Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
BOE election candidates 2024
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
From what I’ve seen at NCC, she’s done a great job. Very innovative ideas, very communicative and inclusive. I don’t know her personally. She looks just like AOC to me. |
Anonymous
|
Are any candidates focusing on education? By that I mean curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially classroom discipline/safety - the things that directly affect all children in how they learn.
It seems like there are always a lot of peripheral issues which may be important and need consideration, but the primary goal of school is education, and I’d like a candidate who will focus on that. |
Anonymous
Safety can mean a lot of different things, but I'd support a candidate who would push for differentiated learning or anything but honors for all. |
Anonymous
+1 But I am sure she will win if she gets the Apple Ballot endorsement |
Anonymous
+10000000000000000000000000000 |
Anonymous
Is she on the PTA there? |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
Seriously. Which one is she?? |
Anonymous
PP that you responded to To me safety means that no one (student or teacher) is being physically attacked in class and the classroom does not have to be evacuated to protect the class from an out of control student. This is something my kids never faced, but judging from the posts I’ve read on DCUM, this seems to be a growing concern. I think MCPS would say they provide differentiated learning by (theoretically) providing assignments that have been modified to match the child’s ability level. I think this approach is problematic in many aspects. What I think would be more effective (and might be more what you had in mind) is to have flexible ability grouping where kids are grouped by ability but with the intention of supporting them so they can advance to higher levels when they’re ready. Here’s a description of it’s successful implementation in an MCPS elementary school: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386 And yes, on the middle school level, it would make sense to have classes that are truly differentiated by level. There should, at a minimum, be remedial, grade level, and Honors classes available, where the descriptions are meaningful and the goal is for every student to master the class content and prepare them to advance to more challenging levels. High school, I think, already offers meaningful differentiation with grade level classes, honors, AP/IB, and the possibility of magnet classes or dual enrollment classes. |
Anonymous
Your best bet is to vote straight Apple ballot. |
Anonymous
No way. If a member or their admin does not bother to respond to emails, do NOT vote for the person! Don't care about no fruit ballot. |
Anonymous
PP you responded to. There’s not a chance I’m going to vote for the Apple Ballot. I posted my opinion of the apple ballot at 02/05/2024 14:31 (bottom of page 13), but basically I think the apple ballot represents goals that, while they may be important, are not related to the concerns I listed above. As far as I have been able to determine, MCEA in determining its endorsements via the apple ballot is not focused on improving education but on improving teachers contracts. As long as they negotiate favorable terms for their union members, they’ll let MCPS do whatever they want to do otherwise. Moreover, as is described in my earlier post and linked article, I think the process is corrupt in that they require candidates to contribute to the union, basically buying their endorsement. I strong encourage anyone who cares about education to ignore the apple ballot and do their own research. |
Anonymous
|
You can have differentiation with equity if you are willing to fund that. That means higher taxes, largely spent in a way that wouldn't directly benefit those in the wealthier parts of the county, as the differentiation need, when identifying & meeting capability with fidelity and accounting for implementation confounders such as language, likely would be greatest in the poorest or close-to-poorest areas.
Is that compromise something that DCUM would support? With continuing demographic shifts, you probably won't get the electoral math to work if all you want to do is provide differentiation where it is easiest and the need most vocally supported by caregivers. |
Anonymous
The “transparency” candidate who made her twitter account private and then set up a new one for her campaign? The “collaboration” candidate who blocks people who disagree with her? That Laura Stewart? She is more of the same and maybe worse than the status quo. |
Anonymous
This sounds like the gobbledygook jargon MCPS uses. First of all, MCPS has long given extra funding to low income schools. I remember Weast talking about low-income schools being called red zone schools and providing the extra funding. Now, I think people talk about them as Focus schools, and aa far as I know they still receive extra funding. Secondly, differentiating by ability should be cost neutral. For example, rather than having 6 classes, each with a broad range of abilities mixed together, you can have 6 classes where everyone receives instruction targeted at their level for 100% of the class time. Schools could decide how to balance the classes. It might be that a school would need 4 remedial, one grade level, and one advanced, or one remedial, one grade level, and four advanced classes. You could even make the more advanced classes larger to allow a lower teacher/student ratio for those who need the most help. You could also differentiate the remedial classes if there is sufficient need. You could have a class that was a little behind, one that basically needed to start from scratch, and however many classes you need in between. Foreign language student would presumably receive ESOL instruction as they do currently, but to the extent they were mainstreamed in English speaking classes, they would surely benefit at having instruction aimed at their level. Frankly, the choice of funding X classes where each student only receives instruction at their level for something less than 100% of the time or funding X classes where students receive instruction that is effective 100% of the time, the more focused instruction would seem to benefit everyone. I’m not sure, but I think that hidden in that gobbledygook was the assumption that I only care about high achieving students, which is not the case. Even if a hypothetical heterogeneous class focuses 1% on advanced students and 4% on grade-level students, that is 5% that is not being devoted to those who need help the most, and I suspect your average class doesn’t focus 95% of the teacher’s time and attention on remediating students. Don’t you think they should get all the help we can give them - instruction focused on their needs 100% of the time so that they can learn most effectively and hopefully progress up to the next level? |