2/22/24 BOE meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I

Tell me you don't have a child in a title 1 school without telling me. Nor are you an educator but you put down the one that was.

Title 1 funds not just class size but also the addition of more positions - like paras, counselors, etc. which allows for more unique groupings. My child's school has WIN time (what I need) to allow for enrichment or remediation. Often times, there are so many kids being pulled for a variety of services that my child gets more focused time with the teacher. My child's school has flitted between title 1 and not title 1 and the biggest difference has been staffing. Classroom size didn't really change drastically.

I find it offensive that you equate title 1 with student rampages. That happens all over MCPS, all over the country, and not just in title 1 schools. MCPS does need to revamp their curriculum but that has nothing to do with title 1 funding. Unfortunately it can take years to change a curriculum.


While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

[Anonymous]

The Planning Board started the debacle of cutting the impact taxes in favor of increasing the recordation taxes, and that is what the County Council went for, hook, line and sinker.

Casey Anderson's Planning Board (before he was ousted for among other things, having a full bar in his office and drinking with colleagues in his county office) determined that schools were overcrowded because of record turnover in existing housing, not because of his developer friends new-builds.

The result was the Council getting rid of the impact tax for developers (the very same developers that fund their re-election campaigns), but for years they didn't get around to increasing the recordation tax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Yup on the short-sightedness of that developer-pushed agenda that the County Council swallowed hook, line and sinker (if they didn't generate it, themselves). But...

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

And her understanding of the Title I/related funding/criteria change impacts is leagues ahead of anything demonstrated by the current BOE members.

First, it was a post supportive of Stewart that directed people to the now-private twitter account, so it’s fair to point out that it can’t be viewed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Second, she also supported cutting taxes on developers, which the council did right after raising taxes on everyone else, which she also supported even though it ultimately proved unnecessary (the money didn’t go to education). Stewart weighed in on all of this without an understanding of the underlying dynamics or a critical examination of whether similar policies had ever produced the claimed outcome here.

Nice cut-out of the rest of that post (restored, now, for any interested in clicking to show earlier posts). There's bolding available if you want to respond to a particular part. Intentionally removing that context undercuts the validity of your response.

Again, there's more than just Twitter out there, but feel free to keep beating that drum as though it is the only thing that possibly could tell you about a candidate. You're right that nobody should be referencing it if not available, but...

If you did bother to look beyond X, you'd find there's far more to Stewart's contributions toward and understanding of school funding issues than an unfortunate support of politically expedient County Council-driven tax initiatives ostensibly aimed at providing housing options on the one hand and revenue on the other that she hoped would be tied to sorely needed school improvements.

I have seen her testimony. Some of it is good. Some of it is pretty poorly informed. She got played on the tax issues by moneyed interests, and it’s concerning how readily she took up their talking points.

I wouldn’t have brought up her private X account if you hadn’t referred people there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

Not wanting to get into a conversation about undocumented immigrants and benefits is part of why this is occurring. People (Not necessarily MCPS) are trying to call attention to the fact that undocumented immigration is increasing the cost of an array of benefits while also making it difficult to put effective systems in place for communities. Using SNAP benefit enrollment has a myriad of advantages including reducing burden on families and school districts. However knowing that folks won’t get this, the new policy still allows you to account for at needs students in different ways, but none is as easy and most effective as using SNAP.

As much as people don’t like the outcome, it actually produces the data and metrics that folks want to see on a state and federal level. And validates points some people have been making.

[Anonymous]

Does any of this have to do with education or mostly everything but?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Yup on the short-sightedness of that developer-pushed agenda that the County Council swallowed hook, line and sinker (if they didn't generate it, themselves). But...

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

And her understanding of the Title I/related funding/criteria change impacts is leagues ahead of anything demonstrated by the current BOE members.

First, it was a post supportive of Stewart that directed people to the now-private twitter account, so it’s fair to point out that it can’t be viewed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Second, she also supported cutting taxes on developers, which the council did right after raising taxes on everyone else, which she also supported even though it ultimately proved unnecessary (the money didn’t go to education). Stewart weighed in on all of this without an understanding of the underlying dynamics or a critical examination of whether similar policies had ever produced the claimed outcome here.

Nice cut-out of the rest of that post (restored, now, for any interested in clicking to show earlier posts). There's bolding available if you want to respond to a particular part. Intentionally removing that context undercuts the validity of your response.

Again, there's more than just Twitter out there, but feel free to keep beating that drum as though it is the only thing that possibly could tell you about a candidate. You're right that nobody should be referencing it if not available, but...

If you did bother to look beyond X, you'd find there's far more to Stewart's contributions toward and understanding of school funding issues than an unfortunate support of politically expedient County Council-driven tax initiatives ostensibly aimed at providing housing options on the one hand and revenue on the other that she hoped would be tied to sorely needed school improvements.

I have seen her testimony. Some of it is good. Some of it is pretty poorly informed. She got played on the tax issues by moneyed interests, and it’s concerning how readily she took up their talking points.

I wouldn’t have brought up her private X account if you hadn’t referred people there.

So, I wasn't the poster who suggested looking at her twitter, but was the one who responded after that to you or to whichever person jumped on that with the twin drums that we've seen elsewhere -- personal twitter now private & the tax thing.

If I were running for public office or became a public figure, I probably would make my social media private (if it wasn't already). Though taxes are needed to fund public schools, I agree the shift of burden from developers to homeowners was the wrong thing to do, but the advocacy she undertook, there, was a bit more nuanced, as has been laid out, above.

If you're voting based on that two-trick pony, that's your decision. Regarding Title I and school funding generally, though, Stewart has shown considerably greater understanding than any currently on the BOE. Where, besides the one aspect of impact/transfer taxes, are you drawing the claim that her advocacy was poorly informed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Yup on the short-sightedness of that developer-pushed agenda that the County Council swallowed hook, line and sinker (if they didn't generate it, themselves). But...

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

And her understanding of the Title I/related funding/criteria change impacts is leagues ahead of anything demonstrated by the current BOE members.

First, it was a post supportive of Stewart that directed people to the now-private twitter account, so it’s fair to point out that it can’t be viewed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Second, she also supported cutting taxes on developers, which the council did right after raising taxes on everyone else, which she also supported even though it ultimately proved unnecessary (the money didn’t go to education). Stewart weighed in on all of this without an understanding of the underlying dynamics or a critical examination of whether similar policies had ever produced the claimed outcome here.

Nice cut-out of the rest of that post (restored, now, for any interested in clicking to show earlier posts). There's bolding available if you want to respond to a particular part. Intentionally removing that context undercuts the validity of your response.

Again, there's more than just Twitter out there, but feel free to keep beating that drum as though it is the only thing that possibly could tell you about a candidate. You're right that nobody should be referencing it if not available, but...

If you did bother to look beyond X, you'd find there's far more to Stewart's contributions toward and understanding of school funding issues than an unfortunate support of politically expedient County Council-driven tax initiatives ostensibly aimed at providing housing options on the one hand and revenue on the other that she hoped would be tied to sorely needed school improvements.

I have seen her testimony. Some of it is good. Some of it is pretty poorly informed. She got played on the tax issues by moneyed interests, and it’s concerning how readily she took up their talking points.

I wouldn’t have brought up her private X account if you hadn’t referred people there.

So, I wasn't the poster who suggested looking at her twitter, but was the one who responded after that to you or to whichever person jumped on that with the twin drums that we've seen elsewhere -- personal twitter now private & the tax thing.

If I were running for public office or became a public figure, I probably would make my social media private (if it wasn't already). Though taxes are needed to fund public schools, I agree the shift of burden from developers to homeowners was the wrong thing to do, but the advocacy she undertook, there, was a bit more nuanced, as has been laid out, above.

If you're voting based on that two-trick pony, that's your decision. Regarding Title I and school funding generally, though, Stewart has shown considerably greater understanding than any currently on the BOE. Where, besides the one aspect of impact/transfer taxes, are you drawing the claim that her advocacy was poorly informed?

I’m the PP who originally raised the Title I issue from the meeting way back in the thread so I’m kind of obsessed with it now. Could you point me to places where Stewart has shown the depth of knowledge you mentioned? I’m an occasional observer of BOE meetings online and I know her from the fact that she testifies frequently but I always associated her with her MCCPTA work on the cip where she tends to just ask for money to be allocated to certain projects rather than a focus on where the money is coming from. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

Not wanting to get into a conversation about undocumented immigrants and benefits is part of why this is occurring. People (Not necessarily MCPS) are trying to call attention to the fact that undocumented immigration is increasing the cost of an array of benefits while also making it difficult to put effective systems in place for communities. Using SNAP benefit enrollment has a myriad of advantages including reducing burden on families and school districts. However knowing that folks won’t get this, the new policy still allows you to account for at needs students in different ways, but none is as easy and most effective as using SNAP.

As much as people don’t like the outcome, it actually produces the data and metrics that folks want to see on a state and federal level. And validates points some people have been making.

DP. Take the Oak View case. CES draws from a wealthier overall group than the local catchment. Under the new paradigm, Title I funding is distributed elsewhere. The CES population is essentially taught as something of a separate program within the school, right? Though there is some overlap of staff for specials, the local catchment kids, who would have been supported with Title I funding, now don't get the extra staff their economic status suggests is needed. And with the school approach to meal distribution, their families didn't apply for FARMS designation, though that might have helped with receiving funding.

That's what I gather here, anyway. Is there something missed, there, that would suggest that the redistribution of Title I to other schools is better targeting funding to need? Separate issue from state and federal metrics gathering. At the end of the day, it should be about individuals and their condition, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

Not wanting to get into a conversation about undocumented immigrants and benefits is part of why this is occurring. People (Not necessarily MCPS) are trying to call attention to the fact that undocumented immigration is increasing the cost of an array of benefits while also making it difficult to put effective systems in place for communities. Using SNAP benefit enrollment has a myriad of advantages including reducing burden on families and school districts. However knowing that folks won’t get this, the new policy still allows you to account for at needs students in different ways, but none is as easy and most effective as using SNAP.

As much as people don’t like the outcome, it actually produces the data and metrics that folks want to see on a state and federal level. And validates points some people have been making.

DP. Take the Oak View case. CES draws from a wealthier overall group than the local catchment. Under the new paradigm, Title I funding is distributed elsewhere. The CES population is essentially taught as something of a separate program within the school, right? Though there is some overlap of staff for specials, the local catchment kids, who would have been supported with Title I funding, now don't get the extra staff their economic status suggests is needed. And with the school approach to meal distribution, their families didn't apply for FARMS designation, though that might have helped with receiving funding.

That's what I gather here, anyway. Is there something missed, there, that would suggest that the redistribution of Title I to other schools is better targeting funding to need? Separate issue from state and federal metrics gathering. At the end of the day, it should be about individuals and their condition, no?

The CES aspect of Oak View is a valid concern, but the other three schools which are losing Title I funding (Brookhaven, Strathmore, and Viers Mill) don't have a CES, so it's still an issue to be looked at more broadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

The MS ELA curriculum is not in house, it's StudySync, and yes most people don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

The MS ELA curriculum is not in house, it's StudySync, and yes most people don't like it.

Part of the problem is that the teachers don’t seem to do the full curriculum. In our school they do about one-quarter of it.

[Anonymous]

An MCPS coworker of mine told me they love living in the Weller Road ES school area since *everything* is free for their kids. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

This is not correct. It is recommended that Ms read at least one book a quarter.