Another article about the magnet programs in Washington Post

[Anonymous]

I'm not trying to be difficult

The privates and charters that can handle low SES kids do several things

1. Pay teachers much less while having greater demands on teachers (home visits, office hours etc)
2. Have the students in class and in certain subjects for longer periods of time (support this)
3. Are able to get rid of highly problematic children from a discipline and special education lens
4.

Fact is there isn't a model that can take this many kids and be successful

KIPP and other charters are barely making a dent in this population and there aren't enough teachers who are willing to work so hard for so little pay

You think teacher turnover is bad in public schools

My personal solution is some form of busing. All studies show that once your cross around 40% high needs/farms/etc the whole school suffers.

Ironically the magnets are doing the exact opposite. Taking the best and brightest out of their neighborhood schools leaves a terrible school environment for the kids still there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not trying to be difficult

The privates and charters that can handle low SES kids do several things

1. Pay teachers much less while having greater demands on teachers (home visits, office hours etc)
2. Have the students in class and in certain subjects for longer periods of time (support this)
3. Are able to get rid of highly problematic children from a discipline and special education lens
4.

Fact is there isn't a model that can take this many kids and be successful

KIPP and other charters are barely making a dent in this population and there aren't enough teachers who are willing to work so hard for so little pay

You think teacher turnover is bad in public schools

My personal solution is some form of busing. All studies show that once your cross around 40% high needs/farms/etc the whole school suffers.

Ironically the magnets are doing the exact opposite. Taking the best and brightest out of their neighborhood schools leaves a terrible school environment for the kids still there.

I hardly think taking an average of 5 kids out of a given school negatively affects anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://ace.nd.edu/catholic-school-advantage/catholic-school-advantage-fact-sheet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I hardly think taking an average of 5 kids out of a given school negatively affects anything.

When the HGC kids left, that did negatively affect the remaining kids at my kid's school.

[Anonymous]

One issue that I haven't seen discussed in the 17 pages of posts is that even if you get accepted into a magnet program, it takes a commitment from the family to participate in the program. Often the program requires travel to a different school. Even with bus transportation provided, it is not always convenient to get your child to a bus stop, particularly if you go to work before that bus picks up, or if you have other kids who have other transportation needs. Also all families aren't up to the more rigorous homework. There can be an hour or more of homework a night in the HGC program. After school getting out at 3:50 and an hour bus ride home, there isn't a lot of time for dinner, homework and bedtime routine, let alone playtime, sports, vegging, etc. Not every family, regardless of race, ethnicity, SES, etc. can handle this and every kid wants it.

I personally wish that the GT magnet program was offered at each school. Then the diversity in the population in the GT program would more likely mimic that of the school population. I also think all kids in the MCPS system should be offered partial language immersion at the ES level.

MCPS spends a lot of money trying to level the playing field for all students, but doesn't seem to get great results for their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One issue that I haven't seen discussed in the 17 pages of posts is that even if you get accepted into a magnet program, it takes a commitment from the family to participate in the program. Often the program requires travel to a different school. Even with bus transportation provided, it is not always convenient to get your child to a bus stop, particularly if you go to work before that bus picks up, or if you have other kids who have other transportation needs. Also all families aren't up to the more rigorous homework. There can be an hour or more of homework a night in the HGC program. After school getting out at 3:50 and an hour bus ride home, there isn't a lot of time for dinner, homework and bedtime routine, let alone playtime, sports, vegging, etc. Not every family, regardless of race, ethnicity, SES, etc. can handle this and every kid wants it.

I personally wish that the GT magnet program was offered at each school. Then the diversity in the population in the GT program would more likely mimic that of the school population. I also think all kids in the MCPS system should be offered partial language immersion at the ES level.

MCPS spends a lot of money trying to level the playing field for all students, but doesn't seem to get great results for their money.

Good discussion on RMIB workload.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/532942.page

[Anonymous]

I wish MoCo would get rid of a lot of these limited- access programs and instead focus on offering more opportunities for differentiated learning at home schools. Our individual schools are certainly large enough for this approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is systemic. There is gap in education attainment between groups of population. Minority groups have limited access to preschool resources, and when they start school African American and Hispanics already lagging behind. Minority groups also less likely to engage in the summer programs. So, the possible solution may be within the reach. Why not use the existing resources like extended year program? Also, offering free preschool program to minorities may help close the gap. Free preschool is a long shot, but extended school year can be promissing. Once performance in the whole population group is lifted up, the magnet population is going to be more represenative as well. How fixing/adjusting magnet selection would help the more fundamental problem of persistent gap in education attainment? Magnet program is not a problem, the general education program is.

A voice of reason!

+1

[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?

I'm one of those crazy weirdos who pays my taxes and is glad to do so to contribute to a better country for all of us. I figure the education my taxes provide some kid might mean that kid grows up to be a doctor, or nurse, or maybe just a nice person who brightens the day of everyone around them. People who are educated and happy are good people to live around, people who are uneducated and stuck in poverty create crime and much more expensive problems down the road. You'll pay one way or the other.

Also agree with another poster that our educational system *should* be offering more opportunities for all kids, not just the very brightest. But that is in an ideal world. In the actual world we live in, we underpay the people we trust with our most precious resource because people like Ms. Money Comes From Where are too busy hoarding their stash of gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not trying to be difficult

The privates and charters that can handle low SES kids do several things

1. Pay teachers much less while having greater demands on teachers (home visits, office hours etc)
2. Have the students in class and in certain subjects for longer periods of time (support this)
3. Are able to get rid of highly problematic children from a discipline and special education lens
4.

Fact is there isn't a model that can take this many kids and be successful

KIPP and other charters are barely making a dent in this population and there aren't enough teachers who are willing to work so hard for so little pay

You think teacher turnover is bad in public schools

My personal solution is some form of busing. All studies show that once your cross around 40% high needs/farms/etc the whole school suffers.

Ironically the magnets are doing the exact opposite. Taking the best and brightest out of their neighborhood schools leaves a terrible school environment for the kids still there.

This is an exaggeration, but be that as it may, are you suggesting that parents of highly gifted students sacrifice their kids' educational and emotional well-being for the good of the local school community?

[Anonymous]

I must say I am really confused DCUM

On the one hand there are a ton of liberals on this board

On the other hand there are a ton of selfish people who are trying to jam their kids into magnets neighborhood be damned

I guess it makes sense

All the fear about going to a school with too much farms or diversity

The fear in living in the wrong neighborhood

and then I guess yall sleep better at night by saying well at least I'm not trump

DCUM always entertaining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must say I am really confused DCUM

On the one hand there are a ton of liberals on this board

On the other hand there are a ton of selfish people who are trying to jam their kids into magnets neighborhood be damned

I guess it makes sense

All the fear about going to a school with too much farms or diversity

The fear in living in the wrong neighborhood

and then I guess yall sleep better at night by saying well at least I'm not trump

DCUM always entertaining

My child went to a Title I school with 70% FARMS to attend a magnet. Completely different school profile than home school. Hardly trying to avoid home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is an exaggeration, but be that as it may, are you suggesting that parents of highly gifted students sacrifice their kids' educational and emotional well-being for the good of the local school community?

I had two kids in the HGC, and their educational and emotional well-being would not have been sacrificed had they stayed at their home school. Other people may have different experiences, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I must say I am really confused DCUM

On the one hand there are a ton of liberals on this board

On the other hand there are a ton of selfish people who are trying to jam their kids into magnets neighborhood be damned

I guess it makes sense

All the fear about going to a school with too much farms or diversity

The fear in living in the wrong neighborhood

and then I guess yall sleep better at night by saying well at least I'm not trump

DCUM always entertaining

I'm afraid I find your post to be confusing. Magnets are designed to bring high SES students into low SES schools. Are you saying they should stay in the high SES schools, so that their homeschool isn't penalized by their absence? Or do you think that smart kids from low SES schools should be forced to stay in schools that aren't meeting their needs? Are these the kids you say fear living in the wrong neighborhood?

Does a child have a responsibility to stay in a school that doesn't meet their needs? If so, what do you expect them to do? Are they supposed to be unpaid tutors? If so, I have 2 problems with that. First of all, they are neither trained subject matter experts nor trained teachers. I think struggling students deserve highly qualified teachers which isn't the kud sitting in the next row, no matter how smart they are. Secondly, the smart kids are entitled to learn something themselves. School should provide an opportunity for every student to learn.

Yes, I've tried to make sure my kids were given the opportunity to learn, and sometimes this meant going to magnets. If that makes me selfish, so be it. But I have also advocated every step of the way for things that I think would help struggling students: better curriculum (with textbooks), flexible ability grouping, and meaningful grades. If you have constructive ideas for school improvement I would love to hear them.