Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.
To me, this thread is about voting for the BOE. Curriculum is just one part of my dissatisfaction with the current BOE. I don't like their budget priorities and lack of transparency either I also don't like their attitude about parents as witnesses by the poster above who called me a moron for just expressing a one sentence call for change. I want more parental/taxpayer input on the board. It is just that simple.
As for a challenging curriculum, I fundamentally disagree with you on several layers. First, where do you get that public education is supposed to provide basic or minimal education? Is that in the constitution or something? It seems to me that public education can be whatever we citizens want to make of it. My view may not carry the day, but what is wrong with advocating for it? Second, as I have stated elsewhere on this board, there is no cost to differentiating kids. The Math Pathways in MCPS prior to C2.0 did just this. It uses the same number of teachers, but reorganizes the classes. Other school systems do this as well. I just doesn't cost more and may cost less because you can tolerate higher class sizes with more homogenous groupings. Finally, many people can't afford private school. Your argument suggests that kids of poor people should not have access to a challenging education. I disagree with that premise.
Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.
Anonymous wrote:I'm just curious why you think it's the responsibility of a public school to provide a more challenging curriculum for advanced kids? Really, that's not what public education does. If that's what you desire, you should pay for it and go private. Because what you're asking for usually comes at the expense of meeting the basic needs of all students.
Anonymous wrote:Panner - http://www.morrispanner.com/
uh huh
really has LOADS of experience in education
kid at Somerset - green zone . . . What does he know about FARMs and ESOL??
another good one -
http://silverspring.patch.com/articles/annita-seckinger-running-for-county-school-board
love her "educational experience" in environmental issues
http://rsforboe.x10.mx/
and this one . . .
PTA experience
wow - quite the impressive list of candidates
endorsed by the PC, I assume?
PP - you are a moron.
Anonymous wrote:If you want change, look into these candidates
1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)
If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)
I am going for something new.
Anonymous wrote:If you want change, look into these candidates
1. Morris Panner (At large)
2. Annita Seckinger (4th district)
3. Rebecca Smondrowski (2nd district)
If you like C2.0 and the status quo in MCPS, then vote Apple Ballot/Union/MCEA candidates:
1. Phil Kaufman (At large)
2. Chris Barclay (4th district)
3. Fred Evans (2nd district)
I am going for something new.
Anonymous wrote:How does the voting work? I know everyone votes for thevat large member but do you vote for the district candidates if you don't live in those districts? I know the district candidates were on the primary ballot -- is it the same for generaL election?