Pay raise for Starr?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

You do realize, that for better or worse, and for the most part that American public education is 'one size fits all'?
You do realize this correct?
There is no curriculum on the planet that is going to fit every need of every child, not even in private school.
Hopefully, you find a curriculum that works FOR THE MOST part for your kid.
Where they do not meet ALL OF YOUR NEEDS, you supplement.
Otherwise, homeschool and your kid will get EVERYTHING you want them to get.


Not really. The tests they use to measure student achievement (MSA and HSA) are extremely easy. Highly able kids can easily score very high on them and still be bored and unchallenged in the classroom.

If you look at the benchmarks that Starr is setting, you will see that they are a fairly low bar. So if there are few resources dedicated to efforts other than having all kids meet that low bar, you are by default teaching to the middle.

Then look at his ideas about classroom differentiation. He expects teachers to instruct what amounts to, in some schools, 7 or 8 different reading or math levels in one classroom. Do you think the top kids are getting challenged and working up to their ability? Or are they doing "independent work" (i.e. worksheet after worksheet) while the teacher addresses the lower performing kids so they can all make the low MSA level that's required?

I am ALL FOR closing the gap but that doesn't mean you can make education one size fits all and remain a world class school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

You do realize, that for better or worse, and for the most part that American public education is 'one size fits all'?
You do realize this correct?
There is no curriculum on the planet that is going to fit every need of every child, not even in private school.
Hopefully, you find a curriculum that works FOR THE MOST part for your kid.
Where they do not meet ALL OF YOUR NEEDS, you supplement.
Otherwise, homeschool and your kid will get EVERYTHING you want them to get.


Not really. The tests they use to measure student achievement (MSA and HSA) are extremely easy. Highly able kids can easily score very high on them and still be bored and unchallenged in the classroom.

If you look at the benchmarks that Starr is setting, you will see that they are a fairly low bar. So if there are few resources dedicated to efforts other than having all kids meet that low bar, you are by default teaching to the middle.

Then look at his ideas about classroom differentiation. He expects teachers to instruct what amounts to, in some schools, 7 or 8 different reading or math levels in one classroom. Do you think the top kids are getting challenged and working up to their ability? Or are they doing "independent work" (i.e. worksheet after worksheet) while the teacher addresses the lower performing kids so they can all make the low MSA level that's required?

I am ALL FOR closing the gap but that doesn't mean you can make education one size fits all and remain a world class school system.

oopss wacky computer operator error above...

meant to say:

You do realize, that for better or worse, and for the most part that American public education is 'one size fits all'?
You do realize this correct?
There is no curriculum on the planet that is going to fit every need of every child, not even in private school.
Hopefully, you find a curriculum that works FOR THE MOST part for your kid.
Where they do not meet ALL OF YOUR NEEDS, you supplement.
Otherwise, homeschool and your kid will get EVERYTHING you want them to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your opinion about the remedies that Dan Reed floated in his opinion piece in the WashPo of a couple weeks back - he raised serious questions worthy of discussion/debate. The arrogance in Dr. Starr's initial (off-the-cuff, uncanned and therefore more authentic?) response blew me away:

When speaking at the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board, Dr. Starr was asked what he thought of the Dan Reed piece. Dr. Starr's response: "There's no shortage of self-professed experts on education because they went to school."

Well, he does have a point. Just read these threads to see how many "education experts" visit this forum!

I don't have an informed opinion on Dr. Starr, but I think that comment is spot on.
The guy may not be good, he may be arrogant, but yea -- there are a lot of people who think they are educational experts, and most of them post on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I myself am a big supporter of unions in general as a way to guarantee worker rights, etc. But I dislike MCEA's drive to get rid of differentiation and its leaders' inability to see that we have to close the achievement gap without lowering standards and leaving highly able kids to languish.

Obviously yes, Starr, MCEA, the Board of Education, and MCPS in general are interested in closing the achievement gap -- as we all should be.

But how are they advocating using lower standards as a strategy for closing the achievement gap? How are they advocating leaving highly-able kids to languish (!) as a strategy for closing the achievement gap?

And even if they actually did have a secret malign agenda to do this, what would happen? The numbers would come out, and everybody would immediately see that the reason the achievement gap was smaller was not because the lower-scoring groups were scoring higher, but because the higher-scoring groups were scoring lower. Do you think that they are too foolish or too incompetent to realize this?

Not really. The tests they use to measure student achievement (MSA and HSA) are extremely easy. Highly able kids can easily score very high on them and still be bored and unchallenged in the classroom.

If you look at the benchmarks that Starr is setting, you will see that they are a fairly low bar. So if there are few resources dedicated to efforts other than having all kids meet that low bar, you are by default teaching to the middle.

Then look at his ideas about classroom differentiation. He expects teachers to instruct what amounts to, in some schools, 7 or 8 different reading or math levels in one classroom. Do you think the top kids are getting challenged and working up to their ability? Or are they doing "independent work" (i.e. worksheet after worksheet) while the teacher addresses the lower performing kids so they can all make the low MSA level that's required?

I am ALL FOR closing the gap but that doesn't mean you can make education one size fits all and remain a world class school system.

If it is not one size fits all, to which "size" should it be tailored?

[Anonymous]

There are able/ motivated kids who should have one set of instruction.

There are struggling students who should have a second set of instruction.

There are behavorial problem kids who should have a third set of instruction.


This is what it was like when I went to school and it worked well. I understand the concept of mainstreaming and am okay with it as long as it doesn't bring down the other kids in the class with distractions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are able/ motivated kids who should have one set of instruction.

There are struggling students who should have a second set of instruction.

There are behavorial problem kids who should have a third set of instruction.


This is what it was like when I went to school and it worked well. I understand the concept of mainstreaming and am okay with it as long as it doesn't bring down the other kids in the class with distractions.

It might have worked well for you, but it didn't necessarily work well for everybody else. This is not a new debate in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are able/ motivated kids who should have one set of instruction.

There are struggling students who should have a second set of instruction.

There are behavorial problem kids who should have a third set of instruction.


This is what it was like when I went to school and it worked well. I understand the concept of mainstreaming and am okay with it as long as it doesn't bring down the other kids in the class with distractions.

You are correct in theory. I think we can all agree on this. Now please point out to us all exactly what PUBLIC school in this country, with the number of students there are in MOCO, does this perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are able/ motivated kids who should have one set of instruction.

There are struggling students who should have a second set of instruction.

There are behavorial problem kids who should have a third set of instruction.


This is what it was like when I went to school and it worked well. I understand the concept of mainstreaming and am okay with it as long as it doesn't bring down the other kids in the class with distractions.

It might have worked well for you, but it didn't necessarily work well for everybody else. This is not a new debate in education.

Why should advanced learners be punished? I feel very strongly about that as I didn't have parential support so MCPS 20 years ago provided me with an environment where I could be successful. Everyone else had the same opportunities I did..if they didn't take advantage of them that was there fault. I'm speaking as someone who didn't eat breakfast had a candy bar for lunch and was always begging my dad to take me to the grocery store. I'm in the top 5 percent of HHI now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are able/ motivated kids who should have one set of instruction.

There are struggling students who should have a second set of instruction.

There are behavorial problem kids who should have a third set of instruction.


This is what it was like when I went to school and it worked well. I understand the concept of mainstreaming and am okay with it as long as it doesn't bring down the other kids in the class with distractions.

It might have worked well for you, but it didn't necessarily work well for everybody else. This is not a new debate in education.

Why should advanced learners be punished? I feel very strongly about that as I didn't have parential support so MCPS 20 years ago provided me with an environment where I could be successful. Everyone else had the same opportunities I did..if they didn't take advantage of them that was there fault. I'm speaking as someone who didn't eat breakfast had a candy bar for lunch and was always begging my dad to take me to the grocery store. I'm in the top 5 percent of HHI now.

Nobody is saying that advanced learners should be punished.

[Anonymous]

OMG What do you want ????
What standards...What?????
Would you like a separate system for highly gifted kids?
This is getting old.... No one is being punished

[Anonymous]

HG needs are met. It's the next X% that aren't. Making these kids repeat things over and over again until the bottom learn it is a HORRIBLE social experiment on our kids. Competition is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your opinion about the remedies that Dan Reed floated in his opinion piece in the WashPo of a couple weeks back - he raised serious questions worthy of discussion/debate. The arrogance in Dr. Starr's initial (off-the-cuff, uncanned and therefore more authentic?) response blew me away:

When speaking at the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board, Dr. Starr was asked what he thought of the Dan Reed piece. Dr. Starr's response: "There's no shortage of self-professed experts on education because they went to school."

Well, he does have a point. Just read these threads to see how many "education experts" visit this forum!

New poster here. So.....it's cool that he attacked Dan Reed personally instead of providing an intelligent and thoughtful response to the question? He's the subject matter expert, right? If he really gave such a flippant answer, that would lead me to believe: (1) he doesn't think his audience is worthy of an intelligent response; (2) he doesn't have an intelligent response to give; or (3) he is a horrible public speaker.

Sounds like he had the opportunity to address the criticism head on and explain why his current approach is the best one. But instead he just chose to be dismissive of the writer. Doesn't sound like a great leader to me.

[Anonymous]

Dan Reed is a flake and, had Starr taken seriously Reed's suggestions to start bussing the dwindling number of white students in MCPS all over the county to achieve some ideal, yet transitory, SES balance, people would have jumped all over him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dan Reed is a flake and, had Starr taken seriously Reed's suggestions to start bussing the dwindling number of white students in MCPS all over the county to achieve some ideal, yet transitory, SES balance, people would have jumped all over him.

Nobody said he had to take those specific suggestions seriously. He should take questions from residents more seriously. There is a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever your opinion about the remedies that Dan Reed floated in his opinion piece in the WashPo of a couple weeks back - he raised serious questions worthy of discussion/debate. The arrogance in Dr. Starr's initial (off-the-cuff, uncanned and therefore more authentic?) response blew me away:

When speaking at the Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board, Dr. Starr was asked what he thought of the Dan Reed piece. Dr. Starr's response: "There's no shortage of self-professed experts on education because they went to school."

Well, he does have a point. Just read these threads to see how many "education experts" visit this forum!

New poster here. So.....it's cool that he attacked Dan Reed personally instead of providing an intelligent and thoughtful response to the question? He's the subject matter expert, right? If he really gave such a flippant answer, that would lead me to believe: (1) he doesn't think his audience is worthy of an intelligent response; (2) he doesn't have an intelligent response to give; or (3) he is a horrible public speaker.

Sounds like he had the opportunity to address the criticism head on and explain why his current approach is the best one. But instead he just chose to be dismissive of the writer. Doesn't sound like a great leader to me.

Exactly. This his his attitude towards parents all the time. Flip and defensive. Ugh, can't stand him.