Montgomery county's new SJ program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of AAs in MoCo who put their high achieving kids in private and parochial schools. So, sorry, they can't be in your magnet program to boost your numbers.

This. It’s not about race. It’s about SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ wow. How is this common sense model not being expanded? Of COURSE it is much harder for a teacher to teach a mixed abilities class rather than meet the needs of the kids in a more targeted way.

Common sense doesn’t have a place in MCPS leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ wow. How is this common sense model not being expanded? Of COURSE it is much harder for a teacher to teach a mixed abilities class rather than meet the needs of the kids in a more targeted way.

There's also decades of experience showing that tracking (which is what "meeting the needs of the kids in a more targeted way" means in the real world) benefits certain groups of kids at the expense of other certain groups of kids.

Flexible tracking can absolutely work, and would certainly work better than what we have now, in which very few children are having their needs met. So, no, rigid tracking that begins at kindergarten or before is a terrible system. Flexible tracking works, but it requires a significant investment of attention into each child's needs.

My kids are at a school that is absolutely engaged in low-key under-the-radar tracking and the school has MUCH higher test scores than it "should" based on demographics, and higher than nearby schools with lower FARMS and ESOL rates. Principals are finding a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS has been trying to close the gap for how many years now? And what has it resulted in? some kids still doing poorly and brighter kids not being challenged. MCPS has been meeting some populations where they are by providing free meals, free clothes, free medical care, extra classes, but none of this is working and it is impacting other populations. it would be fantastic if these dollars would go to hiring more teachers. Smaller classrooms will benefit all. how about more classes to challenge brighter kids?? Not the dumbed down versions of honors classes we have today where 75% of the grade is in them. Bring back tracking so that all the kids in a classroom have a chance to move at the same.pace. how about more extracurricular activities? face it, some kids are not destined for success as you and I envision it. And as outsiders, we can't fix what is going on at home. There are some problems that MCPS will never be able to fix.

You're saying that, based on what? The argument seems to be: MCPS tried x, y, and z, and it didn't solve the a big, complex, societal problem completely, so MCPS should just stop doing all of those things. (What free clothes and free medical care is MCPS providing, by the way?)

"Some kids are not destined for success" is what people say about the kids of those people - you know, them. I could say the same with equal validity about your kids - my kids are doing fine in school, so if yours aren't, I guess they're just not destined for success, sorry. Right?

coming from nature SJ warrior. everyone is a winner!

It's better than writing off kids, which is what you're doing (other people's kids, of course).

It’s not my job to financially pay for everyone else’s kids, especially when it leaves less resources and money for my own kids. I’m tired of having my pocket picked by do gooder liberals who state ‘you can afford it’ as they are doing it.

Furthermore, liberals are deliberately inviting in people from other nations who are not self-supporting and telling me I have to pay for that as well.

You, pp, are perfectly happy writing off my and other wealthier people’s kids as a form of twisted revenge. It’s a sick game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know plenty of AAs in MoCo who put their high achieving kids in private and parochial schools. So, sorry, they can't be in your magnet program to boost your numbers.

This. It’s not about race. It’s about SES.

That's like saying: it's not about the season, it's about the temperature. The two are inherently related. If it's about SES, then it's also about race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not my job to financially pay for everyone else’s kids, especially when it leaves less resources and money for my own kids. I’m tired of having my pocket picked by do gooder liberals who state ‘you can afford it’ as they are doing it.

Furthermore, liberals are deliberately inviting in people from other nations who are not self-supporting and telling me I have to pay for that as well.

You, pp, are perfectly happy writing off my and other wealthier people’s kids as a form of twisted revenge. It’s a sick game.

That's the "I've got mine; you're on your own, Jack" political philosophy. You're welcome to your opinions, of course. But it doesn't benefit your kids in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ wow. How is this common sense model not being expanded? Of COURSE it is much harder for a teacher to teach a mixed abilities class rather than meet the needs of the kids in a more targeted way.

There's also decades of experience showing that tracking (which is what "meeting the needs of the kids in a more targeted way" means in the real world) benefits certain groups of kids at the expense of other certain groups of kids.

Flexible tracking can absolutely work, and would certainly work better than what we have now, in which very few children are having their needs met. So, no, rigid tracking that begins at kindergarten or before is a terrible system. Flexible tracking works, but it requires a significant investment of attention into each child's needs.

My kids are at a school that is absolutely engaged in low-key under-the-radar tracking and the school has MUCH higher test scores than it "should" based on demographics, and higher than nearby schools with lower FARMS and ESOL rates. Principals are finding a way.

It CAN work. But it very often doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

While the full scope of this "Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice" is to be determined, one can guess at its mandate and tools, which will most likely include school redistricting. The ultimate failure of programs like these is guaranteed is a suburb like MoCo, because people can and will move if things get bad enough. This is *not* Manhattan, where a move of even a few miles has huge implications on commute time, quality of life, etc. There is a whole state across the river with the same exact commute times and amenities as MoCo.

Parents of all races and classes care about one thing above all else—the success of their children. It is literally programmed into their DNA. Therefore, they will make rational economic decisions overwhelmingly based on that factor. People have invested billions of dollars in MoCo neighborhoods based on the quality of the school to which they are zoned (including African-American and Hispanic parents.) There are other factors behind real estate valuation, but this is the dominant factor in a suburb like MoCo. This isn't about race, it's about the simple reality that school quality is driven by the education and income of the parents. Schools can certainly absorb some percentage of kids from poorer / less educated homes, but eventually, a tipping point is reached.

However well intentioned a "social justice" program is, parents of all political stripes will react economically, even if they don't admit it to themselves. A full-blown bussing / "equity"-based redistricting would have a swift and devastating impact on the tax base, creating a self-reinforcing death spiral for the already reeling MCPS system (worse schools, lower tax base, worse schools, etc.) It certainly seems to me like even in the past year MoCo has jumped the shark and gone from being center-left to far-left, and it's causing many parents to seriously consider moving before the real damage is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the full scope of this "Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice" is to be determined, one can guess at its mandate and tools, which will most likely include school redistricting. The ultimate failure of programs like these is guaranteed is a suburb like MoCo, because people can and will move if things get bad enough. This is *not* Manhattan, where a move of even a few miles has huge implications on commute time, quality of life, etc. There is a whole state across the river with the same exact commute times and amenities as MoCo.

Parents of all races and classes care about one thing above all else—the success of their children. It is literally programmed into their DNA. Therefore, they will make rational economic decisions overwhelmingly based on that factor. People have invested billions of dollars in MoCo neighborhoods based on the quality of the school to which they are zoned (including African-American and Hispanic parents.) There are other factors behind real estate valuation, but this is the dominant factor in a suburb like MoCo. This isn't about race, it's about the simple reality that school quality is driven by the education and income of the parents. Schools can certainly absorb some percentage of kids from poorer / less educated homes, but eventually, a tipping point is reached.

However well intentioned a "social justice" program is, parents of all political stripes will react economically, even if they don't admit it to themselves. A full-blown bussing / "equity"-based redistricting would have a swift and devastating impact on the tax base, creating a self-reinforcing death spiral for the already reeling MCPS system (worse schools, lower tax base, worse schools, etc.) It certainly seems to me like even in the past year MoCo has jumped the shark and gone from being center-left to far-left, and it's causing many parents to seriously consider moving before the real damage is done.

But the school districts in Virginia are dealing with this too. And so are Frederick County and Howard County in Maryland. So where are you going to move to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ wow. How is this common sense model not being expanded? Of COURSE it is much harder for a teacher to teach a mixed abilities class rather than meet the needs of the kids in a more targeted way.

There's also decades of experience showing that tracking (which is what "meeting the needs of the kids in a more targeted way" means in the real world) benefits certain groups of kids at the expense of other certain groups of kids.

Flexible tracking can absolutely work, and would certainly work better than what we have now, in which very few children are having their needs met. So, no, rigid tracking that begins at kindergarten or before is a terrible system. Flexible tracking works, but it requires a significant investment of attention into each child's needs.

My kids are at a school that is absolutely engaged in low-key under-the-radar tracking and the school has MUCH higher test scores than it "should" based on demographics, and higher than nearby schools with lower FARMS and ESOL rates. Principals are finding a way.

It CAN work. But it very often doesn't work.

Okay, so compare that to the current system of blindly heterogenous classrooms. The gap is growing. Scores for our highest needs kids are worsening. I will take a system that works some of the time over one that is failing across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Okay, so compare that to the current system of blindly heterogenous classrooms. The gap is growing. Scores for our highest needs kids are worsening. I will take a system that works some of the time over one that is failing across the board.

What is a blindly heterogeneous classroom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not my job to financially pay for everyone else’s kids, especially when it leaves less resources and money for my own kids. I’m tired of having my pocket picked by do gooder liberals who state ‘you can afford it’ as they are doing it.

Furthermore, liberals are deliberately inviting in people from other nations who are not self-supporting and telling me I have to pay for that as well.

You, pp, are perfectly happy writing off my and other wealthier people’s kids as a form of twisted revenge. It’s a sick game.

That's the "I've got mine; you're on your own, Jack" political philosophy. You're welcome to your opinions, of course. But it doesn't benefit your kids in the long run.

It IS mine. I earned it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not my job to financially pay for everyone else’s kids, especially when it leaves less resources and money for my own kids. I’m tired of having my pocket picked by do gooder liberals who state ‘you can afford it’ as they are doing it.

Furthermore, liberals are deliberately inviting in people from other nations who are not self-supporting and telling me I have to pay for that as well.

You, pp, are perfectly happy writing off my and other wealthier people’s kids as a form of twisted revenge. It’s a sick game.

That's the "I've got mine; you're on your own, Jack" political philosophy. You're welcome to your opinions, of course. But it doesn't benefit your kids in the long run.

It IS mine. I earned it.

I think you might be happier at a private school in a lower tax area (like Kansas or Mississippi). That way you can pay for your own kids but not have to subsidize the "others."

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have any idea what the new initiative IS?

What are they actually proposing to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ wow. How is this common sense model not being expanded? Of COURSE it is much harder for a teacher to teach a mixed abilities class rather than meet the needs of the kids in a more targeted way.

There's also decades of experience showing that tracking (which is what "meeting the needs of the kids in a more targeted way" means in the real world) benefits certain groups of kids at the expense of other certain groups of kids.

Flexible tracking can absolutely work, and would certainly work better than what we have now, in which very few children are having their needs met. So, no, rigid tracking that begins at kindergarten or before is a terrible system. Flexible tracking works, but it requires a significant investment of attention into each child's needs.

My kids are at a school that is absolutely engaged in low-key under-the-radar tracking and the school has MUCH higher test scores than it "should" based on demographics, and higher than nearby schools with lower FARMS and ESOL rates. Principals are finding a way.

It CAN work. But it very often doesn't work.

Funny, that's what I'd say about heterogeneous grouping. It's the rare teacher who can juggle a wide range of abilities in one classroom.

From a logical perspective, either you forget differentiation and teach to one level ignoring the needs of those above and/or below that level OR a teacher has to divide their time and attention between children. Hypothetically, even if you only give on-level and advanced students instruction 5% of the time (which wouldn't be fair to them), that's still 5% of the time that they can't devote to the struggling students. Wouldn't it be better to have all students being taught at their level 100% of the time?

With a teacher who can't differentiate in the ideal manner, students are invariably shortchanged. While a few great teachers might be able to reach their students and help them make some progress, think of what those superstars could accomplish if they were able to focus on one group of students rather than be handicapped by having to juggle multiple groups.

MCPS is focused on eliminating the gap. I think that's the wrong focus. I think the focus should be on giving each and every student the opportunity and support to make as much progress as possible. Yes, we should help the students at the bottom. Give them the best teachers, the smallest classes, extra resources. Let's focus on bringing them up. On the other hand, let's let our top students go as far and as fast as they want. If that means opening up more magnet spots (not lowering the bar), let's do that.

Nobody is suggesting students should be held in rigid tracks, but teaching all kids at their level with the goal of always helping them advance, would ultimately lead to better outcomes for all students.