How does MCPS get away with spending this much money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tech mode and having 3 screens in the classroom is weird. And oh, replacing the Promethean boards by Boxlights even in the music room is making things so difficult for the teachers as the speakers are of poor quality. Both my children are saying that the sound of the audio is distorted and even when the volume is at maximum, the music can barely be heard. Kids and teachers are getting frustrated.

They replaced the Promethean board because the contract was up more than 5yrs ago and the boards used a old proprietary technology that did not allow interaction with a lot of mother tools now available.

So why haven't they gotten rid of the old Promethean boards yet? It's so weird how they just put the new devices in front of the old disconnected ones.

And they put Promethean boards in front of chalk boards! The horror!

MCPS should spend even more money to remove the prometheans and chalk boards.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. So when we replace or upgrade technology and infrastructure, you think it's a best practice to leave the old stuff where it is and just layer the new stuff on top of or in front it so the room looks cluttered?



This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

Not a true lottery, parents who want the county to raise their kids, and complain about nonsense like bocce
Your turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tech mode and having 3 screens in the classroom is weird. And oh, replacing the Promethean boards by Boxlights even in the music room is making things so difficult for the teachers as the speakers are of poor quality. Both my children are saying that the sound of the audio is distorted and even when the volume is at maximum, the music can barely be heard. Kids and teachers are getting frustrated.

They replaced the Promethean board because the contract was up more than 5yrs ago and the boards used a old proprietary technology that did not allow interaction with a lot of mother tools now available.

So why haven't they gotten rid of the old Promethean boards yet? It's so weird how they just put the new devices in front of the old disconnected ones.

And they put Promethean boards in front of chalk boards! The horror!

MCPS should spend even more money to remove the prometheans and chalk boards.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. So when we replace or upgrade technology and infrastructure, you think it's a best practice to leave the old stuff where it is and just layer the new stuff on top of or in front it so the room looks cluttered?



This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

Looks amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

DP. No. With all of the things to worry about, this isn't even on the list to be on the list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

Not a true lottery, parents who want the county to raise their kids, and complain about nonsense like bocce
Your turn.

Bocce is irrelevant to consideration for GT education. Red herring.

Whether it's a true lottery or not is irrelevant to there not being enough seats to match the qualified need.

Parents want GT instruction to match GT ability, and that's codified in MD law. "Want county to raise their kids" -- straw man.

Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is wastefully run.

MCPS is underfunded.

The two truths are not incompatible.

Conservatives use the first as a bludgeon to try to preserve wealth by lowering associated taxes. Doing so spirals the second into underperformance that can be used as a further bludgeon, especially when they see the opportunity to encourage vouchers, charters and the like. These further weaken the system while appealing to their special social interests.

Liberals use the second to call for greater funding, but over-focus the operational result on the special populations that form their political base to the detriment of gen pop or even true social equity. Meanwhile, they ignore the first, willing to accommodate sweetheart contracts with those who are connected.

The electorate has no real say, as the practices of staggered elections, at-large seats and whole-county voting for district seats make the likelihod of any BOE representation by critical viewpoints vanishingly small. The BOE, themselves, are only funded part time, reliant entirely on their one employee, the superintendent, who is set up to be an autocrat, for any information to support decisions.

Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

Not a true lottery, parents who want the county to raise their kids, and complain about nonsense like bocce
Your turn.

Bocce is irrelevant to consideration for GT education. Red herring.

Whether it's a true lottery or not is irrelevant to there not being enough seats to match the qualified need.

Parents want GT instruction to match GT ability, and that's codified in MD law. "Want county to raise their kids" -- straw man.

Next.

Equity means equal outcomes. This is in direct opposition to GT education.. none of the things you hope for will ever ever happen. County really doesn't care about that at all. You need to get over it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

DP. No. With all of the things to worry about, this isn't even on the list to be on the list.

Classroom space isn’t on your list? Where would you like to stack the students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

Not a true lottery, parents who want the county to raise their kids, and complain about nonsense like bocce
Your turn.

Bocce is irrelevant to consideration for GT education. Red herring.

Whether it's a true lottery or not is irrelevant to there not being enough seats to match the qualified need.

Parents want GT instruction to match GT ability, and that's codified in MD law. "Want county to raise their kids" -- straw man.

Next.

Wasn't an issue for me. My kids were both in CES then went to TPMS. Both are currently in the Blair magnet. There are plenty of these opportunities especially for advanced learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

DP. No. With all of the things to worry about, this isn't even on the list to be on the list.

Classroom space isn’t on your list? Where would you like to stack the students?

Is the Promethean board forcing someone to sit in the hall, who would be able to sit in the classroom if the Promethean board were removed?

Maybe you have the energy to worry about "unsightly clutter" but I don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This looks good to you? You don't see a waste of space and resources?

DP. No. With all of the things to worry about, this isn't even on the list to be on the list.

Classroom space isn’t on your list? Where would you like to stack the students?

Is the Promethean board forcing someone to sit in the hall, who would be able to sit in the classroom if the Promethean board were removed?

Maybe you have the energy to worry about "unsightly clutter" but I don't.

Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it? Good for you that you don’t know anything about how classroom space is allocated, especially in science labs. No floor space, no labs. So good for your kids since they have no interest in science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is far from perfect, but as the recipient of much of their money, in the form of special needs educational support for my oldest child, I understand that their many special programs (Autism, Asperger's, GT/LD, magnets, etc) are expensive. And yet they are what makes MCPS great - it's one of the few school systems in the world that tries to support ALL students, not just the ones in the range of normal. So I applaud some of the principles and values behind the spending.

Aside from the issue of the chosen few getting proper treatment in this regard (there are great special education services available, but not enough, and not equitably spread), the support for advanced student needs is not nearly on par with that you describe, and not only are there many more of them in the system, but the cost of addressing associated need would be quite a bit lower on a per-student basis, if not overall.

Today's letter from Dr. McKnight touts an operating budget with a "focus on strengthening Academic Excellence" (their bold, not mine). What a bold mischaracterization, there!

students only get out of MCPS what they're willing to put into it and therein lies the problem. Nothing the county does will ever change that. People need to stop expecting mcknight to solve their problems and take some personal responsibility.

Students can't get out of MCPS what MCPS won't offer. Whether they legally are bound to do so or not.

When it's both cheaper and more in alignment with management philosophy towards political aims, it's no surprise that MCPS pays mostly lip service to broadly available and regionally consistent enrichment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy.

Sorry but that's BS and you know it.

Nice rhetorical bit of fluff, there, calling something BS with nothing to back that up.

Maybe it was because they never backed up their point just spewed gibberish.

OK. I'll bite. Lottery. Plenty qualify for programs. Few are afforded seats.

Your turn.

Not a true lottery, parents who want the county to raise their kids, and complain about nonsense like bocce
Your turn.

Bocce is irrelevant to consideration for GT education. Red herring.

Whether it's a true lottery or not is irrelevant to there not being enough seats to match the qualified need.

Parents want GT instruction to match GT ability, and that's codified in MD law. "Want county to raise their kids" -- straw man.

Next.

Equity means equal outcomes. This is in direct opposition to GT education.. none of the things you hope for will ever ever happen. County really doesn't care about that at all. You need to get over it

Equity means appropriate resource distribution to meet kids where they are. Not assuming kids are failures before you try.