Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

Yep. Most high performing kids do well at any school. Their test scores say high wherever they go.

Why spend more money catering to kids who will be fine either way instead of focusing on kids who need the extra help?

Tell me you don't have a top performer without telling me... It's not about "doing fine". The kids are wasting their time, going excruciatingly slowly over stuff they already know. This happens even at the magnets.

And there are low performers who are wasting their time in classes where they are behind and need more attention to catch up. Without the extra attention, they are too far behind to learn anything.

There aren't enough resources to go around. I'd rather have my tax dollars help the low performers because the high performers will be just fine. Boredom does not cause illness in an otherwise healthy child. Now is a good time to figure out if your child might have some underlying issues.

You can pick up a second job to afford paying private school for your high performer instead of being so entitled that you have to make stupid assumptions concerning people who disagree with you. Spend your energy wisely.

I was a high performer who went to community college, still scored in the 99 percentile on the LSAT and ended up in an Ivy league law school. I have a friend from a similar background who is a cardiologist. We might have been bored throughout school, but we are just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

If you have 3 gifted kids and 1,000 kids who are lagging, where should you invest resources?

Again, if you kids is truly gifted they will figure themselves out. If your kid can’t figure out for themselves how to get the best out of MCPS you should maybe reconsider if they are truly gifted or motivated. My kid found all sorts of ways to get MCPS to be exactly what she wanted and needed, but it required work and effort on her part, not the entire school district twisting itself into a pretzel for one kid.

Tell us how?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

If you have 3 gifted kids and 1,000 kids who are lagging, where should you invest resources?

Again, if you kids is truly gifted they will figure themselves out. If your kid can’t figure out for themselves how to get the best out of MCPS you should maybe reconsider if they are truly gifted or motivated. My kid found all sorts of ways to get MCPS to be exactly what she wanted and needed, but it required work and effort on her part, not the entire school district twisting itself into a pretzel for one kid.

No one is asking for hyper tailored curriculum (or at least most aren’t). What I am asking for is to keep the opportunities MCPS has offered for decades. The CES program is absolutely amazing. The magnet programs are top notch. And yet MCPS is destroying them for the sake of “equity.” That is the very antithesis of equity.

As the parent of a kid who attended a magnet I’m not convinced that they are being “destroyed”. Creating better opportunities for the top 3% instead of over investing in the top .5% doesn’t feel unreasonable to me.

+10000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

+10000000

Also when we talk about equity, why should we limit it to just academics. Why not, extend it to sports. Anyone who wants to play high school football should be able to play not just the best players.

In athletics, we have a system where most of the resources go to supporting PE classes that are available to everyone and which offer virtually no differentiation for excellent performers. If you excel, you can possibly participate in a limited school program staffed by people who barely get paid. If we had a system like that for math, people would be going crazy about how it's equity run amok.

If equity meant the same for everyone with no room for excellence, varsity sports wouldn’t exist .. we’d all just take PE and pretend that was enough. Nobody would dream of telling talented athletes they don’t deserve teams, coaches, or competition. Yet when it comes to academics, especially math, that’s exactly what some people are proposing. Equity should mean a fair chance for all and real opportunities for those who excel — anything less is just lowering the bar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

If you have 3 gifted kids and 1,000 kids who are lagging, where should you invest resources?

Again, if you kids is truly gifted they will figure themselves out. If your kid can’t figure out for themselves how to get the best out of MCPS you should maybe reconsider if they are truly gifted or motivated. My kid found all sorts of ways to get MCPS to be exactly what she wanted and needed, but it required work and effort on her part, not the entire school district twisting itself into a pretzel for one kid.

No one is asking for hyper tailored curriculum (or at least most aren’t). What I am asking for is to keep the opportunities MCPS has offered for decades. The CES program is absolutely amazing. The magnet programs are top notch. And yet MCPS is destroying them for the sake of “equity.” That is the very antithesis of equity.

As the parent of a kid who attended a magnet I’m not convinced that they are being “destroyed”. Creating better opportunities for the top 3% instead of over investing in the top .5% doesn’t feel unreasonable to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

+10000000

Also when we talk about equity, why should we limit it to just academics. Why not, extend it to sports. Anyone who wants to play high school football should be able to play not just the best players.

In athletics, we have a system where most of the resources go to supporting PE classes that are available to everyone and which offer virtually no differentiation for excellent performers. If you excel, you can possibly participate in a limited school program staffed by people who barely get paid. If we had a system like that for math, people would be going crazy about how it's equity run amok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

If you have 3 gifted kids and 1,000 kids who are lagging, where should you invest resources?

Again, if you kids is truly gifted they will figure themselves out. If your kid can’t figure out for themselves how to get the best out of MCPS you should maybe reconsider if they are truly gifted or motivated. My kid found all sorts of ways to get MCPS to be exactly what she wanted and needed, but it required work and effort on her part, not the entire school district twisting itself into a pretzel for one kid.

No one is asking for hyper tailored curriculum (or at least most aren’t). What I am asking for is to keep the opportunities MCPS has offered for decades. The CES program is absolutely amazing. The magnet programs are top notch. And yet MCPS is destroying them for the sake of “equity.” That is the very antithesis of equity.

Anonymous wrote:Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

If you have 3 gifted kids and 1,000 kids who are lagging, where should you invest resources?

Again, if you kids is truly gifted they will figure themselves out. If your kid can’t figure out for themselves how to get the best out of MCPS you should maybe reconsider if they are truly gifted or motivated. My kid found all sorts of ways to get MCPS to be exactly what she wanted and needed, but it required work and effort on her part, not the entire school district twisting itself into a pretzel for one kid.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody dragged my kid down. He went there to socialize.
Capable kids need less school, not more.

I see how your kid ended up on the bottom.

Nobody dragged my kid down. He went there to socialize.
Capable kids need less school, not more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

This is the part that mcps and equity yellers ignore. And is so very true and important in this conversation but is conveniently not discussed because eugenics. But there is a thin but distinct line between this biological reality (and no one in this post here is correlating that with race) and eugenics.

And ofc also ignored is the copious amount of other elements that go into having higher cognitive capabilities - starting in utero. And schools coming in at 5 ain't gonna do shit. Ofc I think the solution is free high quality preK for all as that would help level the playing field. But I digress.

Equity should mean that everyone gets what they need to succeed to their highest potential. Gifted kids need challenge and rigor or they are highly likely to disengage in school (read the literature on gifted kids). Focusing only on the lowest achievement group is not equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

+10000000

Also when we talk about equity, why should we limit it to just academics. Why not, extend it to sports. Anyone who wants to play high school football should be able to play not just the best players.

The issue is on this board over on the sports forum that is what people are arguing for. Or was it the MCPS one?

Not for football. But for other sports because they say it's not fair how there is such limited spots on school teams.

And this is what our world is coming to... Or at least the thought process on the DC Urbanmom world...

Glad that our world is coming to this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

It benefits everyone in society if schools can get low performers to graduate. You can’t get a job without a diploma and health insurance comes with a job.

High performers figure it out.

I have a low performer. He has an IEP and gets a ton of help. It is great.

I have a general ed kid. She gets ignored. She is not AAP. If she got equal amount of attention my low performer is getting she’d be amazing.

Everyone should get the same. Even high performers.

I want Every person to be their best!
Please someone cure cancer, make world
Peace! We need good smart people to be there for the lower performers. We all do better.

But hey - let everyone figure it out for themselves.

This is your fault. Get her an IEP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Throwing resources at low performers absolutely will lift them up. And if your kid is really a high performers, they will be a high performer with or without resources.

We don't have an infinite amount of resources though. And why should high performers be ignored? Making the magnets all regional is ignoring the very high performers.

FWIW, I grew up lower income and went to an awful school.

+100

The state should really invest the most in the top quartile in order promote excellence and achievement to benefit our society overall.

Any honest teacher will tell you that the differences intellectual capacity are significant and important. Some kids work hard and have good personalities but are never going to be acing organic chemistry or advanced calculus. And that is OK. There are many low-skilled jobs that are essential to our society and confer value and dignity to those who perform them.

+10000000

Also when we talk about equity, why should we limit it to just academics. Why not, extend it to sports. Anyone who wants to play high school football should be able to play not just the best players.

This should absolutely be the case. I have no idea why school teams have cuts.