MCPS and Starr will probably need to change boundaries

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. More affordable housing in Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and Potomac would help a lot. So would stricter requirements about developers' impact fees as contributions to the school-building/renovation/expansion budget. Those are County Council issues, not MCPS issues.

The planning board is holding hearings soon on 329 Housing Opportunities Commission apartments on Chevy Chase Lake Drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you can find anyone worse. People hated Weast, but at least he had a vision - especially when it boiled down to professional development. And while Weast labeled low performing schools as red zone schools, he did acknowledge there was a disparity among area schools.

Starr has nothing to his name. He tried to highlight social-emotional learning, but no one - aside from school psychologists - really understands the research behind it and how it can be applied to instructional practices.

This. You can't solve a problem if you keep trying to hide that you have it. The whole 2.0 and everyone is a P disaster is all about hiding the achievement gap rather than solving it. Bussing kids around isn't going to make any difference either. It will just divert funds to buses not actually teaching students.

If MCPS wants to solve the achievement gap, it needs to stop passing the buck until its too late. This starts in ES with giving actual assessments and tests to identify early on when students are failing. It means giving after school tutoring programs and rewarding students for improvement. It means giving kids back their tests and exams and requiring every kids that scored below a certain percentage to attend tutoring, correct their mistakes and take a make up until they pass.

Starr is constantly talking about the achievement gap. That's not what I would do, if I were trying to hide the achievement gap.

Talking about it w/o offering solutions does nothing.

If he really believes that social-emotional learning is the key (look at his strategic plan), he would specifically address it at the school level. This isn't the case. He goes on and on about equity, but I have yet to be involved in a discussion at the school level about WHAT equity looks like in the classroom. Sure, I can find the definition online. But how does that definition translate into instructional practices? And most importantly, how do we get educators to do some self-reflection on their beliefs?

It's hit or miss.

"Redistributing kids" won't solve the problem. Kids self-segregate - even in some very diverse schools. In the "W schools," they'll self-segregate by money. Do you honestly think some kid living in low-income housing will be welcomed by the kid in the mansion? doubtful

And sprinkling in a few kids coming from disadvantaged homes will make them stand out, as most will be black and Hispanic. Is that fair?

If I had the answer, I'd be a millionaire. But I know that this solution will not work either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starr needs to go.

But will his replacement be any better? The BOE picked Starr. Would they be using different criteria to select someone new? Starr drives me nuts, but there's always the potential for his replacement to be even worse.

I don't know if you can find anyone worse.

People hated Weast, but at least he had a vision - especially when it boiled down to professional development.

And while Weast labeled low performing schools as red zone schools, he did acknowledge there was a disparity among area schools.

Starr has nothing to his name. He tried to highlight social-emotional learning, but no one - aside from school psychologists - really understands the research behind it and how it can be applied to instructional practices.

He may have a PhD from Harvard, but based upon those he's brought in with Harvard degrees, I'm not impressed.

Anyone can look good on paper. My former principal is one example!

He does not have a Ph.D., he has an Ed.D. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

If MCPS really cared about students (rather than popular opinion), they would ensure tracking was available at all schools. True tracking by ability would encourage higher SES families to attend public schools as their needs would be met/ and they would challenged. Motivated and talented minority/low income kids would thus have a good peer group and teachers would be able to teach kids to their ability.

Sticking unmotivated disadvantaged kids in a classroom with bright motivated kids helps no one. The unmotivated kids are disruptive and the motivated ones aren't taught to their ability. The parents who can afford it leave the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Redistributing kids" won't solve the problem. Kids self-segregate - even in some very diverse schools. In the "W schools," they'll self-segregate by money. Do you honestly think some kid living in low-income housing will be welcomed by the kid in the mansion? doubtful

And sprinkling in a few kids coming from disadvantaged homes will make them stand out, as most will be black and Hispanic. Is that fair?

If I had the answer, I'd be a millionaire. But I know that this solution will not work either.

This solution actually does work.

I don't know if a kid in a mansion will welcome a kid living in low-income housing, and I don't know if it's fair to make disadvantaged kids to stand out.

What I do know is that the educational outcomes for poor kids are a lot better in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS really cared about students (rather than popular opinion), they would ensure tracking was available at all schools. True tracking by ability would encourage higher SES families to attend public schools as their needs would be met/ and they would challenged. Motivated and talented minority/low income kids would thus have a good peer group and teachers would be able to teach kids to their ability.

Sticking unmotivated disadvantaged kids in a classroom with bright motivated kids helps no one. The unmotivated kids are disruptive and the motivated ones aren't taught to their ability. The parents who can afford it leave the system.

This suggestion usually comes from high-SES parents with reasonably bright, reasonably well-motivated kids. That is because tracking unquestionably benefits these kids.

What suggestions do people have who do not fit into this category -- i.e., the people who would be disadvantaged by tracking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you can find anyone worse. People hated Weast, but at least he had a vision - especially when it boiled down to professional development. And while Weast labeled low performing schools as red zone schools, he did acknowledge there was a disparity among area schools.

Starr has nothing to his name. He tried to highlight social-emotional learning, but no one - aside from school psychologists - really understands the research behind it and how it can be applied to instructional practices.

This. You can't solve a problem if you keep trying to hide that you have it. The whole 2.0 and everyone is a P disaster is all about hiding the achievement gap rather than solving it. Bussing kids around isn't going to make any difference either. It will just divert funds to buses not actually teaching students.

If MCPS wants to solve the achievement gap, it needs to stop passing the buck until its too late. This starts in ES with giving actual assessments and tests to identify early on when students are failing. It means giving after school tutoring programs and rewarding students for improvement. It means giving kids back their tests and exams and requiring every kids that scored below a certain percentage to attend tutoring, correct their mistakes and take a make up until they pass.

Starr is constantly talking about the achievement gap. That's not what I would do, if I were trying to hide the achievement gap.

Talking about it w/o offering solutions does nothing.

If he really believes that social-emotional learning is the key (look at his strategic plan), he would specifically address it at the school level. This isn't the case. He goes on and on about equity, but I have yet to be involved in a discussion at the school level about WHAT equity looks like in the classroom. Sure, I can find the definition online. But how does that definition translate into instructional practices? And most importantly, how do we get educators to do some self-reflection on their beliefs?

It's hit or miss.

"Redistributing kids" won't solve the problem. Kids self-segregate - even in some very diverse schools. In the "W schools," they'll self-segregate by money. Do you honestly think some kid living in low-income housing will be welcomed by the kid in the mansion? doubtful

And sprinkling in a few kids coming from disadvantaged homes will make them stand out, as most will be black and Hispanic. Is that fair?

If I had the answer, I'd be a millionaire. But I know that this solution will not work either.

You know this situation already exists at both Churchill and Wootton with Scotland and Tobytown. When I was at Wootton some of the kids from Tobytown were very popular and friends with everyone. Others kept to themselves. It seemed like it depended on the individual more than a general rule that "poor" kids were labeled and ostracized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you can find anyone worse. People hated Weast, but at least he had a vision - especially when it boiled down to professional development. And while Weast labeled low performing schools as red zone schools, he did acknowledge there was a disparity among area schools.

Starr has nothing to his name. He tried to highlight social-emotional learning, but no one - aside from school psychologists - really understands the research behind it and how it can be applied to instructional practices.

This. You can't solve a problem if you keep trying to hide that you have it. The whole 2.0 and everyone is a P disaster is all about hiding the achievement gap rather than solving it. Bussing kids around isn't going to make any difference either. It will just divert funds to buses not actually teaching students.

If MCPS wants to solve the achievement gap, it needs to stop passing the buck until its too late. This starts in ES with giving actual assessments and tests to identify early on when students are failing. It means giving after school tutoring programs and rewarding students for improvement. It means giving kids back their tests and exams and requiring every kids that scored below a certain percentage to attend tutoring, correct their mistakes and take a make up until they pass.

This and also holding parents accountable. I was on welfare growing up. Both my parents worked. I only saw my father for a few hours on Sunday and my mom late in the afternoon. They were exhausted. But they always made sure we did our homework and instilled the importance of a good education. All 4 of us graduated college.

I would suggest having schools for low performers. If a child isn't doing well, give the home school an opportunity to address and if the child continues to fall short, move them to a school that has teachers and an environment that will help them come up to speed. Having underperforming kids in the classroom brings the entire classroom down and the teachers focus energies to bring the low performers up to speed.

[Anonymous]

But the whole point of redistricting is to avoid schools made up of struggling students.

[Anonymous]

A bit of segregation is necessary to challenge the high performers and help those who are struggling. Whether it be by school or within each school, it would be a step in the right direction. Similar to the magnet programs. My daughter goes to a low performing school and we are moving because it just isn;t working out. She is an average student, but leaps and bounds above her classmates who barely speak English. If her school offered her a more advanced curriculum that would challenge her, we would stay. Having her in the class is helping no one and hurting her. there are about 20 students in her grade that I would say speak the language well and are very bored waiting for the others to catch up. Why not put them all in the same class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the whole point of redistricting is to avoid schools made up of struggling students.

What needs to happen is assign one school in the consortium to be for higher performing students. I am currently in the NEC and would love for one of the 3 schools to be dedicated or offer a magent program for the higher performing kids. Instead - they are mixing every level together and this is not helping anyone. I also agree with parent and student accountability. If you want your kid in the more challenging school, you will do what it takes to make it possible.

[Anonymous]

You do realize that almost every parent would belive their child belongs in that higher performing school, right? We all want HGC or at least comapcted math..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the whole point of redistricting is to avoid schools made up of struggling students.

What needs to happen is assign one school in the consortium to be for higher performing students. I am currently in the NEC and would love for one of the 3 schools to be dedicated or offer a magent program for the higher performing kids. Instead - they are mixing every level together and this is not helping anyone. I also agree with parent and student accountability. If you want your kid in the more challenging school, you will do what it takes to make it possible.

"Doing what it takes to make it possible" is a lot easier for middle-class and affluent parents and students than for poor parents and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Redistributing kids" won't solve the problem. Kids self-segregate - even in some very diverse schools. In the "W schools," they'll self-segregate by money. Do you honestly think some kid living in low-income housing will be welcomed by the kid in the mansion? doubtful

And sprinkling in a few kids coming from disadvantaged homes will make them stand out, as most will be black and Hispanic. Is that fair?

If I had the answer, I'd be a millionaire. But I know that this solution will not work either.

This solution actually does work.

I don't know if a kid in a mansion will welcome a kid living in low-income housing, and I don't know if it's fair to make disadvantaged kids to stand out.

What I do know is that the educational outcomes for poor kids are a lot better in low-poverty schools than in high-poverty schools.

which fails to take into account grade inflation - as the pressure is on to pass minority students

Talk to any of the Hispanic and black males who come out of a W school and enter alternative settings. Ask them how comfortable they felt in a W school. It's not just about grades, which mean nothing in this day and age. It's about well-being.

Finally, let's see how accepting the neighborhoods in Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac will be if the county decides to change boundaries. You will have a fight on your hands as property values immediately plummet - especially if low-incoming housing is thrown into the mix.

So even IF the kids are welcoming, their parents won't be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know if you can find anyone worse. People hated Weast, but at least he had a vision - especially when it boiled down to professional development. And while Weast labeled low performing schools as red zone schools, he did acknowledge there was a disparity among area schools.

Starr has nothing to his name. He tried to highlight social-emotional learning, but no one - aside from school psychologists - really understands the research behind it and how it can be applied to instructional practices.

This. You can't solve a problem if you keep trying to hide that you have it. The whole 2.0 and everyone is a P disaster is all about hiding the achievement gap rather than solving it. Bussing kids around isn't going to make any difference either. It will just divert funds to buses not actually teaching students.

If MCPS wants to solve the achievement gap, it needs to stop passing the buck until its too late. This starts in ES with giving actual assessments and tests to identify early on when students are failing. It means giving after school tutoring programs and rewarding students for improvement. It means giving kids back their tests and exams and requiring every kids that scored below a certain percentage to attend tutoring, correct their mistakes and take a make up until they pass.

Starr is constantly talking about the achievement gap. That's not what I would do, if I were trying to hide the achievement gap.

Talking about it w/o offering solutions does nothing.

If he really believes that social-emotional learning is the key (look at his strategic plan), he would specifically address it at the school level. This isn't the case. He goes on and on about equity, but I have yet to be involved in a discussion at the school level about WHAT equity looks like in the classroom. Sure, I can find the definition online. But how does that definition translate into instructional practices? And most importantly, how do we get educators to do some self-reflection on their beliefs?

It's hit or miss.

"Redistributing kids" won't solve the problem. Kids self-segregate - even in some very diverse schools. In the "W schools," they'll self-segregate by money. Do you honestly think some kid living in low-income housing will be welcomed by the kid in the mansion? doubtful

And sprinkling in a few kids coming from disadvantaged homes will make them stand out, as most will be black and Hispanic. Is that fair?

If I had the answer, I'd be a millionaire. But I know that this solution will not work either.

You know this situation already exists at both Churchill and Wootton with Scotland and Tobytown. When I was at Wootton some of the kids from Tobytown were very popular and friends with everyone. Others kept to themselves. It seemed like it depended on the individual more than a general rule that "poor" kids were labeled and ostracized.

And I bet you're white . . . b/c it's easy to make a sweeping generalization like this when it doesn't directly affect you.