Let's say I think my child would do better in school if he had a personal aid. Someone to take down the homework, prompt him to raise his hand for class participation, and just generally manage his day. Surely if my child has this person it would benefit his other classmates too - my child wouldn't need to ask the teacher a question, he can ask his personal aid. My child wouldn't need to take any extra time at all from the teacher because his personal aid would attend to his needs. In fact, when my child isn't in need of his personal aid, his personal aid could even help the other children, I'm generous and I don't mind!

Are we all ok with that? It would benefit everyone! Mostly my child, but there'd be benefits to the plebes as well.

Anonymous wrote:

And of course there are differing circumstances. That's why the title 1 schools get more funding. Good! That has nothing to do with whether other people should be allowed to donate extra money to their schools.

I agree completely. The "rich parents shouldn't be able to buy extra teachers for their kids in public school" and "public schools with lots of poor kids need extra funding" issues are separate issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you so dense? I'm not afraid of a title 1 school. I've already explained how bad a transition like that to any new school would be. God you are ridiculous.

So should MCPS make an exception in policy only for your child currently in K, but explain that henceforth anybody who wants smaller class sizes (including you, if you have younger children) must send their children to Title I or Focus schools? That will solve the problem of switching schools.

Anonymous wrote:

So why not say the richer schools should have 40 kids in a classroom? I mean, they're still doing fine on tests because their parent teach them at home anyway. At what point do you say that they should be allowed to have a reasonable sizes classroom too?

I see no point in discussing hypotheticals.

And no, the idea is actually not that the reason high-SES kids do fine on tests is because their parents teach them at home -- although that's certainly a very Montgomery County-ish belief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

Oh, are Title I schools and Focus schools better than the schools in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase? I didn't know that.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

So equity isn't the principle at play here. The principle at play is not liking rich people.

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

So why not say the richer schools should have 40 kids in a classroom? I mean, they're still doing fine on tests because their parent teach them at home anyway. At what point do you say that they should be allowed to have a reasonable sizes classroom too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

Differing circumstances like oversized classrooms you mean?

No, differing circumstances like the things that the kids of poor parents with little education need from public schools to get a good education vs. the things that the kids of affluent, highly-educated parents need from public schools to get a good education.

But if you don't think that there are differing circumstances, then you will surely have no objections to sending your child to Title I or Focus schools, where the class sizes in K-3 are smaller.

And of course there are differing circumstances. That's why the title 1 schools get more funding. Good! That has nothing to do with whether other people should be allowed to donate extra money to their schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

Differing circumstances like oversized classrooms you mean?

No, differing circumstances like the things that the kids of poor parents with little education need from public schools to get a good education vs. the things that the kids of affluent, highly-educated parents need from public schools to get a good education.

But if you don't think that there are differing circumstances, then you will surely have no objections to sending your child to Title I or Focus schools, where the class sizes in K-3 are smaller.

Why are you so dense? I'm not afraid of a title 1 school. I've already explained how bad a transition like that to any new school would be. God you are ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

Differing circumstances like oversized classrooms you mean?

No, differing circumstances like the things that the kids of poor parents with little education need from public schools to get a good education vs. the things that the kids of affluent, highly-educated parents need from public schools to get a good education.

But if you don't think that there are differing circumstances, then you will surely have no objections to sending your child to Title I or Focus schools, where the class sizes in K-3 are smaller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Weller Road is Title 1. It already has extra teachers.

No fair that those poor kids get smaller class sizes! Poor kids get all the good stuff!

Nobody said that. Literally NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD. I'm arguing we should be able to use *our own money* *in addition to our taxes* to get aides in the classroom. With a smile on my face, I will happily subsidize extra teachers at Title 1 / Focus schools. I would chip in for more for those schools if I was allowed to hire an aide for my kid's class. But instead, since I can't, I'm going to scrimp and save and send her to some private school as soon as I have enough $ to do it.
I am NOT alone.

Yes, you are arguing that you should be able to use your own money to buy your child a better education. If you want to do that, then you should do it, if you can -- in a private school. That is exactly what private schools exist for.

Well, since your view is the one that prevails in MCPS, that's what will happen. No flexibility whatsoever and a piss-poor public option. Yes, more people will go private. And in order to do that, we will have to move, because we cannot afford to live in this area and also pay for private. Since that financial status applies to most people in our area, expect to see that happen a lot.

You could move to Silver Spring! It's great over here.

No I can't.

Why not? If you have to move to pay for private, why not move to SS? It's really nice here. In fact, I live here even though I could live in Bethesda/CC etc. And your smaller mortgage paymenet could allow you to pay for private.

Because I can't just find a home that accommodates a wheelchair bound older person I care for. Moving anywhere is going to be a huge ordeal for us, for our particular reasons. We are very much in a bind. And my mortgage in my Bethesda home (because of where it is and how small it is) is probably not more than yours in SS. I have nothing against SS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who are champions for equality and hate this idea because it's "unfair" to the lower SES schools, how many of you also criticize Common Core becuase it's bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator in curriculum? So, is equality good or bad?

I think that the Common Core standards are a good thing.

And I don't think that rich people should be allowed to buy extra teachers for their children.

Yep. Lowest common denominator all around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

Oh, are Title I schools and Focus schools better than the schools in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase? I didn't know that.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

So equity isn't the principle at play here. The principle at play is not liking rich people.

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

Differing circumstances like oversized classrooms you mean?

Anonymous wrote:Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

I'm all for it. The sillies will reject it because they'd rather all kids have less as long as it's even (except not even because the poor schools get more, but that doesn't count).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

Oh, are Title I schools and Focus schools better than the schools in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase? I didn't know that.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

Why do you think the richer schools are better?

Where did anybody say this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

Oh, are Title I schools and Focus schools better than the schools in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase? I didn't know that.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

So equity isn't the principle at play here. The principle at play is not liking rich people.

Equity is exactly the principle at play here. Unless you think that the educational needs are not greater at schools with lots of poor kids? Or unless you think that equity means that everybody gets exactly the same, regardless of differing circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree with you, but the schools with lower income parent populations feel it's unfair. Of course, it's not taking anything from their kids and the TItle 1 schools do get more teachers per student (which seems reasonable to me). So I think it's a specious argument. I've seen my kid get basically zero attention all year in her enormous K class with one teacher.

So move to a Title 1 school or MD focus school. Then your child's classmates will be less white, less wealthy and some will be speaking English for the first time. Hopefully with school breakfast and lunch your child's classmates will at least not be hungry.

Not the PP but we don't go to a Title 1 or Focus school and 13 out of our 27 K kids are ESOL. Out of those 13, 5 still don't know anything but a few sentences in English. The kids get ignored. 27 K students to 1 teacher and no paraeducator help is just outright awful.

It all comes down to illegal immigrants. They are destroying a once great school district. And they just show up on the first day without registering. Once teachers are allocated, it is very hard to get a new teacher. Every year it happens. Every year it sucks. I can't go to Russia, China, Brazil etc.... And just start a school and have them teach me their language. It is no way benefitting us.

what school is this? I do not at all believe that system-wide illegal immigrants are what's ailing MCPS, or that half the kids in your (non-title I) school are illegal immigrants.

To be clear, the pp focused on immigration is not me, a pp who thinks people should be able to fund aides.