In other words, there's no evidence to support your assertion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw today that MCEA has endorsed Sunil DasGupta on their Apple Ballot. FWIW

Great news. I support Sunil Dasgupta. Smart, engaged, thoughtful guy with knowledge and experience. And a MCPS parent, too!

Interesting. I have read about him and heard about him see him as more of the same as what we already have on the Board.

What is his position on accountability for administration - as in the Damascus case?

There was one article that he had written that echoed the current BOE’s rhetoric. Would have to go back and find the link.

Sunil DasGupta does not understand the difference between bond funded capital money and property tax funded operating money.

Citation please.

(Also, Dasgupta. It's a name, not a German noun.)

Ask him. Get the gibberish right from his mouth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw today that MCEA has endorsed Sunil DasGupta on their Apple Ballot. FWIW

Great news. I support Sunil Dasgupta. Smart, engaged, thoughtful guy with knowledge and experience. And a MCPS parent, too!

Interesting. I have read about him and heard about him see him as more of the same as what we already have on the Board.

What is his position on accountability for administration - as in the Damascus case?

There was one article that he had written that echoed the current BOE’s rhetoric. Would have to go back and find the link.

Sunil DasGupta does not understand the difference between bond funded capital money and property tax funded operating money.

Citation please.

(Also, Dasgupta. It's a name, not a German noun.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly what jumped out to me on Pavel's website as well. Actually his entire platform lacks any depth of thought and looks like it was slapped together by a high school student. His wife is also a bit of a loony because she trolled Steve Austin's facebook page.

In his first iteration of his website, his solution was even more outrageous...suggesting that no students would be allowed to receive accommodations after elementary/middle school. He suggested that each and EVERY student be tested for learning differences on the MCPS dime in elementary school. How much would that cost us?

Though, to be fair, I know a lot of totally non-loony people who would also like to do this.

And what I've seen of Steve Austin's Facebook page is loony.

Sure, there are lots of loony people on the internet, but when you are the wife of a candidate, you should behave and not act like a crazy person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly what jumped out to me on Pavel's website as well. Actually his entire platform lacks any depth of thought and looks like it was slapped together by a high school student. His wife is also a bit of a loony because she trolled Steve Austin's facebook page.

In his first iteration of his website, his solution was even more outrageous...suggesting that no students would be allowed to receive accommodations after elementary/middle school. He suggested that each and EVERY student be tested for learning differences on the MCPS dime in elementary school. How much would that cost us?

Though, to be fair, I know a lot of totally non-loony people who would also like to do this.

And what I've seen of Steve Austin's Facebook page is loony.

Then vote for Sunil because he hasn't a clue how budgeting works and he will get along great with O'Neill and Docca. Enjoy!

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly what jumped out to me on Pavel's website as well. Actually his entire platform lacks any depth of thought and looks like it was slapped together by a high school student. His wife is also a bit of a loony because she trolled Steve Austin's facebook page.

In his first iteration of his website, his solution was even more outrageous...suggesting that no students would be allowed to receive accommodations after elementary/middle school. He suggested that each and EVERY student be tested for learning differences on the MCPS dime in elementary school. How much would that cost us?

Though, to be fair, I know a lot of totally non-loony people who would also like to do this.

And what I've seen of Steve Austin's Facebook page is loony.

Anonymous wrote:Also, because I went to this candidates website and his whole paragraph on special education really bothers me I'm going to unpack it.

Specifically, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the form of extra time on college admission tests like the ACT or the SAT, parents are paying exorbitant fees to have their children privately tested for learning differences and then pressuring the schools to grant them accommodations in the hopes of getting extended time on college entrance exams.

No, this is not what I see as an ES special education teacher, and universal screening would impact me. Parents do not pay for testing in the hopes of getting a testing accommodation to help their children get any unfair advantage, they pay for private testing because they are worried about their children.

having students apply for such services ties up funding for the students who truly need them.


As far as funding goes, if he's talking about students that have 504's for ADHD and testing accommodations such as extended time; we receive no federal funding for students with 504's. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 is a civil rights act that carries protections for people with disabilities. Unlike for students with IEP's, protected under different federal legislation, (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) schools receive no federal funding for students with 504's.

As an aside, the government has never fully funded the IDEA. When IDEA was passed the government committed to funding 40% of the cost of special education and they have never reached that level. Feds cover around 15%. Another reason for the lack of properly funded services, aids, etc.... Advocate for Congress to fully fund the IDEA.

I agree that student access to special education services should depend on need, not affluence, but the way this candidate proposes going about it is an impractical and wasteful use of resources. How does it help less affluent kids get better access to special education services to screen entire populations of affluent elementary schools with costly and time-intensive testing when only a small percentage of children need and qualify for special education services? There is a better way to look for LD's and it is by implementing a response to intervention program and responding to that small percentage of kids who fail to make progress within those increasingly intensive interventions and getting them screened.

He should perhaps talk to some educators.

This is exactly what jumped out to me on Pavel's website as well. Actually his entire platform lacks any depth of thought and looks like it was slapped together by a high school student. His wife is also a bit of a loony because she trolled Steve Austin's facebook page.

In his first iteration of his website, his solution was even more outrageous...suggesting that no students would be allowed to receive accommodations after elementary/middle school. He suggested that each and EVERY student be tested for learning differences on the MCPS dime in elementary school. How much would that cost us?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw today that MCEA has endorsed Sunil DasGupta on their Apple Ballot. FWIW

Great news. I support Sunil Dasgupta. Smart, engaged, thoughtful guy with knowledge and experience. And a MCPS parent, too!

Interesting. I have read about him and heard about him see him as more of the same as what we already have on the Board.

What is his position on accountability for administration - as in the Damascus case?

There was one article that he had written that echoed the current BOE’s rhetoric. Would have to go back and find the link.

Sunil DasGupta does not understand the difference between bond funded capital money and property tax funded operating money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, because I went to this candidates website and his whole paragraph on special education really bothers me I'm going to unpack it.

Specifically, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the form of extra time on college admission tests like the ACT or the SAT, parents are paying exorbitant fees to have their children privately tested for learning differences and then pressuring the schools to grant them accommodations in the hopes of getting extended time on college entrance exams.

No, this is not what I see as an ES special education teacher, and universal screening would impact me. Parents do not pay for testing in the hopes of getting a testing accommodation to help their children get any unfair advantage, they pay for private testing because they are worried about their children.

having students apply for such services ties up funding for the students who truly need them.


As far as funding goes, if he's talking about students that have 504's for ADHD and testing accommodations such as extended time; we receive no federal funding for students with 504's. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 is a civil rights act that carries protections for people with disabilities. Unlike for students with IEP's, protected under different federal legislation, (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) schools receive no federal funding for students with 504's.

As an aside, the government has never fully funded the IDEA. When IDEA was passed the government committed to funding 40% of the cost of special education and they have never reached that level. Feds cover around 15%. Another reason for the lack of properly funded services, aids, etc.... Advocate for Congress to fully fund the IDEA.

I agree that student access to special education services should depend on need, not affluence, but the way this candidate proposes going about it is an impractical and wasteful use of resources. How does it help less affluent kids get better access to special education services to screen entire populations of affluent elementary schools with costly and time-intensive testing when only a small percentage of children need and qualify for special education services? There is a better way to look for LD's and it is by implementing a response to intervention program and responding to that small percentage of kids who fail to make progress within those increasingly intensive interventions and getting them screened.

He should perhaps talk to some educators.

Which candidate is this? Can you clarify?

Yes, Pavel Sukhobok is the candidate I was referring to in those posts.

Anonymous wrote:Also, because I went to this candidates website and his whole paragraph on special education really bothers me I'm going to unpack it.

Specifically, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the form of extra time on college admission tests like the ACT or the SAT, parents are paying exorbitant fees to have their children privately tested for learning differences and then pressuring the schools to grant them accommodations in the hopes of getting extended time on college entrance exams.

No, this is not what I see as an ES special education teacher, and universal screening would impact me. Parents do not pay for testing in the hopes of getting a testing accommodation to help their children get any unfair advantage, they pay for private testing because they are worried about their children.

having students apply for such services ties up funding for the students who truly need them.


As far as funding goes, if he's talking about students that have 504's for ADHD and testing accommodations such as extended time; we receive no federal funding for students with 504's. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 is a civil rights act that carries protections for people with disabilities. Unlike for students with IEP's, protected under different federal legislation, (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) schools receive no federal funding for students with 504's.

As an aside, the government has never fully funded the IDEA. When IDEA was passed the government committed to funding 40% of the cost of special education and they have never reached that level. Feds cover around 15%. Another reason for the lack of properly funded services, aids, etc.... Advocate for Congress to fully fund the IDEA.

I agree that student access to special education services should depend on need, not affluence, but the way this candidate proposes going about it is an impractical and wasteful use of resources. How does it help less affluent kids get better access to special education services to screen entire populations of affluent elementary schools with costly and time-intensive testing when only a small percentage of children need and qualify for special education services? There is a better way to look for LD's and it is by implementing a response to intervention program and responding to that small percentage of kids who fail to make progress within those increasingly intensive interventions and getting them screened.

He should perhaps talk to some educators.

Which candidate is this? Can you clarify?

Also, because I went to this candidates website and his whole paragraph on special education really bothers me I'm going to unpack it.

Specifically, in order to gain an unfair advantage in the form of extra time on college admission tests like the ACT or the SAT, parents are paying exorbitant fees to have their children privately tested for learning differences and then pressuring the schools to grant them accommodations in the hopes of getting extended time on college entrance exams.

No, this is not what I see as an ES special education teacher, and universal screening would impact me. Parents do not pay for testing in the hopes of getting a testing accommodation to help their children get any unfair advantage, they pay for private testing because they are worried about their children.

having students apply for such services ties up funding for the students who truly need them.


As far as funding goes, if he's talking about students that have 504's for ADHD and testing accommodations such as extended time; we receive no federal funding for students with 504's. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Section 504 is a civil rights act that carries protections for people with disabilities. Unlike for students with IEP's, protected under different federal legislation, (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) schools receive no federal funding for students with 504's.

As an aside, the government has never fully funded the IDEA. When IDEA was passed the government committed to funding 40% of the cost of special education and they have never reached that level. Feds cover around 15%. Another reason for the lack of properly funded services, aids, etc.... Advocate for Congress to fully fund the IDEA.

I agree that student access to special education services should depend on need, not affluence, but the way this candidate proposes going about it is an impractical and wasteful use of resources. How does it help less affluent kids get better access to special education services to screen entire populations of affluent elementary schools with costly and time-intensive testing when only a small percentage of children need and qualify for special education services? There is a better way to look for LD's and it is by implementing a response to intervention program and responding to that small percentage of kids who fail to make progress within those increasingly intensive interventions and getting them screened.

He should perhaps talk to some educators.

Anonymous wrote:So interns of money to test kids for learning disabilities in early grades all they need to do is to replace this type of testing with some of the constant MAP testing. MCPS already funds an extraordinary amount of testing in K-5. Map M and Map R twice a tear, CoGAT, PARRC and other internal tests that MCPS uses internally apparently to no real benefit to anyone beyond the central office.

MCPS is afraid that it will identify too may underserved LD kids but it may be more economical and successful to address the problem head on instead of hiding it. If schools implemented many of the best practices that help LD students across the board many students would benefit. If MCPS was forced to place more aides in classrooms rather than creating yet another central office position, all students would benefit. If LD were caught early and intervention occurred graduation rates and performance would be higher in high school.

No. You can't use MAP or cogAT tests to identify a student with an educational disability. Listen, MCPS could certainly implement more UDL (universal design for learning) practices in classrooms as best practices benefitting all students, including EL (English Learners) and students with disabilities. In many classrooms around the county, this is the case and teachers are increasingly adopting these strategies/methodologies. (Multiple means of representation, engagement and action and expression...in other words, represent material as the teacher and allow students to represent material in a variety of ways...visually, auditorially, and with manipulatives if possible...allow students to engage with material in multiple ways, and allow students to use movement and multiple means of verbal, oral, written expression in the classroom).

Identifying a student for special education requires non-discriminatory assessment administered by a qualified professional. They are not group-administered tests. They have to be administered in the student's primary language if the student is at a certain ESOL level, and we are required to have an assessment of the ESOL student's language dominance. The determination may turn up that a student needs a translator in addition to the special educator and psychologist to administer the tests, even if they can take the assessment in Engligh. This is not uncommon at all. This is also required by Federal law.

Requiring universal neuropsychological and achievement test screening is a huge waste of resource. The county is implementing a response to intervention program. That means tier one instruction with evidence-based instruction and regular progress monitoring to catch students falling behind, then tier two for those students that need extra support for a period of 8 to 12 weeks with regular progress monitoring and then tier 3 if the student isn't showing progress. If a student continues not to make progress in tier three over 8 weeks then a meeting to discuss the next steps. This keeps students from being over-identified for special education which has also historically been a problem. Yes, students with learning disabilities need to be identified, screened and supported. But some children need more targeted, intensive instruction for periods of time and do not have a learning disability. Children in certain minority groups have also historically been overidentified for special education.

And when this person advocates testing at a "young age," when is that exactly? Kindergarten? First grade? Every child would need an extensive report written for both the psychological and achievement tests given. This is what is done for screening for special education. Written consent from a parent is required.

Now, if what this person is proposing is not standardized testing then there already are universal screening achievement measures that students are given at the beginning of kindergarten to assess how their knowledge on all sorts of measures (letter/sound knowledge etc...). These don't screen for learning disabilities per se, they are part of a process.

Anonymous wrote:Agree, more of the same and not in a good way.

When I have more time, I’ll have to search out the article he wrote that I had read. His thought seem to align with much of the current BOE.

Agree, more of the same and not in a good way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw today that MCEA has endorsed Sunil DasGupta on their Apple Ballot. FWIW

Great news. I support Sunil Dasgupta. Smart, engaged, thoughtful guy with knowledge and experience. And a MCPS parent, too!

Interesting. I have read about him and heard about him see him as more of the same as what we already have on the Board.

What is his position on accountability for administration - as in the Damascus case?

There was one article that he had written that echoed the current BOE’s rhetoric. Would have to go back and find the link.