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:Another observation - the lower you aim, the lower the results you get.

Like the poster above, I'm also a proud product of the former Soviet Union's public schools. What was normal math to us is considered an extraordinary achievement by American public school standards. Why? The kids in Moscow were no smarter than the DC kids I know. The schools had far less money and resources. And parents spent far less time checking kids' homeworks and talking to teachers. So why the gap? Simple - far more was required of us by the system. Lowering expectations is not going to improve performance, it's going to lower the bar for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:I thought Maryland opted out of NCLB.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and thanks for making my point. The person calling me a moron above clearly supports Apple Ballot/MCEA/Teachers Union. Don't get me wrong, these MCEA folks are stakeholders and deserve a seat at the table. However, do you want every member of the board to be tied to the Union? Does the person above sound like they care and support diverse parent views on education? Does this person sound like they will smile, nod and give parents vague answers about C2.0, then close the door and mutter about how all parents are idiots trying to get their little kids into Harvard? Anyway, that's the vibe I get from the current board and from J Starr. Finally, when the union sits down to vote on budget priorities, would you like at least one non-union person in the room to raise some honest objections or are you comfortable that a Union BOE can fairly negotiate with Union leadership?

So yes, I would absolutely vote for someone who is not part of the current professional education class. This system needs more diversity of thinking. This system needs someone who can represent and advocate for parents/taxpayers. If you are against that stuff, then fine. This is just my humble view.

Signed,

Moron

Anonymous wrote:

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Yeah! Mediocrity is what we strive for!

On the contrary, the law requires them to provide an appropriate education. You are just dead wrong.

More to the point, you are stupid. Public education is there for the public good. Don't you think it's to the benefit of our country to identify and educate highly able children at all socioeconomic levels? Or do you think that only well-off families have smart kids? And just what is your vision for our country in the coming decades if poor and middle class kids only get the basics and only wealthy children go on to have productive careers in the sciences, the arts, etc.?

I bet I know you you're voting for in November ...

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand. Why are teachers unions against differentiation? Do teachers like 2.0?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.

Yeah! Mediocrity is what we strive for!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course you do. Because you're a helicopter parent with a snowflake child. You probably even think your child is gifted.

The fact is (and try to stay with me, because I know facts may not be your strong suit) that public education is, indeed, to ensure that all children receive a basic level of education. That's why we have NCLB -- that's why we have SOLs. There are BASIC standards of learning that are imparted.

Public schools should strive for excellence, but it's not their role to differentiate or provide "more challenging curriculums for advance students." Some choose to -- hurrah! But it's not the mission of public education. Yet, you seem to view it as an entitlement.