Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Not the pp you are responding to but why are they the lowest performing students? You tell us. Do black children speak a different language at home? Are they being taught a different curriculum? Does MCPS provide some schools with unqualified teachers? What is the system doing to black students to make them perform poorly?

A helpful factor is the two-parent household. I don’t know how I would manage everything by myself and have my kids do well at school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Not the pp you are responding to but why are they the lowest performing students? You tell us. Do black children speak a different language at home? Are they being taught a different curriculum? Does MCPS provide some schools with unqualified teachers? What is the system doing to black students to make them perform poorly?

Lower test scores in Black children are primarily due to a combination of socioeconomic factors, historical and ongoing school segregation, and unequal school funding, which contribute to disparities in early childhood experiences and quality of education. Other contributing factors include disproportionately higher rates of suspension for Black students, which can interrupt their learning, and stressful home environments that may hinder development.

Key factors contributing to lower test scores

Socioeconomic status: There is a strong correlation between lower family income and lower test scores. Poverty can affect access to resources like adequate nutrition, healthcare, and stable housing, which are essential for healthy development and academic success.

School segregation and funding: Historically segregated schools often lead to less-funded districts, which can result in a poorer quality of education. This inequality is linked to lower achievement levels in minority students.

Disproportionate discipline: Black public school students are suspended at higher rates than students of other racial groups. This can lead to missed instruction and negatively impact academic achievement.

Early childhood experiences: A child's early learning environment is crucial. Differences in verbal interaction between parents and young children can affect later test performance. Stressful environments, which can be a consequence of poverty, can also hinder healthy development and learning.

Environmental factors: Genetic explanations for racial differences in test scores are not supported by evidence; studies suggest the differences are environmental in origin. Environmental factors like housing and economic policies have created exclusionary conditions that contribute to the test score gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Not the pp you are responding to but why are they the lowest performing students? You tell us. Do black children speak a different language at home? Are they being taught a different curriculum? Does MCPS provide some schools with unqualified teachers? What is the system doing to black students to make them perform poorly?

You are not going to like this answer: remediate dyslexia.

At least 15% and possibly as high as 20% of MCPS population is dyslexic/reading difficulties. (Stats from U of Michigan). Good news for those students MCPS neglected all these years by terribly abusive system - it’s poor reputation now is just desserts IMHO.

From U Michigan again:
Fact: Some schools may try to deny the existence of dyslexia despite the 30 years of research and hard evidence, however, as more people including parents and educators are becoming aware of how common dyslexia is, more states are beginning to pass state-wide dyslexia laws. These laws may require schools to screen children for dyslexia. Other states require college courses intended to educate people about dyslexia.

Truth: The Presidents end to immigration from Northern Triangle will give system time to push these students to the trades…MCPS will see concomitant drop in antisemitism: Honduras is known bastion for this type of discrimination.

Just quick source:
Antisemitism has been a real issue in Honduras: for example, remarks in 2009 by other figures about Jews being “a problem” and support for Hitler surfaced in Honduran media. 

Anonymous wrote:Free full day preschool starting at 3. And not just for poor students. It’s better that poorer students have normal classmates too and not just only poor classmates.

My kids are in a title one school (almost completely Hispanic, not AA if that matters. Different populations need different things) and the majority of her poor classmates didn’t go to preschool. They sat at home with grandma or an aunt watching TV. Or went along with their parents to their jobs and were given an iPad. THIS is the achievement gap. Middle class kids are all in full day preschools. Upper class kids all have energetic and creative Nannies or SAHMs who take them to enriching activities daily. My kids only screen time prior to K was an iPad on airplanes or car rides longer than 4 hours. My kids own hundreds of books and were read to nightly from age 2 (before 2 they weren’t as good of sitters and were sung to).

Our title one school is interesting because it’s 1.5-2m sfhs, 800k townhouses and then one apartment complex where 75% of the kids come from. The difference is stark and it’s all what happened before 5.

There are limited spots in those preschools and families may not know or transportation or other factors may be an issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Black people in the US have an average IQ of 85; one standard deviation lower than whites in the US. Asians score 3-4 points better than whites. Hispanics score somewhere in the middle.

So on the basis of this you are implying that Black people are naturally less intelligent than White people, which makes no sense since race is not a biological category.

For more details on what IQ actually measures, AI offers the following helpful summary for racists like you:

IQ does not solely measure natural ability, as it is influenced by both genetics and a wide range of environmental factors like education, nutrition, and socioeconomic status. While IQ scores can indicate intellectual potential and are partly hereditary, they also reflect learned skills and knowledge, which is why the score can be influenced by a person's past learning and upbringing.
Factors influencing IQ
Genetics: There is a significant genetic component to IQ, with studies showing it to be highly heritable, especially in adults.
Environment: A person's environment plays a crucial role in how much their potential is developed. Factors include:
Education and school-based knowledge
Parental socioeconomic status
Family and social environment
Nutrition and health
Learned skills: IQ tests measure a person's ability to apply learned skills and knowledge, particularly in abstract problem-solving.
Testing conditions: Even external factors during a test can affect performance, such as feeling tired, hungry, or having prior experience with structured testing.
Why IQ is not a perfect measure of natural ability
Potential vs. performance: IQ is often seen as a measure of potential, but the score reflects a person's current ability to use that potential.
Influence of environment: The strong environmental influence means that IQ is not a fixed, unchangeable measure of inherent ability.
What it doesn't measure: IQ tests do not measure other important factors like motivation, creativity, or grit, which can significantly impact real-world success.

Strange, why didn’t you bold this portion? “ Genetics: There is a significant genetic component to IQ, with studies showing it to be highly heritable, especially in adults.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Truly reimagining education. Make the ES school day 8 hrs which would allow more time for eating healthy, recess, tutoring, meetings, etc. And better align with parents schedules. Also Add paraeducators, teachers in training, assistants teachers whoever to help support classes over 18 kids.

MS/HS be 7.5hours with 8periods at 50mins, 5-6mins in between classes. Block schedules can be plan within the same hours. Reduce teaching load to 4 classes.

There is no research to support a longer day improves success in the classroom.

And “parents’ schedules” aren’t the school’s responsibility. Sorry, but no.

Bring back tracking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Black people in the US have an average IQ of 85; one standard deviation lower than whites in the US. Asians score 3-4 points better than whites. Hispanics score somewhere in the middle.

So on the basis of this you are implying that Black people are naturally less intelligent than White people, which makes no sense since race is not a biological category.

For more details on what IQ actually measures, AI offers the following helpful summary for racists like you:

IQ does not solely measure natural ability, as it is influenced by both genetics and a wide range of environmental factors like education, nutrition, and socioeconomic status. While IQ scores can indicate intellectual potential and are partly hereditary, they also reflect learned skills and knowledge, which is why the score can be influenced by a person's past learning and upbringing.
Factors influencing IQ
Genetics: There is a significant genetic component to IQ, with studies showing it to be highly heritable, especially in adults.
Environment: A person's environment plays a crucial role in how much their potential is developed. Factors include:
Education and school-based knowledge
Parental socioeconomic status
Family and social environment
Nutrition and health
Learned skills: IQ tests measure a person's ability to apply learned skills and knowledge, particularly in abstract problem-solving.
Testing conditions: Even external factors during a test can affect performance, such as feeling tired, hungry, or having prior experience with structured testing.
Why IQ is not a perfect measure of natural ability
Potential vs. performance: IQ is often seen as a measure of potential, but the score reflects a person's current ability to use that potential.
Influence of environment: The strong environmental influence means that IQ is not a fixed, unchangeable measure of inherent ability.
What it doesn't measure: IQ tests do not measure other important factors like motivation, creativity, or grit, which can significantly impact real-world success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Black people in the US have an average IQ of 85; one standard deviation lower than whites in the US. Asians score 3-4 points better than whites. Hispanics score somewhere in the middle.

IQ does not measure intelligence. It is a group's conception of what they think intelligence. From personal experience, I have met the most stupid people with high IQs.

Free full day preschool starting at 3. And not just for poor students. It’s better that poorer students have normal classmates too and not just only poor classmates.

My kids are in a title one school (almost completely Hispanic, not AA if that matters. Different populations need different things) and the majority of her poor classmates didn’t go to preschool. They sat at home with grandma or an aunt watching TV. Or went along with their parents to their jobs and were given an iPad. THIS is the achievement gap. Middle class kids are all in full day preschools. Upper class kids all have energetic and creative Nannies or SAHMs who take them to enriching activities daily. My kids only screen time prior to K was an iPad on airplanes or car rides longer than 4 hours. My kids own hundreds of books and were read to nightly from age 2 (before 2 they weren’t as good of sitters and were sung to).

Our title one school is interesting because it’s 1.5-2m sfhs, 800k townhouses and then one apartment complex where 75% of the kids come from. The difference is stark and it’s all what happened before 5.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.

Black people in the US have an average IQ of 85; one standard deviation lower than whites in the US. Asians score 3-4 points better than whites. Hispanics score somewhere in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum moves too quickly for some kids and there is no way to slow it down and repeat stuff for the kids that need it. I think there needs to be an after school "homework club". I also think that many of the parents are not involved in the academic side of things and the parents need training on how to best help their kids with homework, getting reading practice in.
Many of the title 1 schools have free summer school - but it's a half day. That's tough for families. A few have after school clubs of sorts - but no transportation - that's tough for families. We need to make these services accessible. The learning can't be done in a school day, not enough time with how things are structured. We also need more wrap around services for families.

I do think there are a lot of parents who want to help their kids but don't know how. We got very little communication from our MCPS ES teachers about what my kids wre learning and what they needed to work on.

The issue is the ESOL kids needs aren't been met and they aren't being educated if they don't speak the language. Many of them are good smart kids. You need to have a stronger elementary program and provide additional supports at that age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty disheartening that so many commenters are just resigning poor kids to poor achievement as if being poor just means you must be genetically predisposed to having lower cognitive ability. Aren't we past thinking there's a moral implication when you come from a low income family?

It's not true that there is no research on what helps cost these gaps. Really it comes down to wraparound/community services and early intervention. Helping people rise out of poverty essentially, which obviously should not fall on schools to fix. Society needs to care more if we really value bettering all kid's lives.

https://issues.org/beatty/

Try reading The Cult of the Smart. It covers this. There is a bell curve of nature ability within groups and no amount of schooling is going to dramatically change the percentile that most kids find themselves in because any intervention only helps absolute performance, not relative performance. So unless we start using the worst methods on the best kids and the best methods on the worst kids, then I’m sorry, but you’re not going to close the gap because the high achievers are also improving. The gap is based on relative performance, not absolute performance. That’s what colleges and companies care about. Do I think improving absolute performance is a noble goal? Absolutely. We should be building a meaningful life and goals aimed at more than the highest achievers but that’s another topic entirely.

Huh? You know that race, income and wealth are social, not biological categories, right?

Sorry that should say natural ability. I also didn’t say race and I didn’t speak to poverty either. I said natural ability which persists within groups. Some think this may be intelligence but I’m not calling it that. There is a reason that children’s performance and relative percentile is predictive. How they do in 3rd grade strongly predicts to how they do in 8th and how they do in college and who gets a post-graduate education. There is also plenty of evidence that early childhood interventions fade over time, which shouldn’t be surprising because they bump up against each individual’s natural ability relative to others. And yes, there are exceptional cases where someone succeeds out of proportion to their starting point, which some of you will gladly point out, however, across groups it’s startlingly rare and most children’s percentile is relatively stable. The idea that the bottom 20% is going to move to the 20% if we just had the will, the money or the right teachers or teaching methods defies all evidence to the contrary.

But when we look at the poorest performing groups, we're talking about Black, FARMS and EML kids. You are asserting that Black, FARMS and EML kids have less "natural ability" than White, non-poor and English proficient kids. You can deny it but that's a very obvious conclusion from what you are saying. Don't be shy - defend why you think Black kids in every MCPS school perform so poorly.