Mon., Nov 3 Council budget forum for MCPS parents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this money for? The regional model or for renovation of schools?

And yet no $ for overhead fans in the gyms or cooling units it can get frickin hot in there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree it is a good forum for folks to speak up at regarding their concerns about the regional model, but you don't have to oppose MCPS spending increases to do so. MCPS always needs increases just to keep even with services from the previous year, and usually asks for additional money for improvements (of which the system needs many, including reversing the class size increases.)

The ask should not be for no increases to MCPS. It should be saying that MCPS needs to show the county that it will not be wasting money on a half-baked, rushed program plan if it wants any funding increases.

The only chance that the regional model won't go into effect is if there is a budget consequence to MCPS for putting it into place. People should absolutely be lobbying against MCPS getting more money if they move forward with the plan.

Yeah, no, I think the programs plan is poorly designed and want them to stop it for now to revise. But I'm not going to advocate against my kids' interests or the rest of the kids of this county by cutting funding to their schools.

No one is advocating cutting funding. MCPS’s operating budget should be kept at $3.6 billion a year, which is astronomical to begin with, and with awful results (57% proficiency on ELA and 36% proficiency on math).

MCPS needs to work with the budget they are given, not add more and more inequitable programs that refuce access.

sadly that isn't improving and America falls behind yet again in this world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that PP makes their point clear it’s not a money issue. If it is a “family priorities problem,” for lack of a better term, a multi-million dollar regions program would not fix this. URM families would need to act on what is most important to them, just like Nigerian families do, for example.

tru

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Others have posted in the interim. I think the pretty much covers it.

Not the PP, but maybe you and others can outline more what the FARMS kids need that isn't being provided? Is the free breakfast and lunch not enough to satisfy the huger during the day so that they can focus? Should MCPS be sending home dinners too? Schools with higher FARMS populations also benefit from smaller classes. Do they need to be even smaller?

That's not a bad plan. Better than for those students to fill up on sugary snacks and sleep later than recmmended bed times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Others have posted in the interim. I think the pretty much covers it.

Not the PP, but maybe you and others can outline more what the FARMS kids need that isn't being provided? Is the free breakfast and lunch not enough to satisfy the huger during the day so that they can focus? Should MCPS be sending home dinners too? Schools with higher FARMS populations also benefit from smaller classes. Do they need to be even smaller?

That's not a bad plan. Better than for those students to fill up on sugary snacks and sleep later than recmmended bed times.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/405/1232560.page

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Others have posted in the interim. I think the pretty much covers it.

Not the PP, but maybe you and others can outline more what the FARMS kids need that isn't being provided? Is the free breakfast and lunch not enough to satisfy the huger during the day so that they can focus? Should MCPS be sending home dinners too? Schools with higher FARMS populations also benefit from smaller classes. Do they need to be even smaller?

That's not a bad plan. Better than for those students to fill up on sugary snacks and sleep later than recmmended bed times.

I'd support offering families meals. Kids who aren't hungry learn better.

[Anonymous]

Anything about actually purchasing textbooks for all students? Let’s get the basics under control please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Others have posted in the interim. I think the pretty much covers it.

Not the PP, but maybe you and others can outline more what the FARMS kids need that isn't being provided? Is the free breakfast and lunch not enough to satisfy the huger during the day so that they can focus? Should MCPS be sending home dinners too? Schools with higher FARMS populations also benefit from smaller classes. Do they need to be even smaller?

That's not a bad plan. Better than for those students to fill up on sugary snacks and sleep later than recmmended bed times.

School provided food is garbage. It will just be thrown out like they do at lunches and eat the junky snacks anyway. More money down the drain.