Anonymous wrote:

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:OK, I have to take exception with the concept that so-called "tax recipients" don't value education. That's a really nasty outlook, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who commented about Starr moving to the whitest/richest schools and how that really undermines his credibility.

Wouldn't you live in the best school district you could afford? For your kids' sake?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who commented about Starr moving to the whitest/richest schools and how that really undermines his credibility. I live in the red zone and I just can't help but perceive him as a hypocrite when he starts telling us what policies will benefit our schools and how our schools are doing great when he's just not experiencing what we're experiencing. I don't think he's doing an awful job, but it really makes it hard for me to take him seriously when I see him choosing the "upper crust" schools for his own family and then expecting us to buy into the fiction that our kids in the downcounty are getting an equal quality education in the so-called diverse schools of the downcounty (terminology that is often code for high poverty schools with miserable test scores). He doesn't actually buy it, so why should I?

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody tell me what they think Starr should be doing? What policy should he be following and how should he be implementing it? It seems like a tough job to try to balance everyone's needs in such a huge school district. If what he's doing is wrong, what is the alternative and is it feasible and advisable? I'm asking this without having an opinion of whether he's screwing up or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This article refers to his time at Stamford. When, according to the article, "There were up to five tracks in the middle schools. Although only 40% of all students in the district were White, nearly 79% of the honors track was White. Conversely, although 53% of the district’s students were Black or Latino, only 11% of the honors track was Black or Latino. In the three lowest tracks, however, about 73% of the students were Black or Latino. It was as if two separate school systems existed."

So Starr eliminated a "rigid tracking system that was responsible for de-facto segregation". (Is this what we have in MCPS? Is this you want in MCPS?) And what happened? "State test scores went up for all subgroups, with accelerated growth for Black and Latino students. A survey of parents, students, and teachers showed positive reactions to the reform. The percentage of Black or Latino students in the honors math track increased from 11% to 30%—a dramatic shift in the proportion of student groups in the highest track."

If you are using this quote from this article to show that Starr believes all students should be lumped in the same classroom -- well, no, it doesn't show that.

We do not have de facto segregation in MCPS? de facto segregation in MCPS by zip code? I bet you can count the number of Black and Latino students in the MCPS classrooms of Mr. Starr's children on a single hand with a missing finger. So much for liberal mumbo jumbo philosophy.

I agree that we have de facto segregation in MCPS. I'm not sure what that has to do with "liberal mumbo jumbo" philosophy, though.