certain subjects. There are other subjects where he is right on track. His teacher is great and tries to focus on individual needs (by small groups) by creating projects that address multiple levels and then spends time with each group to focus. However, if students levels across the grade could be grouped for certain basic subjects, then the entire 30-60 minute lesson would be on target, not just the 10 minutes the teacher can give the group. I am worried that Curriculum 2.0 tries to define what is "on grade level" and then eliminates individualized teaching. Rather, parents of GT and above average kids will only be left with the GT programs and not enough seats to fill the applicants.

[Anonymous]

Let's skip the labels. How should a K or first grade teacher (principal or Mr Starr) handle children who have mastered multiplication during the year of math instruction?

[Anonymous]

MCPS and Mr Starr should approach education the same way we enthusiatically approach sports and music in this country and all problems regarding lack of stimulation and challenge are solved. The end of half-baked educator theories of social justice.

[Anonymous]

Let's skip the labels. How should a K or first grade teacher (principal or Mr Starr) handle children who have mastered multiplication during the year of math instruction?

Ninety-nine percent of K and 1st grade teachers in MCPS are clueless. There is no instructional plan for these children. A certification in education doesn't guarantee the teachers themselves have mastered multiplication. That's the fundamental problem. NO curriculum, even curriculum 2.0, will fix this!

[Anonymous]

Ninety-nine percent of K and 1st grade teachers in MCPS are clueless. There is no instructional plan for these children. A certification in education doesn't guarantee the teachers themselves have mastered multiplication. That's the fundamental problem. NO curriculum, even curriculum 2.0, will fix this!

This is why the only practical solution in a $2 billion/year public school system (with teachers not capable of meeting the instructional needs of such wide variability) is a block curricular system allosing able students to move up to next levels with a better chance of encountering need-based instruction.

Doing away with the pathways has not only exposed the incompetence of the leadership but unfortunately also has unveiled the incompetence of MCPS teachers by compounding their prior struggles with the burden of trying to meet all the children's needs in one grade-level classroom. It will take a whole new generation of newly trained competent teachers to make this scheme work in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ninety-nine percent of K and 1st grade teachers in MCPS are clueless. There is no instructional plan for these children. A certification in education doesn't guarantee the teachers themselves have mastered multiplication. That's the fundamental problem. NO curriculum, even curriculum 2.0, will fix this!

This is why the only practical solution in a $2 billion/year public school system (with teachers not capable of meeting the instructional needs of such wide variability) is a block curricular system allosing able students to move up to next levels with a better chance of encountering need-based instruction.

Doing away with the pathways has not only exposed the incompetence of the leadership but unfortunately also has unveiled the incompetence of MCPS teachers by compounding their prior struggles with the burden of trying to meet all the children's needs in one grade-level classroom. It will take a whole new generation of newly trained competent teachers to make this scheme work in MCPS.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been reading through the various GT, how do I get my DC out of a class with "average" students, it helps everyone if children are slotted into "pathways" at an early age threads and my conclusion is that those parents are right. Please MCPS, give those people their own schools.

I don't want my DC in a class that is moving at warp speed. I don't want my DC to be in a class that has to teach to tests. I don't want my DC to be in a class where memorization is rewarded more than creative thought and problem solving. I don't want my DC to have hours of homework, or even any homework k-4th grade, as it takes time away from them being able to read what that want and explore things that interest them. I don't want my DC in a school that creates puts so much stress on grade an "achievement" that she is afraid to fail.

So MCPS, please give those parents the schools they want, go ahead an establish public hagwons for their children, I don't care. Just give me an alternative to get away from them.

This is not the approach in the HGCs.
The curriculum is enriched and yes it is accelerated, but the pace is appropriate for these students. They do a lot of work but at least in the elementary school magnets, nearly all of it is done at school. DC does not bring home any more homework than dc had in the old school. The only subject that stresses memorization is Geography - by the end of the year the kids have to learn the names and locations(on a map) of every country on every continent and all the states in the U.S. I happen think this is useful to know!
They do a lot of work in class but the projects are creative, and usually require research and critical thinking. They do very little in the way of "worksheets". For the first time, dc is excited about school.
They do receive a grade for all their work (and the standards are high) but the program does not stress the standardized testing much. The kids barely heard about the MSAs and did not spend time on MSA prep. this is very different from our old school where they had MSA prep for weeks.
How, you may ask does one teacher with 26 students manage to do all of this? I really think it is because the teacher is teaching one group of kids instead of multiple groups. So, there is more time for course extensions and interesting project work and group discussions and presentations.
I hope what I'm describing does not resemble a "hagwan"! My kid would hate to be in that environment. In my opinion the HGC approach inspires a love of learning. And yes, now that I've seen the difference between the HGC and our home school, I am very concerned about what happens in middle school when dc might not get one of the (too few) magnet spots in Eastern/Takoma or even if dc gets in, if we can't manage the commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: MCPS and Mr Starr should approach education the same way we enthusiatically approach sports and music in this country and all problems regarding lack of stimulation and challenge are solved. The end of half-baked educator theories of social justice.

Gifted athletes play on the same team or have the same gym class with non gifted athletes.