Who to vote in November in BOE for More Challenging Curriculum for Advanced Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Yeah! Mediocrity is what we strive for!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Yeah! Mediocrity is what we strive for!

On the contrary, the law requires them to provide an appropriate education. You are just dead wrong.

More to the point, you are stupid. Public education is there for the public good. Don't you think it's to the benefit of our country to identify and educate highly able children at all socioeconomic levels? Or do you think that only well-off families have smart kids? And just what is your vision for our country in the coming decades if poor and middle class kids only get the basics and only wealthy children go on to have productive careers in the sciences, the arts, etc.?

I bet I know you you're voting for in November ...

[Anonymous]

I don't understand. Why are teachers unions against differentiation? Do teachers like 2.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand. Why are teachers unions against differentiation? Do teachers like 2.0?

I don't think they would be against differentiation if they were given the appropriate classroom supports, like smaller class sizes and adequate number of aides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Yeah! Mediocrity is what we strive for!

On the contrary, the law requires them to provide an appropriate education. You are just dead wrong.

More to the point, you are stupid. Public education is there for the public good. Don't you think it's to the benefit of our country to identify and educate highly able children at all socioeconomic levels? Or do you think that only well-off families have smart kids? And just what is your vision for our country in the coming decades if poor and middle class kids only get the basics and only wealthy children go on to have productive careers in the sciences, the arts, etc.?

I bet I know you you're voting for in November ...

I guess it depends on what you consider "basic education". In the country where I grew up (f. USSR), the expectation was that all students regardless of ability will have two years of in-depth trigonometry/pre-calculus work by age 16. (Trigonometric equations, exponents, logarithms, limits, etc...) It appears that the only way to ensure that at least some students get the same level of education in this country is by advocating for more differentiation and acceleration. I don't know about PP but I am a very free-range parent and I don't think my child is a genius or even "gifted". But as a bright child of educated and somewhat involved parents, there is no reason why she should not be able to do the same level of work I did at her age, and I know plenty of kids from less-advantaged backgrounds who could do the same. And it is not someone's "gifted snowflakes" but those less-advantaged kids, the ones who don't have parents who are able to sit down with them every day and cover material not covered in the classroom, who really lose big time when you remove differentiation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Ok - I gues you are saying that if you like mediocre schools staffed by people that insult parents, then vote for Apple Ballot/MCEA/teachers union or, more specifically, vote for Kaufman/Evans/Barclay. That would not be how I would make an argument for my status quo candidates, but that is your choice. As a bonus, you will also get high class sizes and a lack of transparency.

I prefer excellent education for all kids and more accountability of tax dollars. This is why I am staying away from the education elite that promotes mediocrity, as you point out in your post. Therefore, I support Panner/Sechinger/Smondrowski. In doing this, I am prepared to watch the insults fly. I am used to it by now. In my view, your patronizing and insulting language hurts your case because it re-enforces my views about how the BOE and top MCPS people view parents.

[Anonymous]

"...And it is not someone's "gifted snowflakes" but those less-advantaged kids, the ones who don't have parents who are able to sit down with them every day and cover material not covered in the classroom, who really lose big time when you remove differentiation. "

THIS. Does anyone really think this will level the playing field? On the contrary, now those with time, education, and means will make sure their bright children get an appropriate education outside of normal school hours (and will have to explain sadly to their children that school is no longer a place for challenge/hard work, and that school doesn't really care about challenging them or providing them with an appropriate education, so they should see school as a social outlet). Meanwhile, bright disadvantaged kids will be totally stuck.

[Anonymous]

Another observation - the lower you aim, the lower the results you get.

Like the poster above, I'm also a proud product of the former Soviet Union's public schools. What was normal math to us is considered an extraordinary achievement by American public school standards. Why? The kids in Moscow were no smarter than the DC kids I know. The schools had far less money and resources. And parents spent far less time checking kids' homeworks and talking to teachers. So why the gap? Simple - far more was required of us by the system. Lowering expectations is not going to improve performance, it's going to lower the bar for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Panner - http://www.morrispanner.com/
uh huh
really has LOADS of experience in education
kid at Somerset - green zone . . . What does he know about FARMs and ESOL??

another good one -
http://silverspring.patch.com/articles/annita-seckinger-running-for-county-school-board
love her "educational experience" in environmental issues

http://rsforboe.x10.mx/
and this one . . .
PTA experience

wow - quite the impressive list of candidates

endorsed by the PC, I assume?

PP - you are a moron.

Anonymous wrote:If you want change, look into these candidates

1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)


If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)

I am going for something new.

PP here and thanks for making my point. The person calling me a moron above clearly supports Apple Ballot/MCEA/Teachers Union. Don't get me wrong, these MCEA folks are stakeholders and deserve a seat at the table. However, do you want every member of the board to be tied to the Union? Does the person above sound like they care and support diverse parent views on education? Does this person sound like they will smile, nod and give parents vague answers about C2.0, then close the door and mutter about how all parents are idiots trying to get their little kids into Harvard? Anyway, that's the vibe I get from the current board and from J Starr. Finally, when the union sits down to vote on budget priorities, would you like at least one non-union person in the room to raise some honest objections or are you comfortable that a Union BOE can fairly negotiate with Union leadership?

So yes, I would absolutely vote for someone who is not part of the current professional education class. This system needs more diversity of thinking. This system needs someone who can represent and advocate for parents/taxpayers. If you are against that stuff, then fine. This is just my humble view.

Signed,

Moron

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

I am not the PP to whom you respond but I absolutely view education differently from you. Public education (for me) has 2 main purposes -- to develop the knowledge, skills and critical thinking of our future voting citizenry and residents so they can make good decisions to guide the stability and growth of our democracy, and 2) to fully develop the human capital of our citizenry and residents so that our country and economy can grow and be productive. Both of these goals require the public educational system (paid for with tax dollars) to develop the skills and knowledge of each student to the fullest.

I don't view that as an "entitlement", I view it as the minimum obligation of the system to which I give my tax dollars.

We have NCLB and SOLs, etc. because, unfortunately, the history of our democracy is that good education has been limited to those in certain groups. We have NCLB, etc., to make it clear when the public education system is not meeting the needs of all the sub-populations (poor, minority, SPED, ELL, etc. ) You are not right that NCLB tracks only Basic educational goals, because it does track advanced performance on the NCLB state tests.

[Anonymous]

I thought Maryland opted out of NCLB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Maryland opted out of NCLB.

Maryland got an ESEA waiver from certain NCLB requirements, so there will be less "teaching to the test." At least theoretically. States that get waivers, including Maryland, will still have to measure and track student progress and show improvement across various categories.

For low-performing schools, ESEA waivers will permit jurisidictions to custom-tailor a plan for improvement, instead of being required to apply the same remediation to all schools that under-perform.

[Anonymous]

Below is what appears to be a good summary of candidates' positions:
http://northpotomac.patch.com/articles/election-guide-maryland-2012-e76e0ae4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another observation - the lower you aim, the lower the results you get.

Like the poster above, I'm also a proud product of the former Soviet Union's public schools. What was normal math to us is considered an extraordinary achievement by American public school standards. Why? The kids in Moscow were no smarter than the DC kids I know. The schools had far less money and resources. And parents spent far less time checking kids' homeworks and talking to teachers. So why the gap? Simple - far more was required of us by the system. Lowering expectations is not going to improve performance, it's going to lower the bar for everyone.

Privet
As yet another product of f USSR system, I woiul disagree with both of you.
Math curriccullum was harsh, and I don't think every kid should take pre-calc in high school, for some kids it's just waste of time.
What I like about MCPS system is opportunity to get education somewhat customized for student's need.
Now, new curriculum 2.0 just kills that option for so many kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

Your position does NOT accurately represent what "pubic education does." How dare you suggest that tax-payers must abandon public education (and all of the positive things it has to offer) and opt for private in order to educate an advanced kid. You are suggesting that only affluent parents (they type that can afford $40k per year) might have an advanced child. How dare you! There are plenty of advanced children in this county. They deserve an adequate education regardless of their parents economic situation. There are plenty of smart children from middle, lower and poor families in this county. They are all getting screwed over by 2.0 just like the affluent kids are. Ridiculous that you can't see this.

Furthermore, there are plenty of 3rd graders who have been accelerated for two years. Yet this year, they hit the brick wall of 2.0. It was the public school system that accelerated them and it is unconscionable for that same system to suddenly tell them to repeat work they have already mastered (with no path at all for future acceleration).

Your vision of public education is a morass of mediocrity. Sounds like you will support 2.0 very well. Enjoy "aiming for proficient."