Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm in Chevy Chase, and I do get the rationale behind not permitting private funding for additional teacher. I also believe that high SES schools get huge benefits from the income disparities - whether through the ridiculous amount of after-school enrichment or through fundraising that buys lots of other educational-related goodies for the schools (something tells me CCES has more Promethean boards than a school with mostly FARMS kids.)
But I think it's also a bit bogus to trash on the OP and others who are unhappy with class sizes in the high SES MCPS schools. I understand the rationale for keeping class sizes low in lower SES areas, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to pack K classrooms to overflow levels in wealthier areas and say, oh screw those kids, their parents can supplement and they have more Promethean boards.
I don't know what the best or most appropriate formula is, and I'm not an MCPS hater either. But it doesn't seem as though the teacher imbalance is really making a dent in the achievement gap anyway.
Nobody has said this.
However, if it is a priority for parents in the wealthy schools for their children to be in smaller classes for K-3, those parents already have options:
1. move to a Title 1 or focus school
2. apply for a COSA to a Title 1 or focus school
Well, if that's the only alternative you find acceptable, then you are saying it's appropriate to pack as many K kids as possible into wealthier schools.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am surprised this solution has not yet been suggested. Why not just leave and go to a private? If you have the money to donate, use it to attend a private. There are some great Catholic elementary schools that are not costly. We are only paying $7K a year. My DD is in 1st grade in a class of 27, with one teacher and one aide. Just a suggestion...it may not work for you if you are not up for a Christian education. And we don't have to deal with that horrible 2.0 curriculum. Best decision we ever made.
That ratio isn't great.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes!!! Let's do this!!!
And then let's hire a chef who will only use locally sourced organic food in the cafeteria!!!
And let's make them wear uniforms!!!
And let's get UA to sponsor our athletic program and donate a turf field!!!
Oh, wait...this is starting to sound like private school.
A slippery slope argument? Yawn. Again, DCPS does this already.
Are we aspiring to model mcps on dcps??? That's hilarious, pp!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes!!! Let's do this!!!
And then let's hire a chef who will only use locally sourced organic food in the cafeteria!!!
And let's make them wear uniforms!!!
And let's get UA to sponsor our athletic program and donate a turf field!!!
Oh, wait...this is starting to sound like private school.
A slippery slope argument? Yawn. Again, DCPS does this already.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm in Chevy Chase, and I do get the rationale behind not permitting private funding for additional teacher. I also believe that high SES schools get huge benefits from the income disparities - whether through the ridiculous amount of after-school enrichment or through fundraising that buys lots of other educational-related goodies for the schools (something tells me CCES has more Promethean boards than a school with mostly FARMS kids.)
But I think it's also a bit bogus to trash on the OP and others who are unhappy with class sizes in the high SES MCPS schools. I understand the rationale for keeping class sizes low in lower SES areas, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to pack K classrooms to overflow levels in wealthier areas and say, oh screw those kids, their parents can supplement and they have more Promethean boards.
I don't know what the best or most appropriate formula is, and I'm not an MCPS hater either. But it doesn't seem as though the teacher imbalance is really making a dent in the achievement gap anyway.
Nobody has said this.
However, if it is a priority for parents in the wealthy schools for their children to be in smaller classes for K-3, those parents already have options:
1. move to a Title 1 or focus school
2. apply for a COSA to a Title 1 or focus school
Well, if that's the only alternative you find acceptable, then you are saying it's appropriate to pack as many K kids as possible into wealthier schools.
Anonymous wrote:I am surprised this solution has not yet been suggested. Why not just leave and go to a private? If you have the money to donate, use it to attend a private. There are some great Catholic elementary schools that are not costly. We are only paying $7K a year. My DD is in 1st grade in a class of 27, with one teacher and one aide. Just a suggestion...it may not work for you if you are not up for a Christian education. And we don't have to deal with that horrible 2.0 curriculum. Best decision we ever made.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm in Chevy Chase, and I do get the rationale behind not permitting private funding for additional teacher. I also believe that high SES schools get huge benefits from the income disparities - whether through the ridiculous amount of after-school enrichment or through fundraising that buys lots of other educational-related goodies for the schools (something tells me CCES has more Promethean boards than a school with mostly FARMS kids.)
But I think it's also a bit bogus to trash on the OP and others who are unhappy with class sizes in the high SES MCPS schools. I understand the rationale for keeping class sizes low in lower SES areas, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to pack K classrooms to overflow levels in wealthier areas and say, oh screw those kids, their parents can supplement and they have more Promethean boards.
I don't know what the best or most appropriate formula is, and I'm not an MCPS hater either. But it doesn't seem as though the teacher imbalance is really making a dent in the achievement gap anyway.
Nobody has said this.
However, if it is a priority for parents in the wealthy schools for their children to be in smaller classes for K-3, those parents already have options:
1. move to a Title 1 or focus school
2. apply for a COSA to a Title 1 or focus school
Anonymous wrote:I'm in Chevy Chase, and I do get the rationale behind not permitting private funding for additional teacher. I also believe that high SES schools get huge benefits from the income disparities - whether through the ridiculous amount of after-school enrichment or through fundraising that buys lots of other educational-related goodies for the schools (something tells me CCES has more Promethean boards than a school with mostly FARMS kids.)
But I think it's also a bit bogus to trash on the OP and others who are unhappy with class sizes in the high SES MCPS schools. I understand the rationale for keeping class sizes low in lower SES areas, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to pack K classrooms to overflow levels in wealthier areas and say, oh screw those kids, their parents can supplement and they have more Promethean boards.
I don't know what the best or most appropriate formula is, and I'm not an MCPS hater either. But it doesn't seem as though the teacher imbalance is really making a dent in the achievement gap anyway.
Anonymous wrote:Op
Pp has offered you a solution that is very parallel to what parents of kids in lower rates schools are told here all the time - just move. Just because it is not easy for you to do so does not mean it is not an alternative. Op also noted you could apply for a COSA if you believe the smaller class size is what is most important rather than the advantage that comes from having an overwhelmingly well off student body and parent group. These are both entirely reasonable suggestions.
It is not so much that I have a problem with your proposal of give $100k yo your school and the same to a fund (although I take pp's point that the same amount goes much less further when spread out across the general fund). It is that I think long term it will not work out this way. There was a thread last year suggesting some small amount of rich school PTA funds be shared with other schools given that some can raise obscene amounts of money and others struggle to pay for things like assemblies and field trip scholarships. On that long thread most from well off schools argued they should have to share nothing since the funds are voluntary. Forgive me if I doubt that over time $100K would keep coming into the General fund. Even if it did it would lessen the interest in he most politically connected areas to support broader funding for the schools since they could have bought their way out of the problem.
Anonymous wrote:Yes!!! Let's do this!!!
And then let's hire a chef who will only use locally sourced organic food in the cafeteria!!!
And let's make them wear uniforms!!!
And let's get UA to sponsor our athletic program and donate a turf field!!!
Oh, wait...this is starting to sound like private school.