Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
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 know a few but I obviously can't speak for them.
But think about it this way. Teachers have kids, too, and whether or not we like to admit it, summers spent with our own children is perk. So why a teacher WITH kids opt into this extended summer learning? Why would a teacher PAY for childcare in order to work an extended year?
So you'll end up with childless teachers - probably young, somewhat inexperienced and in need of money - opting in.
I guess we forget that teachers have families, too.
THIS is true I’ve been teaching only two years and don’t have a family yet but when I do I’ll leave for summers. In the mean time I’ll be working an extended school year for the money.
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 know a few but I obviously can't speak for them.
But think about it this way. Teachers have kids, too, and whether or not we like to admit it, summers spent with our own children is perk. So why a teacher WITH kids opt into this extended summer learning? Why would a teacher PAY for childcare in order to work an extended year?
So you'll end up with childless teachers - probably young, somewhat inexperienced and in need of money - opting in.
I guess we forget that teachers have families, too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
This. That's an excuse. If data tampering is really an issue, staff should say something.
It's not that it's tampering, necessarily. It's just not showing the whole picture. It's cherry picking, as another PP said.
OK. That's an argument for full disclosure of data, not an argument against pilot tests.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
This. That's an excuse. If data tampering is really an issue, staff should say something.
It's not that it's tampering, necessarily. It's just not showing the whole picture. It's cherry picking, as another PP said.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
This. That's an excuse. If data tampering is really an issue, staff should say something.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
Anonymous wrote: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: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
That doesn't get us anywhere, though, PP. If the premise is that MCPS always cooks the books, then we can't know anything or learn anything.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Those of us who have been in MCPS for a long time understand that MCPS cherry picks data and spins it to support whatever they want their narrative to be, whether that's what's really going on or not. I'm interested to see the data, but I don't trust the data that MCPS puts out there--if that makes sense.
Anonymous wrote: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.