Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

16:16 from 22:53 I agree with you completely. They are not universally helpful and even when they are, I think i'ts because of a skilled teacher who would be good anyway. I would much rather have more teachers or, in our case, preservation of the magnet program.

I am hoping, if they try to eliminate the GT magnets, that PCMC can spearhead a lawsuit against the county based on the students' right to an appropriate education. I think there are MD state and Federal laws that would support this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:16 from 22:53 I agree with you completely. They are not universally helpful and even when they are, I think i'ts because of a skilled teacher who would be good anyway. I would much rather have more teachers or, in our case, preservation of the magnet program.

I am hoping, if they try to eliminate the GT magnets, that PCMC can spearhead a lawsuit against the county based on the students' right to an appropriate education. I think there are MD state and Federal laws that would support this.

The problem I have with GT magnets is that there aren't enough spaces to take all the qualified students. So how about a lawsuit on behalf of those qualified students who didn't win the lottery? Where is PCMC on that? Or, better yet, why can't students get accelerated properly right in their neighborhood school?

[Anonymous]

That's true. There should be more spots in the magnets.

I don't think you can always appropriately accelerate all kids in their local program. That happened to my kid. He's a sport -- he has different needs than most kids, and in his regular school he was miserable. He's so happy at a GT Center, and the level of work he's doing could not have been done in a regular MCPS classroom with 25 kids in it. It just couldn't have -- it was as much a question of peer group and social needs as it was academics.

That said, it infuriates me that my son gets to do interesting and in-depth work while my bright and motivated daughter does endless worksheets and BCRs in her regular MCPS classroom. I don't see why the ideas and methods used in the GT magnet can't be implemented everywhere -- it's not a smaller classroom and they don't get extra things that the regular classes don't have. The GT Center model should be emulated, not despised!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is not so much do you love or not like Promethean boards, but, with the $14M the taxpayers are spending on them, (with no oversight, BTW), what else could your children have had in their classrooms? Like, for example, teachers? how about those of you whose children are being taught in storage closets, which came up at the BOE testimony? which would you rather have for your child? Promethean board or classroom? Those are the questions PCMC is asking. We should all be asking them.

ITA. In a perfect world (with tons of of financing), all teachers would get Promethean boards and training in how to use them. But until our other problems our solved, we can wait on the Promethean boards (and the turf, and the expensive security camera's in my kid's school). Let's get kids out of the trailers ("learning cottages") first.

[Anonymous]

"I have two children in two different elementary schools. One LOVES the promethean board, but he has a very skilled and well trained teacher who's had one long enough to use and retain her skills. It's great for the class, but she's such a good teacher that I think she'd be successful without one. "

Technology can often be more window dressing rather than actually improving the educational experience. Spending $14 M on smartboards does not seem wise when meaningful programs such as art, music, science, outdoor education (if it ever existed), and languages are being cut for cheaper test prep classes. If there was an effective educational perspective aligned with clear goals such as using simulation for more participatory science experiments I would support iand give lots of money to support enhancements but giving teachers yet another teacher-centric, enhanced lecture tool, which is how most use it just doesn't cut it.

Smaller class sizes with more intelligent discussion and frequent quality writing assignments (not test prep) go much farther in developing analytical skills than a smartboard.

[Anonymous]

I see $14 million for Promethean boards being tossed around on the thread, but can somebody show me where they got that figure? I was trying to research it and didn't come up with a lot of evidence of MoCo spending money for schools to have those boards, although I did see an article about how some had been purchased for the admin offices. I also found discussion of how the finance office had let a purchase order for some improperly without BOE approval, and I'm not sure how that turned out-maybe the purchase order was approved or maybe it was cancelled, but I don't know. I also found evidence of a number of PTAs purchasing them. Frankly, that's their money for the membership to vote on how it's spent, so if they want to do that I don't see what the problem is.

[Anonymous]

My kids are in two different elementary schools. One school has Promethean Boards in every classroom, purchased by MCPS.

The other school has three Promethean Boards in the whole school, which were purchased through a funding drive run by the PTA. This was a high-pressure drive where the PTA and principal went on about keeping our kids competitive with kids in other elementary schools in our cluster who already have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see $14 million for Promethean boards being tossed around on the thread, but can somebody show me where they got that figure? I was trying to research it and didn't come up with a lot of evidence of MoCo spending money for schools to have those boards, although I did see an article about how some had been purchased for the admin offices. I also found discussion of how the finance office had let a purchase order for some improperly without BOE approval, and I'm not sure how that turned out-maybe the purchase order was approved or maybe it was cancelled, but I don't know. I also found evidence of a number of PTAs purchasing them. Frankly, that's their money for the membership to vote on how it's spent, so if they want to do that I don't see what the problem is.

Well don't look in MCPS Board of Education minutes! The Board never approved the purchase. MCPS COO Larry Bowers signed off on purchase orders for 3,300 Promethean Boards. And more have been purchased since that discovery.

Each classroom runs around $5,000 for the complete set up. Board, lap top, projector, clickers. Do the math - that's over $14 million.

The Parents' Coalition unearthed the purchase in Public Information Act requests and has published all of their research on their website. Even both versions of the Weast memo that was switched at the County Council.

http://parentscoalitionmc.com/Promethean_Boards.html

Here is the unsigned memo that revealed the total Boards purchased:

http://mcpsiafaudits.googlegroups.com/web/UnsignedPromMemo.pdf?gda=SEjOqkYAAADtAyA3rgA3BZxxs8VVDZ_LDOOM37cwlt0XWOh7MsztHotJdPsr7PzzzvWyZJ2AXfW4qzmRyw7pERYbIIbTVVQIE-Ea7GxYMt0t6nY0uV5FIQ&hl=en