Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a teacher in Germany for three years. Their school system tracks kids into types of high school based on their ability levels and goals. This means that high-performing kids go to the most challenging, rigorous schools where everyone is expected to go to university, while kids who want to go into trades are in high schools with a built-in apprenticeship program and career services to help them move directly into their fields. And there are levels in between as well. Before anyone says it, no, you aren't necessarily "locked out" of uni if you don't go to a gymnasium, either. Everyone gets the kind of specialized support and programs to support them where they are and help them get where they want to go.

In the US, everyone is just thrown together, with the top falling to the middle and teachers desperately devoting all energy to pulling the bottom also to the middle. The actual middle-performers are left to languish where they are. It's a mess.

And the social/economic class of their parents.

Anonymous wrote:Serious answers only. How can schools raise performances of students at the lowest levels? Free meals help nourish brains and bodies, are they "healthy" is questionable. What else? It it sending home books (lots of books) for them to read? More math practice practice practice. Is it helping change their attitude towards learning, less screen time? Is it identifying learning disorders in Pre-K (if eligible) or by K? Parents/guardians of these students need assistance too but there is time and language and cultural barriers- getting them information about identifying learning issues, ELL services, attitude/views about learning?

Anonymous wrote:1) Universal prek starting at age 2
2) small class sizes, meaning no more than 12 per room
3) one reading specialist for every 60-70 kids
4) one social worker per 60-70 kids
5) year round school 200 days per year instead of 175 or whatever it is, with the vacation time spread out throughout the year
6) one math specialist for every 60-70 kids
7) PE daily, mandatory recess, 2x a day for 30 minutes
8) mandatory 30 minutes of play in K-2nd
9) longer school day
10) fully stocked classroom libraries, school libraries staffed with full time librarians
11) one special Ed teacher per every 50 kids
12) kids with major behaviors are immediately given a 1:1 aide or removed from the school (and if major behaviors persist after 6 weeks with the aide, student is removed)
13) Students are engaged in real reading and real writing for at least 90 minutes a day.
14) Saturday morning intensive tutoring for students who are struggling year round
15) explicit and systematic phonics instruction
16) clothes pantry and food pantry for families to "shop" at whenever they need it
17) medical and dental care in a visiting trailer available once a week
18) ESL teachers, one for every 50 second language speakers
19) pay your TAs 75K to start and your teachers 200K to start, but hire only the very best of the best and then treat them like rockstars

All of the above, forever. We'd have stunningly awesome schools for not just the rich, but for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal pre-k for both 3 and 4-year-olds. It’s the only thing. We have to get them in younger. We are getting kindergarteners who don’t know colors, don’t know their names, can’t use the bathroom, can barely talk in their native language. For whatever reason, parents are just not preparing them. We cannot make up that deficit starting at age 5.

This and the expectation at the beginning of kindergarten is not zero. So these kids enter already behind and unless they are smart, have excellent attendance, and a supportive home environment, it’s nearly impossible to catch up.

Universal preK isn’t the answer at all.

You want taxpayers to pay preK costs for middle class and higher income families? No thanks.

You can lobby for mandatory preK for lower-income families, but Universal preK would be a waste of money.

Smaller class sizes and a better curriculum, plus better discipline would go a long way in improving our schools.

We don’t have enough room for the students who are already in MCPS. It’s not going to help MCPS to add in tons of preK students to an already broken and overwhelmed school system.

Pay now, or pay more later.

Anonymous wrote:I was a teacher in Germany for three years. Their school system tracks kids into types of high school based on their ability levels and goals. This means that high-performing kids go to the most challenging, rigorous schools where everyone is expected to go to university, while kids who want to go into trades are in high schools with a built-in apprenticeship program and career services to help them move directly into their fields. And there are levels in between as well. Before anyone says it, no, you aren't necessarily "locked out" of uni if you don't go to a gymnasium, either. Everyone gets the kind of specialized support and programs to support them where they are and help them get where they want to go.

In the US, everyone is just thrown together, with the top falling to the middle and teachers desperately devoting all energy to pulling the bottom also to the middle. The actual middle-performers are left to languish where they are. It's a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can help them by differentiating students based on where they are. That means no trying to do the impossible thing of SIMULTANEOUSLY keeping them on grade level when they're already behind and playing catch up.

Once a student is identified as being behind, MCPS needs to pull them out and focus on intensive 1:1 or small group work to help that child get up to standard. THEN when they are up to standard, you can look to reintegrate them. But MCPS cannot keep pushing kids who are behind grade level through grade level work and classes that they cannot comprehend or engage with.

We have demonized pull outs and differentiation and that needs to stop.

It's like they do this so Montgomery College can continue existing. And "It's embarrassing if Larla can't be in same reading group as Karla, they're in same XYZ clubs/extra curricular activities..." But sweet Larla can't read like Karla, yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal pre-k for both 3 and 4-year-olds. It’s the only thing. We have to get them in younger. We are getting kindergarteners who don’t know colors, don’t know their names, can’t use the bathroom, can barely talk in their native language. For whatever reason, parents are just not preparing them. We cannot make up that deficit starting at age 5.

This and the expectation at the beginning of kindergarten is not zero. So these kids enter already behind and unless they are smart, have excellent attendance, and a supportive home environment, it’s nearly impossible to catch up.

Universal preK isn’t the answer at all.

You want taxpayers to pay preK costs for middle class and higher income families? No thanks.

You can lobby for mandatory preK for lower-income families, but Universal preK would be a waste of money.

Smaller class sizes and a better curriculum, plus better discipline would go a long way in improving our schools.

We don’t have enough room for the students who are already in MCPS. It’s not going to help MCPS to add in tons of preK students to an already broken and overwhelmed school system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal pre-k for both 3 and 4-year-olds. It’s the only thing. We have to get them in younger. We are getting kindergarteners who don’t know colors, don’t know their names, can’t use the bathroom, can barely talk in their native language. For whatever reason, parents are just not preparing them. We cannot make up that deficit starting at age 5.

This and the expectation at the beginning of kindergarten is not zero. So these kids enter already behind and unless they are smart, have excellent attendance, and a supportive home environment, it’s nearly impossible to catch up.

Universal preK isn’t the answer at all.

You want taxpayers to pay preK costs for middle class and higher income families? No thanks.

You can lobby for mandatory preK for lower-income families, but Universal preK would be a waste of money.

Smaller class sizes and a better curriculum, plus better discipline would go a long way in improving our schools.

We don’t have enough room for the students who are already in MCPS. It’s not going to help MCPS to add in tons of preK students to an already broken and overwhelmed school system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Universal pre-k for both 3 and 4-year-olds. It’s the only thing. We have to get them in younger. We are getting kindergarteners who don’t know colors, don’t know their names, can’t use the bathroom, can barely talk in their native language. For whatever reason, parents are just not preparing them. We cannot make up that deficit starting at age 5.

This and the expectation at the beginning of kindergarten is not zero. So these kids enter already behind and unless they are smart, have excellent attendance, and a supportive home environment, it’s nearly impossible to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:Tutoring seems to come up frequently here. What has or does McPS plan to do to increase number of QUaliFIED tutors? Are they being hired, or are schools counting on volunteers? Can para s tutor?

Anonymous wrote:
Public school cannot fix absent or uneducated parenting, OP. That is the main hurdle.

If you're going to pick ONE single act that will impact every child for the better, that would be smaller classroom sizes, so that every child receives more individual feedback from their teacher. Right now, at any grade level, you need to be pretty functional to follow instruction, just because the teacher cannot spend enough time with each student. Students fall through the cracks, especially if their parents don't know how to work the system, request 504s or IEPs, etc.

Of course, I know it's not one act. A lot of schools are overcrowded. It means building more schools, which is always a huge problem in MoCo. It means billions in expenditure that the County tells us we don't have.