Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS really cared about students (rather than popular opinion), they would ensure tracking was available at all schools. True tracking by ability would encourage higher SES families to attend public schools as their needs would be met/ and they would challenged. Motivated and talented minority/low income kids would thus have a good peer group and teachers would be able to teach kids to their ability.

Sticking unmotivated disadvantaged kids in a classroom with bright motivated kids helps no one. The unmotivated kids are disruptive and the motivated ones aren't taught to their ability. The parents who can afford it leave the system.

This suggestion usually comes from high-SES parents with reasonably bright, reasonably well-motivated kids. That is because tracking unquestionably benefits these kids.

What suggestions do people have who do not fit into this category -- i.e., the people who would be disadvantaged by tracking?

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS really cared about students (rather than popular opinion), they would ensure tracking was available at all schools. True tracking by ability would encourage higher SES families to attend public schools as their needs would be met/ and they would challenged. Motivated and talented minority/low income kids would thus have a good peer group and teachers would be able to teach kids to their ability.

Sticking unmotivated disadvantaged kids in a classroom with bright motivated kids helps no one. The unmotivated kids are disruptive and the motivated ones aren't taught to their ability. The parents who can afford it leave the system.

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS really cared about students (rather than popular opinion), they would ensure tracking was available at all schools. True tracking by ability would encourage higher SES families to attend public schools as their needs would be met/ and they would challenged. Motivated and talented minority/low income kids would thus have a good peer group and teachers would be able to teach kids to their ability.

Sticking unmotivated disadvantaged kids in a classroom with bright motivated kids helps no one. The unmotivated kids are disruptive and the motivated ones aren't taught to their ability. The parents who can afford it leave the system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taking the best and brightest out of low performing schools won't fix the problem...and that's what would happen with new consortia. How do you change boundaries that result in improvement at Kennedy? You can't. The people living in the nicest surrounding neighborhoods already send their kids to private schools or they have been in the HGC and magnet programs from early on. These are social issues, not purely educational ones. No quick fix.

People who live in the nicest surrounding neighborhoods sure have smart kids, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:Where I grew up, every little town had its own school; so if you were in the wealthy town, your schools were great; if you were in a poorer town, not so great. No school district had a stark achievement gap because the districts were small and homogeneous. Accross the state, however, crazy differences in standardized test scores. MontCo is so huge as a district that it is trying to solve a problem that many other communities simply avoid by having smaller school districts.

+1 for this poster: Low performing schools are primarily comprised of low income kids and kids with parents who speak other languages. Many of these kids would have improved test scores if they received extra support in a variety of areas (not just academic). MCPS should research the community school model that incorporates community centers and social service hubs within the school. Hungry kids get fed, parents have access to resources, tutoring is available after school, and free sports/activities are offered to keep kids off the street. We know how to improve outcomes... We have the research. But these kinds of models cost money. Moving poor kids to a different school in a nicer area won't magically solve the problem.

Signed,

A public interest lawyer who has worked on poverty related issues for a million years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

How do YOU propose solving the problem? Busing all the Potomac kids to Darnestown? That seems realistic.

Darnestown? When you think of high-poverty schools, you think of Darnestown?

Anonymous wrote:[

How do YOU propose solving the problem? Busing all the Potomac kids to Darnestown? That seems realistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're arguing with more than one person.

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful is that they come from affluent families whose parents prioritize education and are able to support them academically. Do you deny that that is the case?

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful in school is that they tend to go to school with other affluent kids.

Another reason that affluent kids are more successful in school in is because all of the practical complications of life are easier to deal with if you have more money.

It follows, therefore, that if you want to improve the academic performance of non-affluent kids, you should send them to school with affluent kids, and you should make it as uncomplicated as possible for them to go to school with affluent kids and to stay in school with affluent kids.

You're not making sense. Those kids won't have more money (and you're right, the practical complications of life are more easily dealt with with more money) because they go to school with more affluent kids. They'll have a longer way to go and a bigger economic divide.

The solution is improving the lower-ranked schools and increasing home support.

Only if the poor kids have to come to the affluent kids. But that's not the only way to solve the problem.

Also, how do you propose to "improve the lower-ranked schools" and "increase home support"? And will your proposals affect you at all, except for paying for them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're arguing with more than one person.

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful is that they come from affluent families whose parents prioritize education and are able to support them academically. Do you deny that that is the case?

A large reason that affluent kids are more successful in school is that they tend to go to school with other affluent kids.

Another reason that affluent kids are more successful in school in is because all of the practical complications of life are easier to deal with if you have more money.

It follows, therefore, that if you want to improve the academic performance of non-affluent kids, you should send them to school with affluent kids, and you should make it as uncomplicated as possible for them to go to school with affluent kids and to stay in school with affluent kids.

You're not making sense. Those kids won't have more money (and you're right, the practical complications of life are more easily dealt with with more money) because they go to school with more affluent kids. They'll have a longer way to go and a bigger economic divide.

The solution is improving the lower-ranked schools and increasing home support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they implement some sort of radical boundary change, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be the less-affluent but-still-middle-class families who will get the short end of the stick. MCPS will claim to solve a problem by moving some boundaries around to reassign a few middle class neighborhoods into predominately poor schools. It will be the neighborhoods that lack the political muscle of places like the Whitman cluster. The Whitman and Bethesda folks, on the other hand, will defend their territory and boundaries more effectively for the same reason lots of things work out for them: they've got more money to make things go their way from a political/influence standpoint. If anyone followed what happened with the New Hampshire Estates and Oak View unpairing dispute that took place a year or two ago, it was a great lesson in how MCPS pays lip service to implementing programs that achieve diversity and prioritizes being able to check a box to say something was done rather than paying any mind to whether what was done was effective. They implement meaningless programs like ineffective pairings for show in the neighborhoods that lack any political clout to prevent it, but silently ignore the fact that they're not pulling the same stunts in the Whitman and other W clusters.

So for all of the underdogs out there who thing boundary shifts will be a great equalizer and will benefit you personally, be careful what you wish for. Because you may think your current assignment sucks, but MCPS may find a way to make it even worse lest they be forced to take any action that would rock the boat in those parts of MoCo that really call the shots.

OK, so what's your proposed solution?