Anonymous wrote:I grew up in Wheaton and was the first in my family to graduate from college. Because of my academic successes, I have made a good living for myself and my family. We now live in one of the county's "W" school districts.

Everyone assumes life is greener if you live on the right side of the county. Because of the high test scores at my children's schools, you would think they do an adequate job at teaching basic state standards. As a parent though, I have multiple times caught the schools in my cluster putting grades on my children's report cards that they did not earn just to cover up problems. I have learned not to trust the system and the staff at our local schools. I have held my children to a higher standard of education than what MCPS has deemed to be acceptable. I have also paid for private help when my children's teachers failed to teach them basic life skills.

Sure I am an involved parent. But should my level of involvement and my level of financial support for education be the norm for parents with children in public education? My answer would be no. All children deserve a Free Appropriate Public Education, no matter if they live in 20906 or 20854.

Current barriers to success for all students in Montgomery County include the lack of resources with the roll out of curriculum 2.0. Math is a great example. The textbooks don't match the curriculum. The children do not come home with notes that explain the new concepts the teacher wants the child to learn. So how is a child supposed to learn the new concepts without being given the proper resources? What happens if the child doesn't know what to do? You can't google it. You can't look it up on Edline. There is no place to check as a reference because the curriculum has not been fleshed out yet and our kids are just guinea pigs in the system.

Another barrier to the learning process in the county - the number of secured documents. Take math again as an example. At my child's school, the homework is collected and graded for accuracy. If a child get's less than a 60%, then that child only receives half credit (an E) on the homework. The child then has a quiz, before the homework is returned. How can the child study for the quiz? The teacher then keeps the quizzes till after the child takes the unit test. Then how can the child study for the unit test? Next, the unit test never comes home because the school has declared it to be a secured document. How can the child learn from his/her mistakes and review for the exam? For the parent to even see the unit test, the parent has to make an appointment, leave work, and review the test at the school. How many parents are able to do that for their children just so they can show the child what he/she needs to review at home? How many parents and students take the time to see their exams because these documents are so secure it is next to impossible to schedule an appointment at the school to see them. How do you even know the grade on the report card is your child's true grade without taking the time to see? All test documents (quizzes, unit tests, and even exams) should come home so parents can monitor their child's progress and step in with extra support when necessary. I believe most parents in the county would be willing to help their children provided doing so did not put their livelihood in jeopardy.

I do believe all children have the desire to learn and succeed. They just need to be given the proper tools to do so. Cut some jobs at the Carver Center and perhaps the funds would be there for the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not.

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I'm assuming that you don't support his proposed solution of boundary changes for better demographic and economic integration -- or do you?

I don't see why that option shouldn't be on the table. But it may be more politically possible in the form of choice versus "forced" busing.

There are currently some boundaries drawn that in effect already act to integrate in this way. Check out the BCC cluster boundaries.

Yeah, and my kids go to one of the diverse schools in the BCC cluster and half of the white families in the neighborhood won't send their kids to the school because there are too many poor and minority students. I think his article had some great points and his solution is a nice idea, but totally unrealistic. The minute you start changing the boundaries is the minute white people flee MoCo. Sad but true.

This. There is surely a reason that my kids' private school has many $$ kids IB for rosemary hills but almost no same-$$ kids IB for Westbrook or bradley hills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

I did not say "BLACK" kid - I did not say "POVERTY" ...this is your mindset, your perception and the chip on your shoulder - so you can deal with it or wallow in it - your choice. I am talking about parenting as a factor in the success of students. Something that MCPS cannot replicate on an institutional basis.

I do not have a problem with a child from a "poor" family or any other minority group sitting in the same classroom as my child - since I am a minority too whose kids have gone to the bottom of the heap ES and MS in MCPS. I have a problem with disruptive students who are below grade level and who hamper my kid from being challenged academically in school. That is the kind of "disadvantaged student" I am seeing. Not Black not Hispanic, but a disruptive child who does not do assigned work or homework, who sucks up the time of the teacher. Pity the teachers as well, since they cannot even complain about such students because they get dinged in their evaluation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

I did not say "BLACK" kid - I did not say "POVERTY" ...this is your mindset, your perception and the chip on your shoulder - so you can deal with it or wallow in it - your choice. I am talking about parenting as a factor in the success of students. Something that MCPS cannot replicate on an institutional basis.

I do not have a problem with a child from a "poor" family or any other minority group sitting in the same classroom as my child - since I am a minority too whose kids have gone to the bottom of the heap ES and MS in MCPS. I have a problem with disruptive students who are below grade level and who hamper my kid from being challenged academically in school. That is the kind of "disadvantaged student" I am seeing. Not Black not Hispanic, but a disruptive child who does not do assigned work or homework, who sucks up the time of the teacher. Pity the teachers as well, since they cannot even complain about such students because they get dinged in their evaluation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PP, it's not quite fair to say the only thing you could do to help kids in poverty is give them new parents. I thought the research was pretty clear on the benefits of putting disadvantaged kids in smaller classes, and in schools not completely full of other disadvantaged kids.

By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

I just disagree that it would be bad for your child. Poverty is not contagious. Young children are smart and adaptable. Someone is bound on come on here and tell about how difficult it was for their middle class kid at a school that was 90% FARMs. There's the point exactly. Schools that are 90% FARMs aren't good for anyone.

If you disagree, then just substitute "black" for "disadvantaged." So your quote above would read "putting your black kid in the same class as my kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential." It sounds archaic and objectionable. Saying it about poor kids in general sounds no different to me.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not. Yes it does in montgomery county, for the past 30 years

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

Unfortunately for you, Kumbaya, it has been shown in at least two studies that mixing greatly differing abilities does indeed adversely impact the pace at which the higher ability kids advance. Yes, I am purposely equating ability with income here because, in montgomery county, there is tight correlation.

The studies are out of Milwaukee and various districts in Tennessee. I don't have time to search for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By all means - put the disadvantaged kids in smaller classes - I am all for it.

But putting your disadvantaged kid in the same class as my high achiever kid, may help your kid, but is actually hampering my child in reaching his full potential.

Good for your kid. Got that. Bad for my kid. Where is the logic of that?

You are assuming that middle-class/rich = high-achiever. It does not. Yes it does in montgomery county, for the past 30 years

What's more, putting poor kids in the same class as middle-class/rich kids actually does not hurt the academic achievement of the middle-class/rich kids.

Anonymous wrote:Yes.. I find the article mind numbing. Article Problem: Wealthy kids in poorer school districts are fleeing to magnets/privates. Article Solution- Bring in more poor kids into wealthy schools for social justice and to improve the schools.

If wealthy kids flee schools when they are mixed with poorer kids, how will this improve MCPS public schools. The wealthy will just flee again. I don't understand why so many people don't get this.