Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Others have posted in the interim. I think the pretty much covers it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

FARMS is not high needs. That is a victim mentality. You don’t need a lit of money to succeed in academics—in the US and around the world. Chinese and Middle Eastern students, for instance, have a tiny fraction of the wealth of Americans, yet many manage to do extremely well in school.

Aside from FARMS, please provide data to support your claim that the number of high-needs MCPS students is staggering. Are over 60% of MCPS students EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)?

Anonymous wrote:Here is Montgomery County’s FY26 operating budget:

https://apps.montgomerycountymd.gov/BASISOPERATING/Common/Index.aspx

MCPS was given close to $3.6 billion, which is 47.1% of Montgomery County’s budget.

The result of this enormous annual expenditure? Students poorly educated in the core subjects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of self appointed experts in education here. Dunning Kruger in action!

Public schools are for the entire public. If you grew up in America and have always known English, had enough money, had a place to live, and had no disabilities, you are already ahead of half of our students. That’s why MCPS looks to you like it’s “failing.”

MCPS Stats: 20% EMLs, 14% disabilities, 44% FARMS

Including you apparently.

Again with the victim mentality. Are you saying that most FARMS students are homeless? Unlikely. Since most FARMS are not homeless, then FARMS is not a high needs situation. Around the world including the US, and people in poor communities like Queens excel in school despite their financial situation.

What do you mean by “disabilities”? If physical, that does not factor in to academic performance. Assuming your stats are true (citation?), that’s only at the most 34% high needs—not half.

If only up to 34% of MCPS students are high needs, this does not explain why only 57% of MCPS students are proficient in reading 36% are proficient in math.

Anonymous wrote:There sure are a lot of self appointed experts in education here. Dunning Kruger in action!

Public schools are for the entire public. If you grew up in America and have always known English, had enough money, had a place to live, and had no disabilities, you are already ahead of half of our students. That’s why MCPS looks to you like it’s “failing.”

MCPS Stats: 20% EMLs, 14% disabilities, 44% FARMS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

I'd say, "Well, it's a good thing that most of the MCPS student population is high-need, then!"...except for the fact that it isn't a good thing.

FARMS, EML, 504s & IEPs (including 2E)? The numbers are staggering. And these don't even comprise the total that might be regarded as high-need. Have you been hiding under a rock?

You're right, though -- highly capable students will tend to flourish in the right school environment. MCPS needs to ensure all of those highly capable have reasonably equivalent access to such an environment. But they have to address the other needs, as well, and are required by statute to address those first in most cases. And the funding they get to do so generally isn't enough per student. And that means that, under current allocations, schools with a greater proportion of students with high need (of the types mentioned or proximate to them) have even less to address the needs of the highly able (even as some of those may present with some of the noted high need, as well). And, on top of that, the lower the proportion of highly-able-but-without-(other)-high-need students, the lower the efficiencies of scale.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Students are highly capable and will flourish academically if given the right school environment.

Unless most of the MCPS student population is high-needs, your point is not relevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Funny thing -- companies tend to pick their customers. Or, at least, target demographics which would result in profitable engagements/enterprise success.

Public school systems, like many public goods, can't, and you can bet it is considerably more expensive to address a high-needs student population, which has become more and more the preponderance within MCPS over the last 40+ years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I would rather keep that $23,000 per pupil and homeschool my children. They’d receive a better education and it would certainly not cost that much.

Isn’t that the truth. To spend $23,000 for my kid to be unlikely to be proficient in math, and about a 50% chance they will be proficient in reading.

There needs to be accountability for why MCPS is not doing a good job teaching. No successful company would tolerate those kinds of numbers.