Pay raise for Starr?

[Anonymous]

He has brought on many of his "fans" from outside of MCPS. I imagine that when he leaves, they will, too. They are indeed sycophants - but ones with power.

Anonymous wrote:This bio made me wretch:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/superintendent/about/

It's so self-laudatory. Either he's full of himself, he's surrounded himself with sycophants who make him sound like Dear Leader, or both.

I don't care if he's a "lifelong learner" or if he picks up a guitar. I just want him to stop dumbing down MCPS so he can take credit from reducing an achievement gap before he trots off to DOE.

[Anonymous]

He needs to get off twitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he doesn't listen, has a very high opinion of his own very trendy opinions and approaches, and is dismissive of parent concerns. Arrogance isn't just a personality flaw for someone in a position like this: it should be a deal-breaker. And if I hear about social-emotional intelligence once more I'm going to scream. What does that even mean, in the context of academic learning?

Dear God, honey! Look it up! It's does indeed mean quite a bit, especially for low performers.

And I can't STAND Starr!

Here, hon! I did the research for you.
http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/EDC_CASELSELResearchBrief.pdf

.
Please don't be so condescending. I know what it means; I should have been more clear. And I know there's a bunch of reseach about it -- I read it myself when Starr first came to town, and I know about CASEL.

But you know what? It's trendy and I think he's using it in place of more effective measures. It's not going to work to trumpet social emotional learning and couple it with attempts at multi-level differentiation within one classroom, particularly in the so-called red-zone. SEL isn't a substitute for academic rigor, good teacher instruction, and clear, well-thought out curriculum with tests and textbooks that match standards.

It's not gong to do my kid one bit of good that she learned about conflict resolution and yet isn't learning adequate algebra skills because teachers aren't properly trained in 2.0. I think it's a smokescreen. I heard that clearly when he spoke at the "town hall meeting" or whatever he called it on GT education. He implied that smart kids don't need challenging work, they just need some SEL training because all smart kids are a little odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cannot stand that guy, he's so smarmy, arrogant and dismissive.

By all means, let's fire the school superintendent on grounds that he's smarmy.

He's arrogant and not at all compassionate.

a mediocre politician at best

Completely arrogant. Will not listen to the parents in his county when some have been here their whole life and really do care. Have you ever been to a forum that was touted he would answer questions -- well I have on several occasions but no more. He will not directly answer a singe question and sticks to his pre canned language. Once he actually left before the questions were done and said that his staff would take notes and get back to parents. I know the man is busy, but I am busy too and he set the date. Do not ever watse your time going to a meeting with him thinking you might get some real answers or transparency. He is just here for as a political stepping stone and really doesn't care to hear what you think as a parent.

[Anonymous]

Honest question from a relative new-comer: have parents liked any of the previous superintendents? Did parents like Weast? The school system is big and not everyone is going to be happy with the choices the superintendent makes. Are Starr's policies/choices radically different than what we would be seeing under different leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a relative new-comer: have parents liked any of the previous superintendents? Did parents like Weast? The school system is big and not everyone is going to be happy with the choices the superintendent makes. Are Starr's policies/choices radically different than what we would be seeing under different leadership?

As I understand it, everybody hated Weast too. (To the extent that "everybody" even has an opinion about the superintendent of schools.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a relative new-comer: have parents liked any of the previous superintendents? Did parents like Weast? The school system is big and not everyone is going to be happy with the choices the superintendent makes. Are Starr's policies/choices radically different than what we would be seeing under different leadership?

I think Weast and Starr are reflections of the school board that hired them and, to a large extent, the priorities and agenda of the teacher's union, MCEA.

I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish. I am concerned about the emphasis on trendy educational thought like social emotional learning and critical race theory (however valid those two ideas are, and I think they both have some validity) -- I am uncomfortable with elected officials and the administration they choose setting the idealogical agenda that trickles down into the classroom. I am also concerned about the flailing around that the county has done with regard to curriculum and its lack of through teacher training and prep. And it bugs me no end to see school district administrators jetting around to international conferences and bragging about MCPS but not making time to have really productive discussions with parents that involve more than just reciting the party line.

The Board, the superintendent and the union are all in a feedback loop. To really get some new ideas out there, we need to elect a few new BoE members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he doesn't listen, has a very high opinion of his own very trendy opinions and approaches, and is dismissive of parent concerns. Arrogance isn't just a personality flaw for someone in a position like this: it should be a deal-breaker. And if I hear about social-emotional intelligence once more I'm going to scream. What does that even mean, in the context of academic learning?

Dear God, honey! Look it up! It's does indeed mean quite a bit, especially for low performers.

And I can't STAND Starr!

Here, hon! I did the research for you.
http://casel.org/wp-content/uploads/EDC_CASELSELResearchBrief.pdf

.
Please don't be so condescending. I know what it means; I should have been more clear. And I know there's a bunch of reseach about it -- I read it myself when Starr first came to town, and I know about CASEL.

But you know what? It's trendy and I think he's using it in place of more effective measures. It's not going to work to trumpet social emotional learning and couple it with attempts at multi-level differentiation within one classroom, particularly in the so-called red-zone. SEL isn't a substitute for academic rigor, good teacher instruction, and clear, well-thought out curriculum with tests and textbooks that match standards.

It's not gong to do my kid one bit of good that she learned about conflict resolution and yet isn't learning adequate algebra skills because teachers aren't properly trained in 2.0. I think it's a smokescreen. I heard that clearly when he spoke at the "town hall meeting" or whatever he called it on GT education. He implied that smart kids don't need challenging work, they just need some SEL training because all smart kids are a little odd.


EXACTLY RIGHT. Could not have said it better myself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

Yes -- this is my question as well.
I understand if folks don't like the guy, but exactly where is the proof of this secret(or not-so secret) agenda to lower standards?
Folks said the same thing about Weast. I even understand that folks are not happy with the 2.0 implementation, shaky at best.
And if someone says because the highest grade you can get is a "P", please be clear that the definition of "Proficient" is
"skilled, skillful, expert, experienced, accomplished, competent, masterly, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, professional, consummate, complete, master"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

Not really. The tests they use to measure student achievement (MSA and HSA) are extremely easy. Highly able kids can easily score very high on them and still be bored and unchallenged in the classroom.

If you look at the benchmarks that Starr is setting, you will see that they are a fairly low bar. So if there are few resources dedicated to efforts other than having all kids meet that low bar, you are by default teaching to the middle.

Then look at his ideas about classroom differentiation. He expects teachers to instruct what amounts to, in some schools, 7 or 8 different reading or math levels in one classroom. Do you think the top kids are getting challenged and working up to their ability? Or are they doing "independent work" (i.e. worksheet after worksheet) while the teacher addresses the lower performing kids so they can all make the low MSA level that's required?

I am ALL FOR closing the gap but that doesn't mean you can make education one size fits all and remain a world class school system.

[Anonymous]

Is this your argument?

MCPS is planning to close the achievement gap by taking away

[Anonymous]

drat, stupid keyboard

Is this your argument?

MCPS is planning to close the achievement gap by taking away resources that should go to the high-achieving students, and giving them instead fo the low-achieving students. This will bring up the test scores of the low-achieving students but will not bring down the test scores of the high-achieving students.

If so, the question is then, given that MCPS resources are finite, how do you think should MCPS allocate its resources among high-, middle-, and low-achievers? The MCPS policy, at least since Weast, is to allocate comparatively more resources to the schools that need them more. Do you disagree with this in principle, or do you just think there should be slightly less of it?

Also, it doesn't make sense to say that MCPS expects teachers to provide differentiation and also wants to make the school system one-size-fits-all.

[Anonymous]

Whatever your opinion about the remedies that Dan Reed floated in his opinion piece in the WashPo of a couple weeks back - he raised serious questions worthy of discussion/debate. The arrogance in Dr. Starr's initial (off-the-cuff, uncanned and therefore more authentic?) response blew me away:

When speaking at the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board, Dr. Starr was asked what he thought of the Dan Reed piece. Dr. Starr's response: "There's no shortage of self-professed experts on education because they went to school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your opinion about the remedies that Dan Reed floated in his opinion piece in the WashPo of a couple weeks back - he raised serious questions worthy of discussion/debate. The arrogance in Dr. Starr's initial (off-the-cuff, uncanned and therefore more authentic?) response blew me away:

When speaking at the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board, Dr. Starr was asked what he thought of the Dan Reed piece. Dr. Starr's response: "There's no shortage of self-professed experts on education because they went to school."

Well, he does have a point. Just read these threads to see how many "education experts" visit this forum!