Anonymous wrote:Remedies for MCPS?

Magnet type options and curriculum for ALL eligible kids, not just the ones who don't have a cohort. Test all, and have enough seats for all. This should be at ALL grade levels.;

Smaller class sizes for all, not just focus/title 1;

Smaller schools in general (state of MD has suggested best school sizes, but MCPS has changed their numbers in recent years to be much higher than those state numbers, esp at the HS level, but really at all levels);

Hire Principals that have some experience and will do what is best for children, not whatever MCPS central office says to do ( the young ones have been hired recently, are all looking out for their career, not the students).

Give teachers more autonomy;

More counselors;

Priority needs to focus on all students, not only closing the opportunity/achievement gap;

Get rid of Smith, Zuckerman and Sullivan.

Will this happen? No, would cost to much money...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually within education circles and more importantly higher education circles, MCPS is being studied as an example of a failed system.

Not being snarky... cite your source? I'm genuinely curious.

John Hopkins for sure. At least a few case studies came out during the audit.

PP here... The Johns Hopkins report was regarding the 2.0 curriculum, not the entire system. The curriculum is a big part of academic quality, obviously, but it's not the same as the whole school system. Additionally, at least MCPS was willing to get an independent study done on 2.0, and then scrap it based on the study. Is it late in coming, maybe. I am not an educator, so I don't know how long you are supposed give the new curriculum a chance.

I'm not happy with 2.0, but my 8th grader has done fine with it. Scores very high, etc.. And I'm glad that DC will get a chance to take lots of challenging classes in HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually within education circles and more importantly higher education circles, MCPS is being studied as an example of a failed system.

Not being snarky... cite your source? I'm genuinely curious.

John Hopkins for sure. At least a few case studies came out during the audit.

Boy you like the word failed! You do realize there is a huge difference in MCPS paying a consultant to critique its curriculum (which by definition means it will be pointing out problems) and a researcher picking it out of all US systems and use as a case study of a failed system right?

Anonymous wrote:

John Hopkins for sure. At least a few case studies came out during the audit.

Are these case studies actually calling it a "failed system"? Or are they analyzing a particular policy or curriculum that didn't meet expectations? There's a big difference between a crappy curriculum selection and a failed system, and without knowing the focus of those studies and the conclusions the reached, it's tough to evaluate your statements.

The JHU report provides the data and evidence for other educational researchers to build case studies and papers. Other institutions and researchers build off these audits and this is a biggie. Many of the case studies and papers won't be covered in the media or show up on Amazon but you can bet they are being covered in classes and serving as a top topic for grad students.

The curriculum failure report brought up several interesting angles such as the near universal dislike from teachers -something the auditors stated they had never seen before in other schools. This is an ideal topic for masters and phd students to delve into the failures at the system and institutional level to allow a failed curriculum to exist for seven years despite universal teacher condemnation. Failures to establish effective peer reviews, qualitative assessments of learning outcomes, qualitative review of materials etc.

The other angle that I would pursue if I was a ed researcher, masters student etc would be the aspect of how the failed curriculum disproportionately hurt low performing students when they were the original target to be helped by the new curriculum. Again this is more than MCPS created a bad curriculum . The case study is about how MCPS made strategic errors in understanding the learning needs of the group it was trying to help and failed to exercise any measurements or feedback to find out and correct course.

Anonymous wrote:

John Hopkins for sure. At least a few case studies came out during the audit.

Are these case studies actually calling it a "failed system"? Or are they analyzing a particular policy or curriculum that didn't meet expectations? There's a big difference between a crappy curriculum selection and a failed system, and without knowing the focus of those studies and the conclusions the reached, it's tough to evaluate your statements.

The JHU report provides the data and evidence for other educational researchers to build case studies and papers. Other institutions and researchers build off these audits and this is a biggie. Many of the case studies and papers won't be covered in the media or show up on Amazon but you can bet they are being covered in classes and serving as a top topic for grad students.

The curriculum failure report brought up several interesting angles such as the near universal dislike from teachers -something the auditors stated they had never seen before in other schools. This is an ideal topic for masters and phd students to delve into the failures at the system and institutional level to allow a failed curriculum to exist for seven years despite universal teacher condemnation. Failures to establish effective peer reviews, qualitative assessments of learning outcomes, qualitative review of materials etc.

The other angle that I would pursue if I was a ed researcher, masters student etc would be the aspect of how the failed curriculum disproportionately hurt low performing students when they were the original target to be helped by the new curriculum. Again this is more than MCPS created a bad curriculum . The case study is about how MCPS made strategic errors in understanding the learning needs of the group it was trying to help and failed to exercise any measurements or feedback to find out and correct course.