Reply to Reducing personnel at central office

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Reducing personnel at central office"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Didn't Minifa expand the number of CO employees by 30% to help improve their focus on equity?[/quote]

And how did they do?[/quote]

They've done a lot to tweak the optics on closing the gap by creating more honors for all programs and reducing opportunities for advanced learners with all these lottery programs.[/quote]

How did the lottery reduce opportunity for advance learners?  It just made it so all advanced capable learners had a chance.  And they created ELC and expanded to all ES.[/quote]

DP.  Have a chance at what?  An accelerated local Math course?  ELC?  HIGH?  These hardly are at the same level or breadth as the programming available at the magnets, which have far too few seats to meet the needs of the identified population.  And unless you are lucky enough to be with a large cohort, many schools "implementing" the latter two are doing so without fidelity, having to reduce the intended enrichments/challenge because of more heterogeneous levels of students they are including in those classes to manage class size.

And CES, itself, is less broad than the HGC model that preceded it.  One can say it is more focused to a particular test result/subject area competency, but that doesn't mean those with such results aren't highly capable in other areas.  Some CES programs effectively cohort for math, some don't.  Where's science in all of this?

[b]There's been a crusade against GT programming for decades.  It's ridden the wave of equity, which isn't bad in and of itself, but creates a monster when paired, with budgetary decisions of convenience drawing from old analyses showing inequitable GT identification/program admittance (which may still occur).  Those have resulted in slashing of GT programming, swapping one kind of inequity for another,[/b] instead of the robust expansion that would address both.[/quote]

Eliminating “gifted and talented” programs IS equity.

Are people not aware of that?[/quote]

Nah.  That's just a perceived effect of misappropriation of the word to fence it in.

Equity would provide reasonably equivalent support to each student's need.  GT is just one of those needs.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics