Equity model editorial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's why the achievement gap has grown:

Because kids...all kids...barely receive instruction at their level. Most of the elementary school day is dedicated to reading and math blocks, but kids are broken into groups within the classroom and teachers rush through each group quickly addressing/assessing and then sending them on their way to work independently.

Instead, kids should switch classrooms for math and reading and spelling and grammar (noting that grammar currently isn't part of the mcps curriculum) to receive actual teacher instruction at their level.

Spelling should be expanded to include vocabulary. That's the old school way we learned in private school (which actual drills/exercises).

And grammar must be taught. It's mind boggling that it isn't! Name a 1st world country that doesn't teach grammar.

Kids can't magically learn grammar through reading...particularly when the kids who aren't achieving don't read for pleasure. Can they read and pass the ridiculous mcps literacy benchmarks? Sure. Will they excel in HS, college and the workforce? Nope. You can't write well if you haven't mastered spelling, vocabulary and grammar. I believe that fact is supported by "No duh!"

I agree with this and I am a teacher. FYI- teachers do not make these decisions. We are told how it is going to be by our admins. The three ring circus (actually I have 5 reading and math groups) is a very ineffective model for students and teachers. I have a feeling that we won't be going back to ability grouping though. It's one of the reasons I took my DS out of public school and out him in a Catholic school. He was always in the high group and his teachers would meet with his group once or maybe twice a week for 15-20 mins. The rest of the time was his group doing busy work while the teacher met with the on-grade level and below grade level groups everyday. In Catholic school, students are divided into two groups per grade for all subjects and students can move between them if necessary. Now he isn't sitting for days filling out worksheets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Right? Some people demand we not look at race, and yet, here's MCPS.. breaking equity and achievement down by race.

Again.. why is MCPS (and others) so determined to focus on race rather than simply income status. Do people think there are no Asian or white families who are lower income in this county? I feel like this group gets lost in the shuffle.

Because both race/ethnicity and income are relevant factors.

No, none of these are relevant factors. Sure, there is correlation with educational performance, but not nearly as strong as the correlation of past educational performance. The strongest predictor of poor grades and test scores in 4th grade, is poor grades and test scores in 3rd grade. There is no reason to rely on any grouping other than performance itself.

I don't know what country you live in, but in this country, they are.

And what about poor Asian/white? And why call out non-poverty Black/Hispanics? Why can't they just focus on the achievement gap without using the race card.

Some folks don't want others to look at racial groups when talking about which groups perform higher and therefore should be over represented in magnet programs, but then want to look at racial groups when looking at which group MCPS needs to focus on because they are under performing.

If one says that URM group are under represented in magnet because by and large they are not high performers, then one is labeled racist. But if MCPS says that this same group is under performing and needs more resources, well, then that's fine, apparently. Look at the individual when it suits your purpose, but don't look at the individual (ie, peer cohort) when it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why the achievement gap has grown:

Because kids...all kids...barely receive instruction at their level. Most of the elementary school day is dedicated to reading and math blocks, but kids are broken into groups within the classroom and teachers rush through each group quickly addressing/assessing and then sending them on their way to work independently.

Instead, kids should switch classrooms for math and reading and spelling and grammar (noting that grammar currently isn't part of the mcps curriculum) to receive actual teacher instruction at their level.

Spelling should be expanded to include vocabulary. That's the old school way we learned in private school (which actual drills/exercises).

And grammar must be taught. It's mind boggling that it isn't! Name a 1st world country that doesn't teach grammar.

Kids can't magically learn grammar through reading...particularly when the kids who aren't achieving don't read for pleasure. Can they read and pass the ridiculous mcps literacy benchmarks? Sure. Will they excel in HS, college and the workforce? Nope. You can't write well if you haven't mastered spelling, vocabulary and grammar. I believe that fact is supported by "No duh!"

I agree with this and I am a teacher. FYI- teachers do not make these decisions. We are told how it is going to be by our admins. The three ring circus (actually I have 5 reading and math groups) is a very ineffective model for students and teachers. I have a feeling that we won't be going back to ability grouping though. It's one of the reasons I took my DS out of public school and out him in a Catholic school. He was always in the high group and his teachers would meet with his group once or maybe twice a week for 15-20 mins. The rest of the time was his group doing busy work while the teacher met with the on-grade level and below grade level groups everyday. In Catholic school, students are divided into two groups per grade for all subjects and students can move between them if necessary. Now he isn't sitting for days filling out worksheets.

This, MCPS can no longer afford the small grouping with current teacher:students ratio. Student-lead learning style is a luxury. MCPS should consider going back to the old way if it wants to teach all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1 Right? Some people demand we not look at race, and yet, here's MCPS.. breaking equity and achievement down by race.

Again.. why is MCPS (and others) so determined to focus on race rather than simply income status. Do people think there are no Asian or white families who are lower income in this county? I feel like this group gets lost in the shuffle.

Because both race/ethnicity and income are relevant factors.

No, none of these are relevant factors. Sure, there is correlation with educational performance, but not nearly as strong as the correlation of past educational performance. The strongest predictor of poor grades and test scores in 4th grade, is poor grades and test scores in 3rd grade. There is no reason to rely on any grouping other than performance itself.

I don't know what country you live in, but in this country, they are.

And what about poor Asian/white? And why call out non-poverty Black/Hispanics? Why can't they just focus on the achievement gap without using the race card.

Some folks don't want others to look at racial groups when talking about which groups perform higher and therefore should be over represented in magnet programs, but then want to look at racial groups when looking at which group MCPS needs to focus on because they are under performing.

If one says that URM group are under represented in magnet because by and large they are not high performers, then one is labeled racist. But if MCPS says that this same group is under performing and needs more resources, well, then that's fine, apparently. Look at the individual when it suits your purpose, but don't look at the individual (ie, peer cohort) when it doesn't.

Good news! MCPS is measuring those groups! You should be happy! Yay!

[Anonymous]

The editorial states there's this problem but doesn't say anything about how to address it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The editorial states there's this problem but doesn't say anything about how to address it.

Collecting data is a good first step, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The editorial states there's this problem but doesn't say anything about how to address it.

Collecting data is a good first step, don't you think?

We already collect this data. The equity accountability model is not about collecting new data, it is about using data we already collect to track performance of our schools and students and reporting it in a new framework that we paid a bunch of useless PhDs to create.

I am sick of my tax paying dollars being spent on paying consultants to look at data and report on problems that we already know about rather than spending money on more teachers, better instructional materials, etc. to actually address these gaps in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The editorial states there's this problem but doesn't say anything about how to address it.

Collecting data is a good first step, don't you think?

We already collect this data. The equity accountability model is not about collecting new data, it is about using data we already collect to track performance of our schools and students and reporting it in a new framework that we paid a bunch of useless PhDs to create.

I am sick of my tax paying dollars being spent on paying consultants to look at data and report on problems that we already know about rather than spending money on more teachers, better instructional materials, etc. to actually address these gaps in the classroom.

I'm not understanding what's bad about using data we already collect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS stereotypes:

Admin: mostly black and white
Students:
Asian and white: most meet acadamic bench marks
Black: most cannot reach acadamic bench marks
Hispanics: most esol and cannot reach acadamic bench marks.

If you see a black student in a school hallway, your first reaction is: this student is poor and cannot read and do math at on grade level.
If this not racism, tell me what is.

Jack Smith did try to say that poor blacks test worse than non-poor blacks.... And poor Hispanics test worse than non-poor hispanics.

WaPo only ran this in the digital version and made it virtually impossible to find unless you do very specific word searches.

It's in today's (Sunday's) print edition. Top of the Local Opinions section. Also MCPS has been promoting this for days on their home page.

[Anonymous]

“Here's why the achievement gap has grown:

Because kids...all kids...barely receive instruction at their level. Most of the elementary school day is dedicated to reading and math blocks, but kids are broken into groups within the classroom and teachers rush through each group quickly addressing/assessing and then sending them on their way to work independently.

Instead, kids should switch classrooms for math and reading and spelling and grammar (noting that grammar currently isn't part of the mcps curriculum) to receive actual teacher instruction at their level.

Spelling should be expanded to include vocabulary. That's the old school way we learned in private school (which actual drills/exercises).

And grammar must be taught. It's mind boggling that it isn't! Name a 1st world country that doesn't teach grammar.

Kids can't magically learn grammar through reading...particularly when the kids who aren't achieving don't read for pleasure. Can they read and pass the ridiculous mcps literacy benchmarks? Sure. Will they excel in HS, college and the workforce? Nope. You can't write well if you haven't mastered spelling, vocabulary and grammar. I believe that fact is supported by "No duh!" ”

+1
Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board talk about how they pay hundreds of thousands more for homes in specific neighborhoods because of the schools. They believe they are so vastly superior to other neighborhoods because they confer an advantage to the children who attend them. This appears to be a mainstream belief that the county has addressed with its cohort criteria.

Since when is sending your kid to a school with a bunch kids who don’t know any subjects or any language well going to be the preferred education for your literate child? Of course you’re not going to GI ti that school to attend that school, you might go to test in to a center but not year after year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board talk about how they pay hundreds of thousands more for homes in specific neighborhoods because of the schools. They believe they are so vastly superior to other neighborhoods because they confer an advantage to the children who attend them. This appears to be a mainstream belief that the county has addressed with its cohort criteria.

Since when is sending your kid to a school with a bunch kids who don’t know any subjects or any language well going to be the preferred education for your literate child? Of course you’re not going to GI ti that school to attend that school, you might go to test in to a center but not year after year.

Don’t think anyone said anything about your preferences. They were talking about how the cohort criteria identifies actual outliers by factoring for the differences in school quality which everyone goes on about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board talk about how they pay hundreds of thousands more for homes in specific neighborhoods because of the schools. They believe they are so vastly superior to other neighborhoods because they confer an advantage to the children who attend them. This appears to be a mainstream belief that the county has addressed with its cohort criteria.

Since when is sending your kid to a school with a bunch kids who don’t know any subjects or any language well going to be the preferred education for your literate child? Of course you’re not going to GI ti that school to attend that school, you might go to test in to a center but not year after year.

Don’t think anyone said anything about your preferences. They were talking about how the cohort criteria identifies actual outliers by factoring for the differences in school quality which everyone goes on about

But the Einstein’s and Blair’s of the county keep telling us everything is fine but then out of the other side of their mouth say unfair it is. If poor kids is the problem then those two schools have big problems. If poor kids aren’t a problem then stop hopping Woodward rezones you to it or BCC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board talk about how they pay hundreds of thousands more for homes in specific neighborhoods because of the schools. They believe they are so vastly superior to other neighborhoods because they confer an advantage to the children who attend them. This appears to be a mainstream belief that the county has addressed with its cohort criteria.

Since when is sending your kid to a school with a bunch kids who don’t know any subjects or any language well going to be the preferred education for your literate child? Of course you’re not going to GI ti that school to attend that school, you might go to test in to a center but not year after year.

The idea that there are people who believe that there are kids in school who "don't know any language well."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on this board talk about how they pay hundreds of thousands more for homes in specific neighborhoods because of the schools. They believe they are so vastly superior to other neighborhoods because they confer an advantage to the children who attend them. This appears to be a mainstream belief that the county has addressed with its cohort criteria.

Since when is sending your kid to a school with a bunch kids who don’t know any subjects or any language well going to be the preferred education for your literate child? Of course you’re not going to GI ti that school to attend that school, you might go to test in to a center but not year after year.

Don’t think anyone said anything about your preferences. They were talking about how the cohort criteria identifies actual outliers by factoring for the differences in school quality which everyone goes on about

I guess if people believe so strongly that some schools are better than others they’re willing to pay inflated home prices there’s something to this.