To all who have a problem with MO CO changing demographics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There were no high stakes tests in the 70s, 80s and 90s for schools to be judged on.

I like your defense/spin.
Sounds like the College Board spin. SAT for the rich in the summer after prepping well and hard for their aptitude test. This was just a pilot!

It's not spin. What are you talking about?

IN the 60s, 70s and 80s, schools weren't being judged based on how well their student populations scored on low level, on-grade level tests.

So kids who didn't do well on these tests, were easily ignored.

So schools focused more on the kids with parents who pushed. (The higher students.)

Now -- schools have to focus on the middle and the lower groups -- to get them to pass the tests.

THat's why no one really cares about advanced pathways for there kids in the upper groups. I doubt it is racism against "recent immigrants" (I guess you mean Asians?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You forgot to answer the question or open your ears and eyes. Do the teachers and leadership at your school reflect the diversity of her students?

YES! The principal, AP and all the teachers are the exact same race as 98% of the students at my daughter's school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yup, in 1970 they cared for the high performers and ignored the rest. In 2010, they no longer care for the high performers and now want to focus on the rest. Hmm. I wonder why?

In 1970 schools could ignore the low performers because there were few negative consequences to the schools for doing so. (No NCLB etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am confused by this whole thread. I thought the high performing kids were white and Asian and most of the Asians are not recent immigrants. The recent immigrants are the hispanic families who are typically not performing in the top group and are likely to benefit from a focus on the bottom 90% of the kids. Granted my kids are in MCPS HS so are not affected by the new math curriculum but this tirade against some perceived "old guard" (not clear exactly who that is or how many of them there are) seems misplaced.

I completely agree with you. The conspiracy theory about the "old guard" is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

For those who think the old guard has made this policy change to help bolster their own kids - I'm curious if you are Asian or white. It seems like you have a lot of animosity toward "recent immigrants (I guess you mean Asian). So why do you care if they are "holding back" these high achievers? Unless I am reading your posts with the wrong tone?

[Anonymous]

The recent College Board tactic appears (like the MCPS policy of eliminating math pathways) for the ultimate benefit of the old guard until someone blew the whistle. They promptly did the right thing and reneged. If the MCPS leadership had any sense or morals they too will do the right thing or they are looking forward to an upcoming school year of discontent.

How much money is MCPS saving by elimination of the math pathways? Do they have a number on what they are saving by eliminating this avenue for able students? There are absolutely no savings in my estimation. They have simply given the teachers a raise an increased their workload (that will never be accomplished in a 50 min class) as they continue to struggle to teach math competently -- now to a wide Bell curve of abilities.

Brilliant educational policy straight from the mouths of the fading old guard.

[Anonymous]

For those who think the old guard has made this policy change to help bolster their own kids - I'm curious if you are Asian or white. It seems like you have a lot of animosity toward "recent immigrants (I guess you mean Asian). So why do you care if they are "holding back" these high achievers? Unless I am reading your posts with the wrong tone?

The old guard, like the College Board, may be tone deaf when it comes to policy making. Frankly, some of our leaders are clueless to their subconscious. But, in the club locker rooms, on the beaches and Starbuck shops when no one is around the angst they exhibit towards the changing of the guard (including from the mouths of their babes or children) makes these underlying motives plausible indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For those who think the old guard has made this policy change to help bolster their own kids - I'm curious if you are Asian or white. It seems like you have a lot of animosity toward "recent immigrants (I guess you mean Asian). So why do you care if they are "holding back" these high achievers? Unless I am reading your posts with the wrong tone?

The old guard, like the College Board, may be tone deaf when it comes to policy making. Frankly, some of our leaders are clueless to their subconscious. But, in the club locker rooms, on the beaches and Starbuck shops when no one is around the angst they exhibit towards the changing of the guard (including from the mouths of their babes or children) makes these underlying motives plausible indeed.

But what I want to know is why it upsets you. What about this policy do you dislike? What is your stake in it? I guess I am not understanding the angst.

[Anonymous]

1. While the conspiracy theories are entertaining, they are pretty farfetched. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

2. I'm investing in aluminum foil manufacturers, 'cause lots of you are nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. While the conspiracy theories are entertaining, they are pretty farfetched. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

2. I'm investing in aluminum foil manufacturers, 'cause lots of you are nuts.

Amen

[Anonymous]

YES! The principal, AP and all the teachers are the exact same race as 98% of the students at my daughter's school.

If this is the case how does elimination of math pathways achieve social justice in your daughter's school as your esteemed Superintendent espouses? Please count the ways?

Or is this "social justice" bull shit or better yet a "pilot" trial (a la College Board)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1. While the conspiracy theories are entertaining, they are pretty farfetched. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

2. I'm investing in aluminum foil manufacturers, 'cause lots of you are nuts.


Amen

Predictable script: What do you think usually follows vigorous bible-thumping denials?

Stay tuned!

[Anonymous]

The goals of MCPS are to provide a challenging education for every child in our County. As soon as MCPS starts to stray from that objective into issues of politics (e.g., social justice) then motives, motivations, conflicts of interest (real and/or perceived rears its head). Taking away potential pathways for our children to advance (when they have already mastered the subject content) gets away from the objectives of providing a challenging education for all our children. This action does not save MCPS a single penny but, in a community today increasingly driven by technology, is punitive for children with increasing mastery in the language of that technology (mathematics), and does not provide these children the challenging education MCPS espouses.

MCPS needs to get back on track as far as mission and goals are concerned. It is pure idiocy to a priori declare capable and able students in mathematics will no longer advance in a society and age increasingly dominated by technology. In the age of reason, some centuries ago, if our educational leaders even dared declare proficient student readers of literature, religion and philosophy be held back and denied advancement...I think these educational leaders, too, would be stoned and pillored (including their short-sighted supporters).

Who does this policy change in MCPS affect the most?

Who does this policy change in MCPS benefit the most?

Who does this policy change in MCPS hurt the most?

Does MCPS save any money or resources with this policy change?

Does the MCPS policy change align with her goals of providing a challenging education (including mathematics) for all her children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goals of MCPS are to provide a challenging education for every child in our County. As soon as MCPS starts to stray from that objective into issues of politics (e.g., social justice) then motives, motivations, conflicts of interest (real and/or perceived rears its head). Taking away potential pathways for our children to advance (when they have already mastered the subject content) gets away from the objectives of providing a challenging education for all our children. This action does not save MCPS a single penny but, in a community today increasingly driven by technology, is punitive for children with increasing mastery in the language of that technology (mathematics), and does not provide these children the challenging education MCPS espouses.

MCPS needs to get back on track as far as mission and goals are concerned. It is pure idiocy to a priori declare capable and able students in mathematics will no longer advance in a society and age increasingly dominated by technology. In the age of reason, some centuries ago, if our educational leaders even dared declare proficient student readers of literature, religion and philosophy be held back and denied advancement...I think these educational leaders, too, would be stoned and pillored (including their short-sighted supporters).

Who does this policy change in MCPS affect the most?

Who does this policy change in MCPS benefit the most?

Who does this policy change in MCPS hurt the most?

Does MCPS save any money or resources with this policy change?

Does the MCPS policy change align with her goals of providing a challenging education (including mathematics) for all her children?

At least this is a coherent argument. Unlike the one having to do with "recent immigrants" which doesn't make sense on several levels.

[Anonymous]

Like the College Board, the fading old guard does have a blind spot when it comes to children of recent immigrants. I think the approach above allows the old guard to see the lightening with feeling the thunder.