Is MCPS Superintendent Starr stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This article refers to his time at Stamford. When, according to the article, "There were up to five tracks in the middle schools. Although only 40% of all students in the district were White, nearly 79% of the honors track was White. Conversely, although 53% of the district’s students were Black or Latino, only 11% of the honors track was Black or Latino. In the three lowest tracks, however, about 73% of the students were Black or Latino. It was as if two separate school systems existed."

So Starr eliminated a "rigid tracking system that was responsible for de-facto segregation". (Is this what we have in MCPS? Is this you want in MCPS?) And what happened? "State test scores went up for all subgroups, with accelerated growth for Black and Latino students. A survey of parents, students, and teachers showed positive reactions to the reform. The percentage of Black or Latino students in the honors math track increased from 11% to 30%—a dramatic shift in the proportion of student groups in the highest track."

If you are using this quote from this article to show that Starr believes all students should be lumped in the same classroom -- well, no, it doesn't show that.

We do not have de facto segregation in MCPS? de facto segregation in MCPS by zip code? I bet you can count the number of Black and Latino students in the MCPS classrooms of Mr. Starr's children on a single hand with a missing finger. So much for liberal mumbo jumbo philosophy.

I agree that we have de facto segregation in MCPS. I'm not sure what that has to do with "liberal mumbo jumbo" philosophy, though.

This is a very interesting quote. The problem I see in MCPS is that they are eliminating honors and advanced classes left and right -- in fact, in many MCPS middle schools, they just label every class "advanced."

[Anonymous]

I agree with the poster who commented about Starr moving to the whitest/richest schools and how that really undermines his credibility. I live in the red zone and I just can't help but perceive him as a hypocrite when he starts telling us what policies will benefit our schools and how our schools are doing great when he's just not experiencing what we're experiencing. I don't think he's doing an awful job, but it really makes it hard for me to take him seriously when I see him choosing the "upper crust" schools for his own family and then expecting us to buy into the fiction that our kids in the downcounty are getting an equal quality education in the so-called diverse schools of the downcounty (terminology that is often code for high poverty schools with miserable test scores). He doesn't actually buy it, so why should I?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody tell me what they think Starr should be doing? What policy should he be following and how should he be implementing it? It seems like a tough job to try to balance everyone's needs in such a huge school district. If what he's doing is wrong, what is the alternative and is it feasible and advisable? I'm asking this without having an opinion of whether he's screwing up or not.

Back to the basics.
It's what made MoCo schools famous in the first place: good teachers, teaching to the potential of all students, including the bright ones.
Traditional curriculums and teaching methods, not experimental ones.

If he continues to ignore the actual taxpayers and families that value education, all he will have left is the tax recipients and families that value who-knows-what. It will increasingly be a big county of lame excuses attempting to make up riddles for non-existent parenting, skills, and income of its remaining constituents.

[Anonymous]

OK, I have to take exception with the concept that so-called "tax recipients" don't value education. That's a really nasty outlook, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who commented about Starr moving to the whitest/richest schools and how that really undermines his credibility. I live in the red zone and I just can't help but perceive him as a hypocrite when he starts telling us what policies will benefit our schools and how our schools are doing great when he's just not experiencing what we're experiencing. I don't think he's doing an awful job, but it really makes it hard for me to take him seriously when I see him choosing the "upper crust" schools for his own family and then expecting us to buy into the fiction that our kids in the downcounty are getting an equal quality education in the so-called diverse schools of the downcounty (terminology that is often code for high poverty schools with miserable test scores). He doesn't actually buy it, so why should I?

Wouldn't you live in the best school district you could afford? For your kids' sake?

[Anonymous]

I can afford better. I happen to really like my neighborhood. I resent that I need to move to have access to decent schools that dont push middle class families out of the neighborhood or into privates, because after all - it is the SAME school district as Starr, not a different one, better or worse. If he wants to tell me the curriculum is delivered the same and equally across this glorious school district, he should put his assets where his mouth is. I don't expect him to because we all know it's a load of horse sh@@. My biggest gripe is with the hypocrisy of saying he moved there because it was the most convenient for his commute. My house is convenient to his job too. Our school assignment sucks. We all know it. and his wife would be an idiot to let him send his kids there. But let's not pretend we don't all know that's why they don't live in the "diverse" parts of the down county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who commented about Starr moving to the whitest/richest schools and how that really undermines his credibility.

Wouldn't you live in the best school district you could afford? For your kids' sake?

Yes, that's why I live in Montgomery County. Which is a school district. Unlike "Bethesda", which is not a school district.

I also would not think that whitest/richest school = "best" school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I have to take exception with the concept that so-called "tax recipients" don't value education. That's a really nasty outlook, PP.

Reality bites sometimes. Just ask Detroit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starr has an agenda. he is against labeling some kids as gifted and therefore providing them with an appropriate education. He sees differentiation as elitist.

Of course he's right in the sense that intelligence alone doesn't guarantee success or even the ability to collaborate effectively. But it's an empty, silly observation to make on Twitter and it tips his hand to his ultimate goal -- teach to the middle because it creates better stnadardized test results.

Agree. His track record is telling. Still cannot believe MCPS hired him.

Now some outfit in Arlington, VA has hired him. But for what??