Reply to New boundary study for Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, RM, Northwest, Poolesville, QO, SV, WM, Wootton

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "New boundary study for Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, RM, Northwest, Poolesville, QO, SV, WM, Wootton"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Wow - apparently saying that being redistricted to Gaithersburg to reduce FARMS is reportable?[/quote]

I definitely would expect the redistricting to seek to better balance out the FARMS populations across schools. Which is a good thing, because without restricting right now, we've basically created segregated schools where poor Black and Hispanic kids go and then the other well-resourced schools where the white and Asian kids go.

Now they need to do this redistricting in a way that accounts for distance from home and school as busing kids across county is also harmful and not desirable.

But I fully expect rich, white and Asian MoCo families to protest and be up in arms about this. [/quote]

What do you mean by “well-resourced” schools? Don’t Title I schools - those with the highest FARMS rates - receive more funding that those with the lowest FARMS rates?[/quote]

The simplest answer to your question is that there are no Title I high schools in MCPS.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/dtecps/title1/schools/[/quote]

Ok, so how do some high schools end up as well-resourced while others don’t? Is PP saying that MCPS spends more money for high schools in rich white areas than they do in poorer more diverse areas?[/quote]

This is not true at all. I have one kid who attends a "rich white" school and another one attends a program at a majority minority, high FARMS HS that most of you would stick your nose up on. The latter definitely has more and better resources. MCPS clearly spends more money in this HS than the other one.  The other school has wealthier parents, so they do have a larger, well-funded PTA. [/quote]

I know it might seem that way but the actual data paints another picture. [/quote]

Ooh i love data. Please do share.[/quote]

Me again. Here are the actual data points: https://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/Graphs/?fbclid=IwAR3TJUW1sdXuHJElkaBCkSToePx8OhjQa2QAISgodv8VRhCuFt3jxf9-zqg#/DataDownloads/datadownload/3/17/6/30/XXXX/2020

The top 5 High Schools that received the most funding in 2023 at the Federal and State/Local levels were Rockville, Damascus, Watkins Mill, Kennedy, and Gaithersburg. The bottom 5 were Wootton, Northwest, RM, WJ, and BCC.   In 2022, the highest were Rockville, Kennedy, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, and Magruder. Bottom 5 were Whitman, Northwest, Poolesville, BCC, and WJ.  [/quote]

This is probably correct, but a lot of the data on school funding uses an average for teacher salaries, instead of the actual salary costs for teachers at those schools. So these data likely underestimate salary costs at high income schools.

Here's the data on teacher experience again, since some folks here are pretending you didn't see it:

https://www.montgomerycou...019-14.pdf

Page 79[/quote]

We get it. The older, tired and ineffective teachers tend to be focused primarily in low FARMS schools. [/quote]

Wow you didn't even bother to look at the data, which focuses on novice teachers.

My child's teacher has 30 years of experience and she is not remotely tired or ineffective. She is amazing.[/quote]

I think your data is only probably correct (to use your words), so I discounted it accordingly. [/quote]

What about "my data" (it's actually not mine) is incomplete or inaccurate? I gave an actual reason when I questioned the data you posted. What's yours? My guess is none, since you literally didn't even click on the link I posted.[/quote]

NP - but what data? The link is broken bro. If it's the same report you posted a few days ago showing that rich, white schools have more experienced teachers, I guess the question that PP is posing is, so what? Where's the data that shows this correlates to better teachers?[/quote]

I'm so sorry, here is the correct link, which yes is the same link as above (I know how hard it is to scroll back through threads): https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2019%20Reports/OLOReport2019-14.pdf

So, this was brought up as it relates to school funding, which directly correlates to experience. But if you would like to change the subject to discuss factors that influence teacher quality, if you Google it, you will find a lot of evidence that teacher quality does correlate with experience. [/quote]

I’m sorry you don’t see the connection here. I know you’re narrowly focused on showing that richer whiter schools are better resourced because their teachers are paid more due to their seniority/experience. But what if I asked you to assume for the sake of argument that older teachers are actually worse at their job than newer teachers, despite being more expensive, and so any additional money sent to them shouldn’t be highlighted as a proxy for additional resources going to rich white schools. Maybe those kids are learning despite and not because of the fact that on average their teachers are older. Does that help you understand why folks think your argument is silly since money spent on something that doesn’t help create positive educational outcomes is not the type of resource people are talking about here?[/quote]

Thanks for this long hypothetical which would have been completely unnecessary if you would bother to literally just Google your question.[/quote]

Per the Google machine, as requested:

"Findings indicate that the relationship between total years of experience and teacher effectiveness, as measured by student achievement gains, is complex, nuanced, and nonlinear. The conclusion is that decisions based on assumptions that the relationship between experience and effectiveness is direct and linear are simplistic and lead to less than optimal policy."[/quote]

SOURCE:https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_papay_chi_2019_teacher_skill_development.pdf
[i]From page 33-34 of this 2020 from Brown University[/i]

[QUOTE] Consistent with prior evidence based on test scores, [b]we find, on average, rapid improvement in teacher performance early in the career and suggestive evidence of continued growth through at least the first ten years on the job[b]. [b]The magnitude of these gains is large,[/b] eight-tenths of a standard deviation after ten years, suggesting that [b]teachers’ instructional practice and contributions to the school as a whole improve substantially as they gain experience[/b].[/QUOTE]

Stop trolling.[/quote]

NP here and I haven't read through this full exchange.  But these two excerpts basically say the same thing.  A non-linear relationship (first paragraph) is one that changes over time (e.g., improves at the start of career and not at end of career).  The second paragraph says that teachers improve a lot in their first ten years on the job and then doesn't say anything about improvement after that.  So if you look at a teacher with a twenty-year tenure, the teacher could have improved a lot at the start of their career and have little to no improvement (or even decline) in years 10-20.  (Theoretically, this seems like a likely outcome-- a lot of improvement at the start of a career, a leveling off around year 10 and then varying paths after that (some teachers becoming better and better; others not making much change after they've learned the ropes; others declining) in years 10-to-end-of-career.  [/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