Reply to Why did BOE not demand Financial Literacy Graduation Requirement

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Why did BOE not demand Financial Literacy Graduation Requirement "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

If MCPS was kicking the can down the road, my interpretation of the reason was because the Maryland Blueprint for Excellence may have unintended consequences, and MCPS was reluctant to add an extra graduation requirement that may make it harder for some students to graduate.  It is good content, but requiring a semester class is a narrow approach that may not work.[/quote]

yes- this is what convinced them.[/quote]

Again, misses the point -- [b]MCPS didn't bother to prepare any alternatives to an in-class requirement[/b], which they knew would be voted down, in line with their recommendation.  They effectively abandoned a good idea -- ensuring that graduates have an understanding of personal finance -- with the straw man of that having to be accomplished only with a class.  O'Looney and one or two others were left to try to construct a solution on the spot, themselves, offering amendments to try to incorporate ideas like SSL hours or the like.  Of course, the other BOE members could then vote against these, saying that they hadn't been evaluated by MCPS staff, [b]which the MCPS professionals/higher-ups know should have been part of their preparation/presentation in the first place[/b].

Absolutely shameful.[/quote]

Actually there were several alternatives included in the document presented at the meeting, including: a personal finance elective, an online financial literacy course, quantitative literacy, and financial literacy modules:

[url]https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CF3T5R75BAC9/$file/Financial%20Literacy%20Recommendation%20220607.pdf[/url][/quote]

I hope you and others bother to [i]read[/i] the memo.  The only deep dive was into a credit-bearing requirement and the resulting negative impact on electives; the survey table shows opinion only about this option.  Implementations elsewhere were viewed with a jaundiced eye, at best, and they cast the issue as one made difficult by diversity instead of one for which diversity created a great need.

They paid lip service to the need, and they spent a few sentences on non-ctedit options, including SSL, but did not provide any deep analysis to support these in lieu of a class to the level that would be difficult to dismiss by other BOE members.  Instead, they recommended a no-requirement recognition at graduation.  The very population that would benefit most from having learned robust financial literacy is the population that is least likely to opt for non-requirement recognition.

Again -- they didn't properly prepare alternatives for consideration. [/quote]

This!  They did present several alternatives, all of which can still be used for credit bearing reasons.  What they didn’t provide was meaningful reason why these were better alternatives or how they would be implemented.  Trying to Maryland Blueprint and the end of course requirements was ridiculous.  As was trying to point to the number of students in danger of not graduating.  Neither of these are a true equity concern, and I saw that as a POC truly concerned about equity.  The only true equity concerned raised was about ensuring access for ESOL students.  The other reasonable concerns was training teachers and ensuring enough availability of courses/teachers for other courses, and the magnet program schedule.  All of the other things are excuses or lack of will. [/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