7 Math teachers are leaving Richard Montgomerry HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The basic problem is the kids can't do math. The teachers have been getting more and more frustrated since the kids are just being pushed along with no understanding or consequences. We are talking basic math facts here; like multiplication, division, understanding what an average is. A lot of students never learned properly and don't seem to care due to the lack of consequences.

The RMIB kids don't know basic math facts like multiplication, division, and understanding what an average is? Huh.

This situations seems completely unrelated to IB aside from the fact that the teachers taught some IB classes.

Wrong. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an RM student here who has talked to some of the IB teachers that are leaving. There are 7 total teachers who are leaving and not all of them teach IB but the whole entire IB precalculus department is leaving. This means that 95% of the rising sophomore class will have a teacher who is unfamiliar with teaching IB precalculus according to the HL and SL pathways. One of the teachers confirmed that they along with other IB affiliated teachers were leaving because Ms. Goetz was being pushed down from being the department head. We have heard that Ms. Goetz, a great math teacher with tons of experience in the IB curriculum (like all the precalculus teachers that are leaving) will soon be leaving. Students feel confused and frustrated that we’re not getting any straight answers about WHY they’re leaving and what the future of IB math is going to look like, as well as the fact that we feel unsupported in the school. It feels like the administration doesn’t like IB, and it doesn’t feel too great to go to a school where you feel like the outsiders even though you walk in and out of the same doors that kids zoned for RM do. With the new IB administration, there is much confusion about DP pathways and there is not much support when high achievers try to aim high and take rigorous course loads. I guess this is just an insider’s perspective.

Wow. Thank you for posting about your experience.

I’m sorry to hear about what’s going on. It sounds very frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an RM student here who has talked to some of the IB teachers that are leaving. There are 7 total teachers who are leaving and not all of them teach IB but the whole entire IB precalculus department is leaving. This means that 95% of the rising sophomore class will have a teacher who is unfamiliar with teaching IB precalculus according to the HL and SL pathways. One of the teachers confirmed that they along with other IB affiliated teachers were leaving because Ms. Goetz was being pushed down from being the department head. We have heard that Ms. Goetz, a great math teacher with tons of experience in the IB curriculum (like all the precalculus teachers that are leaving) will soon be leaving. Students feel confused and frustrated that we’re not getting any straight answers about WHY they’re leaving and what the future of IB math is going to look like, as well as the fact that we feel unsupported in the school. It feels like the administration doesn’t like IB, and it doesn’t feel too great to go to a school where you feel like the outsiders even though you walk in and out of the same doors that kids zoned for RM do. With the new IB administration, there is much confusion about DP pathways and there is not much support when high achievers try to aim high and take rigorous course loads. I guess this is just an insider’s perspective.

Wow. Thank you for posting about your experience.

I’m sorry to hear about what’s going on. It sounds very frustrating.

Ifs there really an IB pre-calculus department"? 4 sections of IB pre-calc a year? 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RM student reports that the 7 teachers are leaving in protest of certain policies. Nothing specific to IB. They teach other classes too. He did not have enough specifics on the issues for me to repeat. One related to the 50% rule but was not like they were taking a stand and not doing it. I am sure what I heard was not complete or totally accurate.

I would normally ignore this type of thread, but there too many partial truths presented in a misleading manner that shouldn't stand.

The primary issue was over the grading and reporting policy https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/info/grading/0106.18_Grading%20procedures6-12%20(1).pdf and specifically

When using points or percentages, a teacher assigns a grade no lower than 50 percent to the task/assessment. If a student does no work on the task/assessment, the teacher will assign a zero. If a teacher determines that the student did not attempt to meet the basic requirements of the task/assess-ment, the teacher may assign a zero.

Note that this policy was put in place in 2006, and there have been teachers at RM who have disagreed with it ever since. The process many teachers in the math department were using was to put in actual quiz and test scores, even if lower than 50%, and not change it until the end of the quarter. This meant that students, parents, and administrators had no idea what the student's grade would be, and there have been complaints from parents about teachers not following the grading policy. The issue came to a head at the end of 1st semester and teachers were told directly that they must follow the policy and not enter any grade less than 50% in the gradebook. There were hard feelings about it, needless to say.

While people may be freaking about these math teachers because they are well known, you haven't been paying attention that the math department has steadily been turning over several math teachers every year. This isn't unique this year. Anyway besides Ms. McDonald retiring, Mr. Chase is taking a promotion to department head at WJ, and another teacher is moving to Nevada. And perhaps it was time for some of the other teachers to move on to a different school.

The 50% rule is a stupid hill to die on for anyone who understands math. Yes, the gradebook should reflect the actual course grade, no one has time to decipher anything else, and using the grade book to make this point is beyond petty. But more importantly, there is plenty of room to distinguish between students in the 50-100% range, if a pre-calc teacher can't get their head around that we've got bigger problems. It amounts to a change of variables, nothing more. A test should already have 50% of the points going to remedial tasks, like setting up an equation, because 50% is an F. After that it's necessary to demonstrate new knowledge to earn the grade. What is so different here? If a student is getting lots of 50% for free, they're still on a failing trajectory. If this is really the explanation, I'm shocked that math teachers can't roll with this rule, and still maintain their standards. Unfortunately whoever replaces them will still be worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The 50% rule is a stupid hill to die on for anyone who understands math. Yes, the gradebook should reflect the actual course grade, no one has time to decipher anything else, and using the grade book to make this point is beyond petty. But more importantly, there is plenty of room to distinguish between students in the 50-100% range, if a pre-calc teacher can't get their head around that we've got bigger problems. It amounts to a change of variables, nothing more. A test should already have 50% of the points going to remedial tasks, like setting up an equation, because 50% is an F. After that it's necessary to demonstrate new knowledge to earn the grade. What is so different here? If a student is getting lots of 50% for free, they're still on a failing trajectory. If this is really the explanation, I'm shocked that math teachers can't roll with this rule, and still maintain their standards. Unfortunately whoever replaces them will still be worse.

What do you base this statement on, besides the principle that any change anywhere ever is for the worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 50% rule is a stupid hill to die on for anyone who understands math. Yes, the gradebook should reflect the actual course grade, no one has time to decipher anything else, and using the grade book to make this point is beyond petty. But more importantly, there is plenty of room to distinguish between students in the 50-100% range, if a pre-calc teacher can't get their head around that we've got bigger problems. It amounts to a change of variables, nothing more. A test should already have 50% of the points going to remedial tasks, like setting up an equation, because 50% is an F. After that it's necessary to demonstrate new knowledge to earn the grade. What is so different here? If a student is getting lots of 50% for free, they're still on a failing trajectory. If this is really the explanation, I'm shocked that math teachers can't roll with this rule, and still maintain their standards. Unfortunately whoever replaces them will still be worse.

What do you base this statement on, besides the principle that any change anywhere ever is for the worse?

IB is not unique to RM. Hopefully they can hire someone with background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an RM student here who has talked to some of the IB teachers that are leaving. There are 7 total teachers who are leaving and not all of them teach IB but the whole entire IB precalculus department is leaving. This means that 95% of the rising sophomore class will have a teacher who is unfamiliar with teaching IB precalculus according to the HL and SL pathways. One of the teachers confirmed that they along with other IB affiliated teachers were leaving because Ms. Goetz was being pushed down from being the department head. We have heard that Ms. Goetz, a great math teacher with tons of experience in the IB curriculum (like all the precalculus teachers that are leaving) will soon be leaving. Students feel confused and frustrated that we’re not getting any straight answers about WHY they’re leaving and what the future of IB math is going to look like, as well as the fact that we feel unsupported in the school. It feels like the administration doesn’t like IB, and it doesn’t feel too great to go to a school where you feel like the outsiders even though you walk in and out of the same doors that kids zoned for RM do. With the new IB administration, there is much confusion about DP pathways and there is not much support when high achievers try to aim high and take rigorous course loads. I guess this is just an insider’s perspective.

That is not new right? My kid graduated RMIB 4 years ago and spent two years under the current Principal. Even then I remember my kid telling me that kids don't think the current Principal likes the program. I remember criticisms I heard were - no school (RM) spirit, not integrated with main body, hangs by themselves...etc. I sense at the time was that the new guy really didn't understand and didn't appreciate the particular needs of these kids. Hoover did but she got pushed out for protecting the program. My guess is that these teachers' tried to hang on but just couldn't do it any longer. I really feel that the program is dying. Sad story actually...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 50% rule is a stupid hill to die on for anyone who understands math. Yes, the gradebook should reflect the actual course grade, no one has time to decipher anything else, and using the grade book to make this point is beyond petty. But more importantly, there is plenty of room to distinguish between students in the 50-100% range, if a pre-calc teacher can't get their head around that we've got bigger problems. It amounts to a change of variables, nothing more. A test should already have 50% of the points going to remedial tasks, like setting up an equation, because 50% is an F. After that it's necessary to demonstrate new knowledge to earn the grade. What is so different here? If a student is getting lots of 50% for free, they're still on a failing trajectory. If this is really the explanation, I'm shocked that math teachers can't roll with this rule, and still maintain their standards. Unfortunately whoever replaces them will still be worse.

What do you base this statement on, besides the principle that any change anywhere ever is for the worse?

Yeah, just pessimism, that's exactly the principle I'm using. Looking back I don't think any of my HS math teachers would make this mistake in reasoning.

[Anonymous]

"no school (RM) spirit, not integrated with main body, hangs by themselves"

Funny..these are the same things that RM neighborhood kids say about the IB kids. The reason most people choose RMIB is that is offers a full schedule of magnet classes..aside from a few electives they are segregated. Still not sure what that has to do with teachers objecting to the MCPS 50% rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"no school (RM) spirit, not integrated with main body, hangs by themselves"

Funny..these are the same things that RM neighborhood kids say about the IB kids. The reason most people choose RMIB is that is offers a full schedule of magnet classes..aside from a few electives they are segregated. Still not sure what that has to do with teachers objecting to the MCPS 50% rule.

PP you are responding to. No, I wasn't talking about 50% rule. Personally, I doubt that's the cause. That's just what my kid told me back then why the new principal didn't like the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you GOD that we did not choose RMIB!

I had some frank discussions with current parents after Hoover left and they explained how the new principal and the new coordinators were clueless and frankly had an agenda to dilute the program.

RMIB had a diploma rate of 96% under Hoover. In two years it went down 10%. It will continue to go down more.

Very sorry to see Mrs Goetze leave. I hope her fantastic Physics teacher DH does not leave too. These are gems of this program and they will be plucked by some lucky W school or even perhaps Blair.

7 IB teachers leaving in Maths. OMG. The Principal is a low achieving putz who always hated the magnet program. You should never ever hire someone who is a low achiever to oversee a program for high achievers. Their jealously will make them sabotage the program and that he is doing.

I hope there are enough Bethesda lawyers who sue the asses of MCPS.

I

RM Principal's son applied to RMIB program this year, so I don't think he hates it *that* much, nor would he want it to be a failure.

That seems to make him especially stupid. And did his kid get in??

The local private schools have been benefitting after receiving some of the best MCPS teachers lately. Thanks!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want excellence, you hire administrators who themselves were A students. When you recruit administrators who were C students then you see them lowering standards because high standards is seen as "unattainable" by such people. The RM principal is an example of such low caliber people taking an administrator role. For me he is the same caliber of nitwit as Joshua Starr was.

How do you know the grades of specific MCPS administrators?

New poster, but Starr had a doctorate from Harvard. You may not have liked him, but he’s a smart guy. I didn’t like everything he championed, but I vastly preferred the trajectory the school system was on under his leadership.

He was corrupt as he!!. And remember, that was a doctorate in education, not something like math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want excellence, you hire administrators who themselves were A students. When you recruit administrators who were C students then you see them lowering standards because high standards is seen as "unattainable" by such people. The RM principal is an example of such low caliber people taking an administrator role. For me he is the same caliber of nitwit as Joshua Starr was.

How do you know the grades of specific MCPS administrators?

New poster, but Starr had a doctorate from Harvard. You may not have liked him, but he’s a smart guy. I didn’t like everything he championed, but I vastly preferred the trajectory the school system was on under his leadership.

Yes, and his PhD thesis was “how to improve low performing kids by using the rule of averages”. Currently known as “mix it up”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want excellence, you hire administrators who themselves were A students. When you recruit administrators who were C students then you see them lowering standards because high standards is seen as "unattainable" by such people. The RM principal is an example of such low caliber people taking an administrator role. For me he is the same caliber of nitwit as Joshua Starr was.

How do you know the grades of specific MCPS administrators?

New poster, but Starr had a doctorate from Harvard. You may not have liked him, but he’s a smart guy. I didn’t like everything he championed, but I vastly preferred the trajectory the school system was on under his leadership.

He was corrupt as he!!. And remember, that was a doctorate in education, not something like math.

Generally, and for understandable reasons, school administrators' advanced degrees do tend to be in school administration or some such, rather than in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The 50% rule is a stupid hill to die on for anyone who understands math. Yes, the gradebook should reflect the actual course grade, no one has time to decipher anything else, and using the grade book to make this point is beyond petty. But more importantly, there is plenty of room to distinguish between students in the 50-100% range, if a pre-calc teacher can't get their head around that we've got bigger problems. It amounts to a change of variables, nothing more. A test should already have 50% of the points going to remedial tasks, like setting up an equation, because 50% is an F. After that it's necessary to demonstrate new knowledge to earn the grade. What is so different here? If a student is getting lots of 50% for free, they're still on a failing trajectory. If this is really the explanation, I'm shocked that math teachers can't roll with this rule, and still maintain their standards. Unfortunately whoever replaces them will still be worse.

What do you base this statement on, besides the principle that any change anywhere ever is for the worse?

IB is not unique to RM. Hopefully they can hire someone with background.

Right. There is another thread about MCPS's new initiative for recruiting and promoting black and Latino male teachers.
Why don't MCPS fill the 7 openings through this BOLD initiative. The IB program in RM will have better equity in both student body and teacher workforce and better integration in the school.