Who to vote in November in BOE for More Challenging Curriculum for Advanced Students

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-schools-insider/post/montgomery-board-of-education-primary-meet-the-candidates/2012/03/23/gIQAPKU6bS_blog.html

I saw this link. For board of education at large, I liked what Morris Panner had to say better. He seemed to be advocating for more innovation, challenge etc.
Does anybody have any additional information on the candidates, for board education at large and for other districts?

[Anonymous]

We were wondering the same thing. We also preferred Panner but non of the candidates have made comments on 2.0 and the new grading system. What frustrates me so much abut MCPS is that it is set up so that there is no accountability and no clear path to raise concerns. Its not fair IMO to keep complaining to teachers and principals who had nothing to do with the changes but are captive to not to speak ill of it in public but who privately are just as upset.

[Anonymous]

If you want change, look into these candidates

1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)


If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)

I am going for something new.

[Anonymous]

Agree that Morris Panner's responses to the MCEA questionnaire were impressive. It is unclear to me what he wants to do with pensions, ie is he just looking to change things going forward, but he does seem to understand that teachers are a resource to be developed, which I like. I also like that he has so many young children in the system.

[Anonymous]

MCCF is sponsoring a Board of Education Candidates' Forum on October 17
The Montgomery County Civic Federation will sponsor a Board of Education candidates' forum, from
7 to 9 p.m. on Wednesday, October 17, at the Rockville Public Library (located at 21 Maryland
Avenue). The event is free and open to the public.
Candidates:
Chris Barclay (District 4) Fred Evans (District 2) Phil Kauffman (At-Large)
Annita Seckinger (District 4) Rebecca Smondrowski (District 2) Morris Panner (At-Large)

[Anonymous]

How does the voting work? I know everyone votes for thevat large member but do you vote for the district candidates if you don't live in those districts? I know the district candidates were on the primary ballot -- is it the same for generaL election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does the voting work? I know everyone votes for thevat large member but do you vote for the district candidates if you don't live in those districts? I know the district candidates were on the primary ballot -- is it the same for generaL election?

Yes, you only vote for one at-large member and one district member.

[Anonymous]

Panner - http://www.morrispanner.com/
uh huh
really has LOADS of experience in education
kid at Somerset - green zone . . . What does he know about FARMs and ESOL??

another good one -
http://silverspring.patch.com/articles/annita-seckinger-running-for-county-school-board
love her "educational experience" in environmental issues

http://rsforboe.x10.mx/
and this one . . .
PTA experience

wow - quite the impressive list of candidates

endorsed by the PC, I assume?

PP - you are a moron.

Anonymous wrote:If you want change, look into these candidates

1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)


If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)

I am going for something new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Panner - http://www.morrispanner.com/
uh huh
really has LOADS of experience in education
kid at Somerset - green zone . . . What does he know about FARMs and ESOL??

another good one -
http://silverspring.patch.com/articles/annita-seckinger-running-for-county-school-board
love her "educational experience" in environmental issues

http://rsforboe.x10.mx/
and this one . . .
PTA experience

wow - quite the impressive list of candidates

endorsed by the PC, I assume?

PP - you are a moron.

Anonymous wrote:If you want change, look into these candidates

1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)


If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)

I am going for something new.

PP here and thanks for making my point. The person calling me a moron above clearly supports Apple Ballot/MCEA/Teachers Union. Don't get me wrong, these MCEA folks are stakeholders and deserve a seat at the table. However, do you want every member of the board to be tied to the Union? Does the person above sound like they care and support diverse parent views on education? Does this person sound like they will smile, nod and give parents vague answers about C2.0, then close the door and mutter about how all parents are idiots trying to get their little kids into Harvard? Anyway, that's the vibe I get from the current board and from J Starr. Finally, when the union sits down to vote on budget priorities, would you like at least one non-union person in the room to raise some honest objections or are you comfortable that a Union BOE can fairly negotiate with Union leadership?

So yes, I would absolutely vote for someone who is not part of the current professional education class. This system needs more diversity of thinking. This system needs someone who can represent and advocate for parents/taxpayers. If you are against that stuff, then fine. This is just my humble view.

Signed,

Moron

[Anonymous]

It is a shame that you are subjected to the name-calling when you are only attempting to express a viewpoint about non-union candidates. It does, however, give some insight into their character - in our school system we call their behavior "bullying."

[Anonymous]

I will vote for whomever the Apple Ballot does not endorse.

[Anonymous]

I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

Every child has the right to learn. And what do advanced kids from poor families do under you system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.

To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.


As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.