Awful for a superintendent to casually dismiss any group of students as not being good at something - whether high-achievers, middle of the road or less. Why engage in this at all unless you want to diminish the successful kids?

I don't have an issue with that statement... I take it that he di not mean to put down the "above average" kids, but point out that the "average" kids have valuable skills as well.

That is a sad tweet. It perpetuates a myth that smart kids are incapable of socially interacting well. The OP is right that there are great team leaders who have no academic skills in the area in which they lead a team. I know a great team leader who had little engineering knowledge. The team he led, mostly excellent engineers, quietly refocused the team behind his back.

Starr is tweeting stereotyping at its worst.

Agree that "average kids" should be praised for non-academic skills that are strong. However, I hope the implication is that "average" is OK. Many average kids could be above average with better instruction.

I also don't like the second half of the quote. It reveals Starr's zero-sum mindset. You don't have to knock another group down to build up the "average".

The second half of the quote is reminiscent of a major stereotype that the gifted suffer -- if you're extremely bright, you must be socially awkward. Not true and terribly disappointing to hear the Superintendent parrot this kind of well-known stereotype.

Anonymous wrote:What a ridiculous thread title. He's quoting a teacher who is praising students who might be considered academically 'underachieving' for their non-academic skills. What's the issue exactly?

The issue is in the process of phrasing some students, he shots down others for their academic achievement. Bad attitudes to have for educators.

Anonymous wrote:Starr has an agenda. he is against labeling some kids as gifted and therefore providing them with an appropriate education. He sees differentiation as elitist.

Of course he's right in the sense that intelligence alone doesn't guarantee success or even the ability to collaborate effectively. But it's an empty, silly observation to make on Twitter and it tips his hand to his ultimate goal -- teach to the middle because it creates better stnadardized test results.

Agree. His track record is telling. Still cannot believe MCPS hired him.

Anonymous wrote:Starr has an agenda. he is against labeling some kids as gifted and therefore providing them with an appropriate education. He sees differentiation as elitist.

Of course he's right in the sense that intelligence alone doesn't guarantee success or even the ability to collaborate effectively. But it's an empty, silly observation to make on Twitter and it tips his hand to his ultimate goal -- teach to the middle because it creates better stnadardized test results.

Dude. It wasn't about your snowflake. Power down the chopper.

Starr has an agenda. he is against labeling some kids as gifted and therefore providing them with an appropriate education. He sees differentiation as elitist.

Of course he's right in the sense that intelligence alone doesn't guarantee success or even the ability to collaborate effectively. But it's an empty, silly observation to make on Twitter and it tips his hand to his ultimate goal -- teach to the middle because it creates better stnadardized test results.

What a ridiculous thread title. He's quoting a teacher who is praising students who might be considered academically 'underachieving' for their non-academic skills. What's the issue exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

I am a principal (not in MCPS), and would rather hire the bright teacher who may not know all the teaching strategies but is a great collaborator over the teacher who can teach really well in the classroom, but doesn't get along with anyone.

Interesting perspective. I guess I can understand how you would value keeping peace in your kingdom over performance in the classroom with the students. Its more of a problem for you if your staff doesn't get along. If your school already gets strong test scores I guess it doesn't matter if you don't have the teacher who is amazing in the classroom. Sad but your comment really shows what goes wrong with school administration.

You must not be in a leadership position, pp. That's really small-minded. It's also short-sighted because it presumes that "peace in the kingdom" somehow leads to less productive output (in this case, performance). The reality is a brilliant but difficult person doesn't extract good performance out of anyone -- colleagues or students. Teaming and collaboration are the most effective workplace models, and ultimately lead to greater achievement. The brilliant but difficult loner who successfully transforms failing students only exists in movies.

I am a principal (not in MCPS), and would rather hire the bright teacher who may not know all the teaching strategies but is a great collaborator over the teacher who can teach really well in the classroom, but doesn't get along with anyone.

Interesting perspective. I guess I can understand how you would value keeping peace in your kingdom over performance in the classroom with the students. Its more of a problem for you if your staff doesn't get along. If your school already gets strong test scores I guess it doesn't matter if you don't have the teacher who is amazing in the classroom. Sad but your comment really shows what goes wrong with school administration.

No, OP. Twitter is 140 character limit, so brevity obviously means sacrificing some context. But I completely understood the point here -- that personal achievement isn't the most important goal in a school, and that many of the highest-achieving students may lack other, arguably more important skills. Conversely, a student who performs in the average on test scores may have other strengths that we fail to appreciate. It's not only a good message -- it's true. The ability to team and collaborate is a higher functioning skill in the workforce than simply being the smartest one in the room. We as parents often forget that, especially in this metropolitan area. I found the tweet to be quite insightful

Yes! It is hard to think otherwise!

The statement isn't meaningless. We just need more context. When I first read it, I thought the comment was making a reference to how we need to place a high value on collaboration. I am a principal (not in MCPS), and would rather hire the bright teacher who may not know all the teaching strategies but is a great collaborator over the teacher who can teach really well in the classroom, but doesn't get along with anyone.

I can work with the less-experienced teacher and teach her great teaching strategies. That's easy. What's really difficult is getting someone who doesn't like/want to collaborate to change. We have too much work to do it alone. Teaching can no longer be a "lonely" profession where you close your classroom door and do your own thing. There are some professions where this okay, but more and more jobs that our current high students will be competing for require knowing how to collaborate.

He tweeted "Wheaton HS teacher: "some of the average kids are the best collaborators and team members. Some of the highest academic performers aren't"" (https://twitter.com/mcpssuper/status/314744294374273024)

The way I look at it if you take groups of students separated by academic ability you'll find some that are good collaborators in each group. The statement made by the Wheaton HS teacher is meaningless. Is this why they couldn't get enough students for their programs and had to extend deadlines and have open houses?

Where is this superintendent taking MCPS?