Reply to MCPS to end areawide Blair Magnet and countywide Richard Montgomery's IB program

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "MCPS to end areawide Blair Magnet and countywide Richard Montgomery's IB program"

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]I might have the wrong type or unpopular type of view of these things.

But our kids didn't get into the GT or magnet programs.  There were a couple of years where they made it to the lottery but didn't get selected.  The same with some of their classmates and our neighbors.

Personally for our family we were okay with it.

The GT, IB and magnet programs are supposed to be for the academically elite, where only the top get in.  We were perfectly fine with our kids not making it and going to our local school and is one of the reasons why we chose to live where we do.

As others are trying to say, if you increase the number and seats of the programs, it dilutes the programs and isn't as rigorous or advanced like how the programs are now.  Which people are saying they are okay with because it suits the needs of the many instead of the very few.

But another way of looking at it, is that maybe MCPS should be focusing on improving the instruction and quality at their individual schools.  So those students who don't get in to the county wide programs (either by not quite qualifying or just not get selected by the lottery) will still get the class selection and level that that they need.  Instead of having some mediocre programs that might not be better than some of the local schools around here.  And the issue with the offering of the potentially mediocre is that it sounds like they're going to change the current countywide program which is considered top tier.

I had to stop myself from posting in this thread:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1287572.page

Because know that people will attack me as entitled.  But I think there's something very wrong if a school doesn't have a track for students to take Algebra I by seventh grade and they have to look to going to a different school just to get on that track.  But that just goes to show how there are different standards at different schools within the county and this is starting at elementary school.  By the time students get to high school and eligible for these magnet/regional programs, students from different schools won't be on the same level based on the math tracks offered by their elementary schools.[/quote]

Well noted.

Are you willing to fund other schools differentially enough for them to provide that level of education to their population in need of greater rigor, given that that might require smaller classes than in your area?  Are you willing to fund much better ability identification, so that the needs of kids with potential are addressed via public mechanisms where family-based prep currently dominates?

This likely would mean higher taxes or less funding for your area, presuming the area you chose is as you describe because of the relatively high wealth/academic support available from families.[/quote]

I'm all for provide resources and funding to help raise up disadvantaged and at risk student groups and they absolutely should.

BUT I am not willing to pay higher taxes if I do not see that I'm getting the value from it or even worse less than before.  ie how MCPS appears to be lowering the standards for everyone and trying to take away advanced tracks.

Part of the issue with what MCPS is doing, as others have been posting, is that MCPS is lowering the bar rather than trying to bring the groups up to it.[/quote]

It should not cost extra money to bring higher level classes to all schools.  [/quote]

How do you expect that to be the case?  Where there is relative homogeneity of academic ability, there is less need for differentiation/cohorting, while more heterogeneous-ability populations require more, which is more logistically challenging, then requiring more funding to deliver.

This can be so whether that heterogeniety distributes more across the high end or the low end, though typically addressing differential needs of those with significant barriers -- intellectual, emotional, physical, linguistic, etc. -- is more costly than addressing those of students whose differential needs can be met with greater breadth/depth/rigor/pace.  Moreover, schools addressing a higher proportion of the former (barriers), though they may receive some differential funding, do not receive enough to address the challenge in full, and then typically are faced both with that and with smaller, less logistically manageable (more costly) cohorts of those with high-end need.[/quote]

You just change up a few classes and if you do more smarter kids will stay.[/quote]

This does not address the question.  The post explained why it [i]would[/i] cost more to bring higher level classes to all schools.

"You just change  up a few classes" offers no explanation of how the noted additional cost will be defrayed.  Is it the expectation that by making this change that "smarter kids will stay" (are they leaving, now?), and that this waves a wand such that the population at the school suddenly goes from more heterogeneous with a greater proportion of students with significant barriers to a more homogenous one with fewer students with barriers?  If not, the differentially high cost remains.[/quote]

How is it a higher cost?  They don't use textbooks except in a few classes. Teacher and other costs are the same.  So, they take one regular/honors class and make it a AP or higher level.[/quote]

Aside from the prior note about training, the higher cost comes from the less manageable cohort sizes.  You don't get the same effect from in-class differentiation (if the teacher does that at all) as you do from cohorted classes.  If you have 8 students needing a particular level of instruction, you need to allocate a teacher and a classroom for that cohort.  This influences the student/teacher ratio and the FTEs needed to deliver the overall instruction at the school, and, of course, would add the cost of portables in schools at or near capacity/with no additional classroom space.

That's for elementary, but the same principle holds for secondary.  If the cohort needing a differentiated class offering is small, a teacher and classroom would still need to be allocated to provide that instruction, with similar fiscal effect.

Those schools would need greater funding than schools with more manageable cohorts, and that would mean making the pie bigger (higher taxes) or making the slice given to each school somewhat proportional to the logistical burden (i.e., schools with the more manageable cohorts would get less).[/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