Another article about the magnet programs in Washington Post

[Anonymous]

Never own up to your faults. Just blame the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never own up to your faults. Just blame the others.

Yes, there's a lot of that going on here. "If people don't know all about all of MCPS's different programs, it's their own fault!" I think that MCPS can do better, and I credit MCPS for trying to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never own up to your faults. Just blame the others.

Yes, there's a lot of that going on here. "If people don't know all about all of MCPS's different programs, it's their own fault!" I think that MCPS can do better, and I credit MCPS for trying to do so.

too lame.

[Anonymous]

The real problems causing racial disparity are that the schools are not funded enough to help underprivileged kids. If your parents work two jobs a piece and you are at daycare until 7/8pm at night and you barely have enough to eat, you probably aren't going to be as academically successful, period. If you start K without ever having been to pre-K because parents couldn't afford it, you are starting at a big disadvantage right off the bat. But they keep chopping away at the budget and the kids who suffer the most are the poorest kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who wrote that early intervention is the key.

We've spent 200 billion on Headstart with absolutely no lasting results.

Over 50 years...

But it shouldn't be surprising that a few years of preschool that is not necessarily high quality wouldn't make a big difference in the lives of children who were born into the effects of poverty and continue to live in the effects of poverty. The corollary of the "Headstart hasn't done anything" argument always seems to be, "So let's get rid of it." We could improve Headstart, we could continue intervention, we could do things to mitigate the effects of poverty seriously in other ways than just a few years of preschool, we could actually reduce poverty -- but nah, let's just get rid of Headstart altogether. Why bother, after all? We will always have the poor among us.

Imagine living in a country where we viewed each child as an investment in the future of our nation, vs. a burden. Imagine if we could give each child the best possible education instead of scraps. Imagine how great England must feel to have invested welfare dollars into the sustenance of JK Rowling, and how much she has repaid that debt to the nth degree.

But by all means, let's give the poor kids the crappiest scraps we can scrounge up and then wonder why they don't thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who wrote that early intervention is the key.

We've spent 200 billion on Headstart with absolutely no lasting results.

Over 50 years...

But it shouldn't be surprising that a few years of preschool that is not necessarily high quality wouldn't make a big difference in the lives of children who were born into the effects of poverty and continue to live in the effects of poverty. The corollary of the "Headstart hasn't done anything" argument always seems to be, "So let's get rid of it." We could improve Headstart, we could continue intervention, we could do things to mitigate the effects of poverty seriously in other ways than just a few years of preschool, we could actually reduce poverty -- but nah, let's just get rid of Headstart altogether. Why bother, after all? We will always have the poor among us.

Imagine living in a country where we viewed each child as an investment in the future of our nation, vs. a burden. Imagine if we could give each child the best possible education instead of scraps. Imagine how great England must feel to have invested welfare dollars into the sustenance of JK Rowling, and how much she has repaid that debt to the nth degree.

But by all means, let's give the poor kids the crappiest scraps we can scrounge up and then wonder why they don't thrive.

Money comes from where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who wrote that early intervention is the key.

We've spent 200 billion on Headstart with absolutely no lasting results.

Over 50 years...

But it shouldn't be surprising that a few years of preschool that is not necessarily high quality wouldn't make a big difference in the lives of children who were born into the effects of poverty and continue to live in the effects of poverty. The corollary of the "Headstart hasn't done anything" argument always seems to be, "So let's get rid of it." We could improve Headstart, we could continue intervention, we could do things to mitigate the effects of poverty seriously in other ways than just a few years of preschool, we could actually reduce poverty -- but nah, let's just get rid of Headstart altogether. Why bother, after all? We will always have the poor among us.

Imagine living in a country where we viewed each child as an investment in the future of our nation, vs. a burden. Imagine if we could give each child the best possible education instead of scraps. Imagine how great England must feel to have invested welfare dollars into the sustenance of JK Rowling, and how much she has repaid that debt to the nth degree.

But by all means, let's give the poor kids the crappiest scraps we can scrounge up and then wonder why they don't thrive.

Money comes from where?

We're already spending a lot of money on the effects of poverty. It's just that we're spending it after the poverty has already done its harm -- for example, by locking people up. I'd rather spend it to prevent harm in the first place. Not to mention, how much does it cost us to waste human potential?

[Anonymous]

The best way to give lower SES students a shot is to provide state and county funding for vouchers for lower SES students to attend private schools. The public school system is too much of a bureaucracy, too many wasted dollars overpaying unqualified staff, and most importantly no mechanism to hold anyone in MCS accountable for anything is always going to mean that for every additional dollar spent a good portion might as well be thrown out the window. Unlike public school, private schools have to compete and deliver to survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP who wrote that early intervention is the key.

We've spent 200 billion on Headstart with absolutely no lasting results.

Over 50 years...

But it shouldn't be surprising that a few years of preschool that is not necessarily high quality wouldn't make a big difference in the lives of children who were born into the effects of poverty and continue to live in the effects of poverty. The corollary of the "Headstart hasn't done anything" argument always seems to be, "So let's get rid of it." We could improve Headstart, we could continue intervention, we could do things to mitigate the effects of poverty seriously in other ways than just a few years of preschool, we could actually reduce poverty -- but nah, let's just get rid of Headstart altogether. Why bother, after all? We will always have the poor among us.

Imagine living in a country where we viewed each child as an investment in the future of our nation, vs. a burden. Imagine if we could give each child the best possible education instead of scraps. Imagine how great England must feel to have invested welfare dollars into the sustenance of JK Rowling, and how much she has repaid that debt to the nth degree.

But by all means, let's give the poor kids the crappiest scraps we can scrounge up and then wonder why they don't thrive.

Money comes from where?

We're already spending a lot of money on the effects of poverty. It's just that we're spending it after the poverty has already done its harm -- for example, by locking people up. I'd rather spend it to prevent harm in the first place. Not to mention, how much does it cost us to waste human potential?

Well that's the question isn't it? How much potential is really there? Honestly the best way to spend money would be on birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well that's the question isn't it? How much potential is really there? Honestly the best way to spend money would be on birth control.

PP, would you say that to people you know, face-to-face, in real life? "Hey you poor people, you don't have much to offer anyway, so there's no point in spending money on you. In fact, you shouldn't have kids anyway." Would you say that face-to-face, in real life, to your friends? Would you say that, face-to-face, in real life, to the people who clean your office and serve your coffee and wash your dishes at restaurants and sell you your [whatever you buy] and get the goods at the warehouse that you ordered on line and turn your mother-in-law in the care facility so that she doesn't get bed sores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well that's the question isn't it? How much potential is really there? Honestly the best way to spend money would be on birth control.

PP, would you say that to people you know, face-to-face, in real life? "Hey you poor people, you don't have much to offer anyway, so there's no point in spending money on you. In fact, you shouldn't have kids anyway." Would you say that face-to-face, in real life, to your friends? Would you say that, face-to-face, in real life, to the people who clean your office and serve your coffee and wash your dishes at restaurants and sell you your [whatever you buy] and get the goods at the warehouse that you ordered on line and turn your mother-in-law in the care facility so that she doesn't get bed sores?

NP - ?? I don't get it. What does that got to do with anything?? DCUM is popular because it allows people to say things anonymously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best way to give lower SES students a shot is to provide state and county funding for vouchers for lower SES students to attend private schools. The public school system is too much of a bureaucracy, too many wasted dollars overpaying unqualified staff, and most importantly no mechanism to hold anyone in MCS accountable for anything is always going to mean that for every additional dollar spent a good portion might as well be thrown out the window. Unlike public school, private schools have to compete and deliver to survive.

Let's see. 156,000 students this year in MCPS. Since you're talking about "lower SES", let's use the ever-FARMS rate, which is 43%, so 67,080 students. I wonder how many open spots there are at the private schools in the area? Plus, of course, the good private schools cost $30,000 a year, so >$2 billion a year for vouchers for lower SES kids just in Montgomery County. And then somebody still has to pay for school for the other 57%. And then, of course, people will want to know where that $2 billion in public money is going...

Well, I think I foresee some difficulties in implementation here. Or do you have a magic wand we could borrow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well that's the question isn't it? How much potential is really there? Honestly the best way to spend money would be on birth control.

PP, would you say that to people you know, face-to-face, in real life? "Hey you poor people, you don't have much to offer anyway, so there's no point in spending money on you. In fact, you shouldn't have kids anyway." Would you say that face-to-face, in real life, to your friends? Would you say that, face-to-face, in real life, to the people who clean your office and serve your coffee and wash your dishes at restaurants and sell you your [whatever you buy] and get the goods at the warehouse that you ordered on line and turn your mother-in-law in the care facility so that she doesn't get bed sores?

NP - ?? I don't get it. What does that got to do with anything?? DCUM is popular because it allows people to say things anonymously.

I would like to know whether that PP has the courage of their convictions.

[Anonymous]

We're already spending a lot of money on the effects of poverty. It's just that we're spending it after the poverty has already done its harm -- for example, by locking people up. I'd rather spend it to prevent harm in the first place. Not to mention, how much does it cost us to waste human potential?

Just curious but are you a Sanders supporter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best way to give lower SES students a shot is to provide state and county funding for vouchers for lower SES students to attend private schools. The public school system is too much of a bureaucracy, too many wasted dollars overpaying unqualified staff, and most importantly no mechanism to hold anyone in MCS accountable for anything is always going to mean that for every additional dollar spent a good portion might as well be thrown out the window. Unlike public school, private schools have to compete and deliver to survive.

Let's see. 156,000 students this year in MCPS. Since you're talking about "lower SES", let's use the ever-FARMS rate, which is 43%, so 67,080 students. I wonder how many open spots there are at the private schools in the area? Plus, of course, the good private schools cost $30,000 a year, so >$2 billion a year for vouchers for lower SES kids just in Montgomery County. And then somebody still has to pay for school for the other 57%. And then, of course, people will want to know where that $2 billion in public money is going...

Well, I think I foresee some difficulties in implementation here. Or do you have a magic wand we could borrow?

I agree that MCPS is inefficient and not effective enough in dealing with low SES students. I also agree that sending kids en masse to private school is completely unrealistic.

What seems more reasonable is to look at what private and charter schools do right and copy that. I realize that there are confounding variables in such an exercise. Private schools deal with vastly different populations and that needs to be factored into any comparison. Charter schools have widely varied success rates, but there are some that are highly successful, even though they teach low SES and minority children.

In terms of private schools, I'm especially curious about Catholic schools (I am not Catholic, nor have my kids attended any private schools since preschool). I don't know the logistics, but my understanding is that Catholic schools serve a wide SES with good results. Can anyone confirm this? If so, I would assume that tuition is supplemented by the Catholic Church, but it hardly seems like they would have the funding of the exclusive private secular schools that seem to be frequently discussed on DCUM.

I think a review of proven curriculum/methods would be more effective than MCPS continuing to write and revise an ad hoc curriculum. Let's find something that works and use it.