Not sure why some of the teachers on this board are so quick to be negative. It’s a pilot at 2 schools that was just approved on Monday. Give McPS a chance to try it and see what happens. If it’s a failure it obviously won’t continue. And if it’s not (and some of the data up thread point to positive outcomes), then that’s a great thing for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

You have to facilitate parents getting better jobs, so they can be around at home more to help their kids. You have to cut down on gang activity so the streets are safer and kids aren’t traumatized by seeing violence. You have to have a complicated, multi-pronged approach to address poverty as a whole. It’s intensely difficult.

So yes, better to do nothing and complain about how the world will never improve on an anonymous forum.
Glad that MoCo is piloting this in 2 of its neediest schools. It will be interesting to see the results.

Huh? When did I say it was better to do nothing? I think year-round school is a good idea. Clearly it’s only part of the solution, but I’m glad they’re doing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any MCPS teachers who are at one of these schools that will become an extended year? Can you share how it’s supoosed to work? Will you be fairly compensated?

I was on a committee last year that dealt with this idea in an indirect way and word was that the teachers in these two schools won't be paid their hourly/daily rate for the extra school days. It will be in some form of a stipend which comes out to be less than their hourly/daily rate. Many of the teachers at those two schools tried to transfer when that info came out.

I think rather than ask the regular teachers to "drag out" the school year, the summer months should be a mixture of schooling and camp with a different group of teachers and staff. Rather than teach new curriculum, they reinforce what was just learned that year. The staff would be there voluntarily rather than forced in a pilot program.

Right now, the teachers who don't want an extended school year have an incentive to make the pilot fail. Right there we have a conflict of interest. The teachers involved in the pilot should be the ones who support the idea and want to see it succeed.

Oh, and by voluntarily, I mean still getting paid. But they choose to work the summer and are not forced to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

You have to facilitate parents getting better jobs, so they can be around at home more to help their kids. You have to cut down on gang activity so the streets are safer and kids aren’t traumatized by seeing violence. You have to have a complicated, multi-pronged approach to address poverty as a whole. It’s intensely difficult.

So yes, better to do nothing and complain about how the world will never improve on an anonymous forum.
Glad that MoCo is piloting this in 2 of its neediest schools. It will be interesting to see the results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any MCPS teachers who are at one of these schools that will become an extended year? Can you share how it’s supoosed to work? Will you be fairly compensated?

I was on a committee last year that dealt with this idea in an indirect way and word was that the teachers in these two schools won't be paid their hourly/daily rate for the extra school days. It will be in some form of a stipend which comes out to be less than their hourly/daily rate. Many of the teachers at those two schools tried to transfer when that info came out.

I think rather than ask the regular teachers to "drag out" the school year, the summer months should be a mixture of schooling and camp with a different group of teachers and staff. Rather than teach new curriculum, they reinforce what was just learned that year. The staff would be there voluntarily rather than forced in a pilot program.

Right now, the teachers who don't want an extended school year have an incentive to make the pilot fail. Right there we have a conflict of interest. The teachers involved in the pilot should be the ones who support the idea and want to see it succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

Having all parents understand that education starts at home and doesn't just occur during the school day once a child turns 5. We get kids who arrive in Kindergarten not knowing the names of colors, shapes, how to count to 5, how to recognize their own name in print, how to toilet themselves, or how to hold a pencil or scissors. It also takes them a while to acclimate to how to be in school and that expectations in school are different than at home. No, it doesn't mean preschool is necessary for everyone, but for some kids coming to school is completely brand new on every level.

By the time these kids learn these skills they are already way behind. The curriculum is written assuming children have background knowledge they don't have. Yes, there are interventions but when it takes them two marking periods to learn the skills listed above, they're already way behind. They are spending their time and energy learning those skills, so all of the skills being taught above and beyond those aren't sinking in, so when the same skills are spiraled in later meant as reinforcement these kids are learning them for the first time and aren't building upon them as designed--they're experiencing them for the first time. This cycle builds and builds until there are gaping holes that just can't be filled in the time they're in school.

OK. What can be done, by whom, to make that happen?

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

Having all parents understand that education starts at home and doesn't just occur during the school day once a child turns 5. We get kids who arrive in Kindergarten not knowing the names of colors, shapes, how to count to 5, how to recognize their own name in print, how to toilet themselves, or how to hold a pencil or scissors. It also takes them a while to acclimate to how to be in school and that expectations in school are different than at home. No, it doesn't mean preschool is necessary for everyone, but for some kids coming to school is completely brand new on every level.

By the time these kids learn these skills they are already way behind. The curriculum is written assuming children have background knowledge they don't have. Yes, there are interventions but when it takes them two marking periods to learn the skills listed above, they're already way behind. They are spending their time and energy learning those skills, so all of the skills being taught above and beyond those aren't sinking in, so when the same skills are spiraled in later meant as reinforcement these kids are learning them for the first time and aren't building upon them as designed--they're experiencing them for the first time. This cycle builds and builds until there are gaping holes that just can't be filled in the time they're in school.

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

You have to facilitate parents getting better jobs, so they can be around at home more to help their kids. You have to cut down on gang activity so the streets are safer and kids aren’t traumatized by seeing violence. You have to have a complicated, multi-pronged approach to address poverty as a whole. It’s intensely difficult.

No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I did a cursory examination of the article on the .org site (remember that orgs have their own slants) and found no reference to longitudinal studies following the kids through middle and high school.

great that there are results - However, how much would it take to replicate these structures at every low-performing middle and high school? probably lots and lots and lots of money that would increase taxes and make parents very angry

"We shouldn't do it at a few schools because we can't do it at all schools because it would cost more money than people are willing to pay" is not a good argument against doing it, in my opinion.

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

This is an anonymous forum. You have no idea who any of us are. If you want to post the results of similar programs that have led to your dismissal of these programs, please do so. But otherwise all you’ve got is an opinion.

+1 It’s costly to expand the school year. MCPS is collecting info on the results of the pilot. That’s the way to answer the question about whether a longer school year is worthwhile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

OK, what IS the way to close the gap?

The gap has already been created before kids even step foot in a school.

That doesn't answer the question.

It actually does. What goes on at home is actually more important than what goes on at school. There are very few kids who beat the statistics, unfortunately. We can spin it however we want and make schools the scapegoat, but the fact is that the achievement gap will never be closed by just schools alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

OK, what IS the way to close the gap?

The gap has already been created before kids even step foot in a school.

That doesn't answer the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I did a cursory examination of the article on the .org site (remember that orgs have their own slants) and found no reference to longitudinal studies following the kids through middle and high school.

great that there are results - However, how much would it take to replicate these structures at every low-performing middle and high school? probably lots and lots and lots of money that would increase taxes and make parents very angry

"We shouldn't do it at a few schools because we can't do it at all schools because it would cost more money than people are willing to pay" is not a good argument against doing it, in my opinion.

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

This is an anonymous forum. You have no idea who any of us are. If you want to post the results of similar programs that have led to your dismissal of these programs, please do so. But otherwise all you’ve got is an opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

OK, what IS the way to close the gap?

The gap has already been created before kids even step foot in a school.

Anonymous wrote:

I've been in education for longer than many of you have been around. This is NOT the way to close the gap.

never has been, never will be

Superficial steps don't create long-lasting results.

OK, what IS the way to close the gap?