Leader In Me training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone at our school loved this training. People couldn't stop raving about how inspiration it was.

Bull$&@!

I’m happy at my school (teacher). But please tell me the name of the school where everyone raved about how inspired the LIM training was. I want to avoid that place at all costs.
Btw, my school is dropping that cultish program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone at our school loved this training. People couldn't stop raving about how inspiration it was.

Bull$&@!

Where's that "Damn you!, Poe's Law" person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No Kidding!

$1.6 Million for 37 schools MCPS schools/programs have chosen to implement or continue implementation of the Leader in Me Curriculum in the 2023–2024 school year

The rest of the MCPS schools/program would use the MCPS in-house SEL lessons (certainly would cost $$$$ to be developed)

Anonymous wrote:Wow, 173 out of 210 schools have opted out of Leader in Me for the 2023-34 school year. I wonder which 37 chose to continue with it.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSEJSA4E8C5A/$file/Cont%20Approv%20RFP%204926.1%20SEL%20Curr%20Instruct%20Materials.pdf

That should be a H no. If the greater majority of schools are opting out, there needs to be seriously compelling reason for the district to spend 1.6 million for just 37 schools. I want to hear the compelling reasons and data. Otherwise reallocate those funds elsewhere (Para support, afterschool programs, onsite tutoring, additional arts funding, grants to teachers, etc., etc)

That is $44,500 per school...how about hiring more counselors with that money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone at our school loved this training. People couldn't stop raving about how inspiration it was.

We felt the same way. I just don't get what these people have against it because it seemed great to us too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vague recollection is MCPS had three vendors put in bids. LiM was the only one that said it could be used from ES though HS. The reality is the MS and HS stuff was pretty much the same as the ES stuff, so it completely fell flat with kids. LiM is pure corporate self-help nonsense from the 90's. It only serves to help LiM make money, not help our students.

But why did our EDUCATORS not have the ability to look at this with a critical eye and recognize this wasn't going to work for our population or age group? The should have been apparent before purchasing.

Mcps keeps falling into a trap in wanting a curriculum that works for thousands of kids but dew curriculums are one size fits all. That's why we didn't get rid of benchmark because the reading office and esol office couldn't come to an agreement

Well by picking a terrible curriculum nobody learns to read and they can claim they closed the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone at our school loved this training. People couldn't stop raving about how inspiration it was.

We felt the same way. I just don't get what these people have against it because it seemed great to us too.

Name your school! Oh yeah, you can’t since you are either a troll or an LiM shill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone at our school loved this training. People couldn't stop raving about how inspiration it was.

We felt the same way. I just don't get what these people have against it because it seemed great to us too.

Name your school! Oh yeah, you can’t since you are either a troll or an LiM shill.

LIM is so terrible that anyone with a shred of familiarity with the program knows the LIM cheerleader is full of it and responsible for either choosing it, greenlighting it, or protecting mcps's reputation. They will never name a school because there isn't one. They really blew it with this program.

[Anonymous]

I really want to know what the 37 schools are that are keeping it. I will be pissed if ours is one of them.

[Anonymous]

LiM was terrible for middle schools and high schools. Most of the issue was that it was just thrown into homeroom/advisory periods where most MCPS pet projects go to die.

I could see it working in small group settings or elementary schools though at least for a few sessions.

My big fear is what the "MCPS replacement" is going to be. It's clear the people in charge of these programs are disconnected from classroom experience in large group settings.

[Anonymous]

I went to Ed School. My professor's main idea was the "curriculum" doesn't work. Kids need to study what is relevant to their lives and their community, not McDonald's mass-produced content.

Kids learn leadership by doing things in the world, not doing worksheets in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s an awful program. Mg school has been doing it for two years. Kids , teachers, and parents all agree

That just a difference of opinion. The kids at our school can't get enough of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an awful program. Mg school has been doing it for two years. Kids , teachers, and parents all agree

That just a difference of opinion. The kids at our school can't get enough of it.

Tip for future trolling - try to be more subtle so it's a bit more believable.