Starr is an ineffective leader. His negative ratings come from his arrogance and poorly conceived ideas BUT the real harm being done is from his lack of leadership and planning for the budget, facilities planning, performance management, and curriculum support. This will end up costing MCPS and the taxpayers a significant amount in years to come.

The BOE needs to hire someone who has the skills to run an organization the size of MCPS. This is not Starr and its not surprising that he is failing. It takes someone who is willing to roll up their sleeves, clean house, set priorities, manage their budget, and not try to just cover up problems with flimsy PR.

Mo Co has one of the strongest evaluation systems around.

I won't go into details b/c it's much too complex to describe in a post, but it works well IF administrators do their part.

Sadly, there are too many who simply refuse to put in the effort, as it can take a year's worth of documentation to remove an under-performing teacher. And, tbh, there are quite a few administrators who just don't cut it either.

Anonymous wrote:
I am all for increasing teachers' salaries and trying to attract the best teachers. However mere money is not enough. You have to put a system in place to evaluate teachers and weed out the incompetent ones and hire some who love teaching and are good at it, each in their own way. This is difficult!

As for the rest, I distrust Starr because of his glibness and media dance. Methinks he should be concentrating on finding ways to not dumb down the curriculum but close the gap at the same time! It's too easy to work on closing the gap if one just lowers the common denominator...

I am all for increasing teachers' salaries and trying to attract the best teachers. However mere money is not enough. You have to put a system in place to evaluate teachers and weed out the incompetent ones and hire some who love teaching and are good at it, each in their own way. This is difficult!

As for the rest, I distrust Starr because of his glibness and media dance. Methinks he should be concentrating on finding ways to not dumb down the curriculum but close the gap at the same time! It's too easy to work on closing the gap if one just lowers the common denominator...

Anonymous wrote:7% raises...LOLOLOLOL!!!!

My wife is a dual MS degree holding elem teacher who signed a contract with MCPS that promised 3.5% raises for a few years. After seven years she received 0.00% raises. To date this year alone she will be paid $10, 000 less than she would have been had the county not renigged on the contract they both signed. $10, 000 is a lot of money when you plan your life, buy a house, have two kids, expect a contract to be...well...a contract?

+1 w regard to my DH, who but for these events would be at the top of the pay scale by now. He has 23 yrs of experience and an MA + 60.

7% raises...LOLOLOLOL!!!!

My wife is a dual MS degree holding elem teacher who signed a contract with MCPS that promised 3.5% raises for a few years. After seven years she received 0.00% raises. To date this year alone she will be paid $10, 000 less than she would have been had the county not renigged on the contract they both signed. $10, 000 is a lot of money when you plan your life, buy a house, have two kids, expect a contract to be...well...a contract?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OK, genius

Whom would you recommend?

What's your educational philosophy, btw, or your educational degree, for that matter, since you seem to be the expert on educational policy????

I am never amazed at how non-educators think they know all there is to know about curriculum. Unless you have evidence to suggest that MCPS is dumbing down education, I seriously doubt you'll gain much support from other Mo Co residents.

[/quote]

I guess I am a non-educator, so you are talking to me. I have a phd in Stats. I don't think the degree matters as much as being a parent. [b] All parents are educators. [/b] We are the one's that see wonderful children at home talking about either being bored (advanced kids) or dumb (struggling learners) at home. We see the work they bring home and know if the kid ready for it or not. 'Professional Educators' may not see this because they see peer groups of kids with test score distributions. As parents, we want to see kids gravitate to the right level of learning so they see learning as a valuable process. I prefer the math pathways approach where kids move at their own pace not forced on a pace as dictated by their age. The dumbing down will only occur for the top non-magnet students, who probably ready for the magnet pace. There just are not enough magnet slots. Previously, these kids were allowed to move ahead at the local school. MCPS is moving away from this. It's that simple. I am not going to argue about the details of what is getting taught. The problem is that the expensive school system seems to be only able to cater to one pace of learning. Parents are right to be skeptical that one teacher can take 25-30 kids and constantly challenge the different paces they are traveling. Industrial organization tells us that it is more efficient to have teachers specialize and treat homogenous groups of kids. This is what happens in just about any profession I can bring to mind right now. Further, there is no one in MCPS that is bringing out studies and research to support their drastic views. Please educate me on why Curriculum 2.0 will work or is this a big expensive experiment on our kids. [b] Please work with parents and not against them.[[/b]/quote]

Until YOU, as a parent, are as kind to us, we cannot work together. Furthermore, until YOU can write a successful lesson plan that incorporates all of the essential components and critical thinking skills - adding in, of course, strategies that work with all learners and all skill levels, don't pretend YOU are an educator.

You are not one. You have a PhD in stats. A struggling 9th grader in matter and energy will not give a rat's ass about your PhD. In fact, our school lost two career changers with PhDs b/c they could NOT handle the subject matter, planning, grading - and most importantly, the management.

But go ahead and study your numbers, PhD. Stay away from the reality we face each day.

You have NO credibility with us.

[/quote]

Me again. I am not really sure how to respond. I think I am kind to my kid's teachers. I don't really blame them for the curriculum shift. I think some teachers are better than others. Some are more willing to interact and work with parents than others. I treat them all with respect, which is genuine. You don't seem to treat parents with much respect and you can't seem to respond to the issues directly.

What do lesson plans have to do with the situation or with Dr. Starr. I would think a teacher would be on the same side as me. I think it is more efficient for a teacher to come up with one lesson plan for a homogenous group of kids than 3-4 lesson plans for a mixed group of kids. Do you disagree with this? Not only that, I think all groups will have a better learning experience if they are grouped and taught appropriately. Dr. Starr and MCPS seem to agree that kids need to be grouped since they suggest grouping within a mixed classroom and since they support magnets. I think the way they are grouping within a single classroom, however, prevents some kids from reaching their potential. That is my issue and I don't think I need to write lesson plans to argue it. Feel free to belittle me, but I think you would get farther by just making your case.
[/quote]
+1
Thank you for your thoughtful response to the previous poster. You have accurately described what a lot of parents are feeling right now. The new curriculum and grouping approach does not serve the top 10-15% of the student body. For the children who do not get into the magnets (which have very few spots - around 2% and the middle school magnets are not conveniently located for people living in the western or northern part of the county), they are out of luck. There is a lot of angst about the loss of Math pathways but another development parents should be worried about is the implementation of the middle school reform initiative. Prior to the initiative, a lot of middle schools had a GT track for advanced learners. Now, students get either regular or advanced classes in science, social studies, language arts etc. The advanced classes are a lot more inclusive than the old GT track and so teachers have lots of ability groups in one class.
There is no reason why teachers and parents can't support each other. Knocking curriculum 2.0 and multiple ability grouping in classes isn't "anti-teacher" although it is probably anti BOE and anti apple ballot. So, there is no need for a teacher to feel defensive unless they sincerely believe curriculum 2.0 and the middle school reform initiative is in the best interests of all children including the most advanced learners. If so, they should tell us how it benefits these students.

Anonymous wrote:1) give teachers a 7% raise across the board
2) roll out "curriculum 2.0" with teachers incapable of implementation, execution, assessment and evaluation
3) issue a decree that all MCPS students will no longer have the option for advancement in Math if able, capable and ready

1) Dumb
2) Dumber
3) Dumbest

Starr had better start getting out his PR marketing consultants and advisors to bail out of this mess

profound post, PP

profound . . .

1) give teachers a 7% raise across the board
2) roll out "curriculum 2.0" with teachers incapable of implementation, execution, assessment and evaluation
3) issue a decree that all MCPS students will no longer have the option for advancement in Math if able, capable and ready

1) Dumb
2) Dumber
3) Dumbest

Starr had better start getting out his PR marketing consultants and advisors to bail out of this mess

curriculum 2.0 is a joke. the schools can't even accurately describe it, it is, after all still in draft form and can/will change before September.

so far my takeaways: large classes of all ability levels (more advanced kids will be bored, less advanced kids will feel dumb); one teacher writing multiple lesson plans b/c of mixed ability levels; lots of parents complaining.

the teachers had better pencil in a lot of parent conference times throughout the year next year. parents are going to get virtually no information from the new report cards and are going to be knocking down the classroom doors looking for information. if I were a teacher, I would be pi#$ed because this means much more work for them

The county shut off the pop-off valve by not allowing the able kids in math to move on and up with a better chance of getting appropriate math instruction by teachers already hired and in place teaching above grade levels.

The MCPS leadership --including Starr--needs remedial courses in math and engineering to figure this out!

curriculum 2.0 is a joke. the schools can't even accurately describe it, it is, after all still in draft form and can/will change before September.

so far my takeaways: large classes of all ability levels (more advanced kids will be bored, less advanced kids will feel dumb); one teacher writing multiple lesson plans b/c of mixed ability levels; lots of parents complaining.

the teachers had better pencil in a lot of parent conference times throughout the year next year. parents are going to get virtually no information from the new report cards and are going to be knocking down the classroom doors looking for information. if I were a teacher, I would be pi#$ed because this means much more work for them

Teachers and other MCPS staff, besides the decision about the salary increase, what is your opinion about Mr. Starr (his policies, demeanor, actions, etc.)?

Starr's legacy will not be curriculum 2.0 per se; but, prohibiting some of our able and capable students at a young and fertile intellectual age from appropriate advancement in Math.

...slowing down employees entering the area biotechnology workforce for years to come. It would not surprise me if these startups and new biotechnology companies start to slowly leave this area.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OK, genius

Whom would you recommend?

What's your educational philosophy, btw, or your educational degree, for that matter, since you seem to be the expert on educational policy????

I am never amazed at how non-educators think they know all there is to know about curriculum. Unless you have evidence to suggest that MCPS is dumbing down education, I seriously doubt you'll gain much support from other Mo Co residents.

[/quote]

I guess I am a non-educator, so you are talking to me. I have a phd in Stats. I don't think the degree matters as much as being a parent. [b] All parents are educators. [/b] We are the one's that see wonderful children at home talking about either being bored (advanced kids) or dumb (struggling learners) at home. We see the work they bring home and know if the kid ready for it or not. 'Professional Educators' may not see this because they see peer groups of kids with test score distributions. As parents, we want to see kids gravitate to the right level of learning so they see learning as a valuable process. I prefer the math pathways approach where kids move at their own pace not forced on a pace as dictated by their age. The dumbing down will only occur for the top non-magnet students, who probably ready for the magnet pace. There just are not enough magnet slots. Previously, these kids were allowed to move ahead at the local school. MCPS is moving away from this. It's that simple. I am not going to argue about the details of what is getting taught. The problem is that the expensive school system seems to be only able to cater to one pace of learning. Parents are right to be skeptical that one teacher can take 25-30 kids and constantly challenge the different paces they are traveling. Industrial organization tells us that it is more efficient to have teachers specialize and treat homogenous groups of kids. This is what happens in just about any profession I can bring to mind right now. Further, there is no one in MCPS that is bringing out studies and research to support their drastic views. Please educate me on why Curriculum 2.0 will work or is this a big expensive experiment on our kids. [b] Please work with parents and not against them.[[/b]/quote]

Until YOU, as a parent, are as kind to us, we cannot work together. Furthermore, until YOU can write a successful lesson plan that incorporates all of the essential components and critical thinking skills - adding in, of course, strategies that work with all learners and all skill levels, don't pretend YOU are an educator.

You are not one. You have a PhD in stats. A struggling 9th grader in matter and energy will not give a rat's ass about your PhD. In fact, our school lost two career changers with PhDs b/c they could NOT handle the subject matter, planning, grading - and most importantly, the management.

But go ahead and study your numbers, PhD. Stay away from the reality we face each day.

You have NO credibility with us.

[/quote]

Me again. I am not really sure how to respond. I think I am kind to my kid's teachers. I don't really blame them for the curriculum shift. I think some teachers are better than others. Some are more willing to interact and work with parents than others. I treat them all with respect, which is genuine. You don't seem to treat parents with much respect and you can't seem to respond to the issues directly.

What do lesson plans have to do with the situation or with Dr. Starr. I would think a teacher would be on the same side as me. I think it is more efficient for a teacher to come up with one lesson plan for a homogenous group of kids than 3-4 lesson plans for a mixed group of kids. Do you disagree with this? Not only that, I think all groups will have a better learning experience if they are grouped and taught appropriately. Dr. Starr and MCPS seem to agree that kids need to be grouped since they suggest grouping within a mixed classroom and since they support magnets. I think the way they are grouping within a single classroom, however, prevents some kids from reaching their potential. That is my issue and I don't think I need to write lesson plans to argue it. Feel free to belittle me, but I think you would get farther by just making your case.

Anonymous wrote:Starr's legacy will not be curriculum 2.0 per se; but, prohibiting some of our able and capable students at a young and fertile intellectual age from appropriate advancement in Math.

"The economist" again?

Starr's legacy will not be curriculum 2.0 per se; but, prohibiting some of our able and capable students at a young and fertile intellectual age from appropriate advancement in Math.