HGC 4th grade this year

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows that math "prodigies" are almost universally well served in public schools not privates. MCPS have been able to serve these high-skilled kids for years and years before the introduction of 2.0. Kids could be accelerated a number of years and could take advanced classes in the middle or high school if it was warranted. Private schools have never been a place for these high level math learners. MCPS was a destination for such kids. Sad if that is gone with 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big issue is that math is limited this year to 2 choices: either math 4 or math 4/5. This is unacceptable. Some of these kids are ready and able to do so much more but their math options are artificially limited. It is about 2.0 dumbing down HHS curriculum.

I attended a meeting with MCPS high school teachers who discussed the fact that many of their students were not ready for the highest level math and had missed developing a strong number sense. They all agreed on what they were seeing in the classroom. I'm not disagreeing that some kids are math prodigies but it's a small percentage. If your kid is in 4/5 math this year, they'll take Algebra I in 7th grade. That hardly seems remedial. Are you a mathematician? Just wondering why everybody is in such a hurry for Differential Equations in high school. If your child needs college level math in HS, they can be bussed to MC.

I'm the pp you quoted and, yes, my child is a math kid (prodigy, who knows or cares for our purposes here). My issue isn't about being in a hurry to get to Diff Equations in HS, my issue is that my kid is LOSING interest in math. She used to love it and look forward to doing math and thinking about math and talking about it. Now, she says it is boring and she doesn't even like doing the homework she has. She's right, it is boring and repetitive to her. My issue is that she, and other kids like her, could very well turn off to an important subject that they happen to be very good at.

If you can't get advanced math at the HGC, where can you get it? Maybe the real question is: why does MCPS insist on keeping the (maybe very small) highest-achieving/highest-ability math kids down? Why not let them thrive at their level?

If she is truly an outlier, why don't you approach the principal about an accommodation, such as move to Math 6 if she's in compacted math?

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, those accommodations are prohibited under 2.0. That is the whole point. If she had been the exact same student a couple of years ago (i.e., pre-2.0), that type of accommodation would be easy to accomplish. Now, the exact same student is prohibited from getting the accommodation. THAT is keeping kids down under this new curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, those accommodations are prohibited under 2.0. That is the whole point. If she had been the exact same student a couple of years ago (i.e., pre-2.0), that type of accommodation would be easy to accomplish. Now, the exact same student is prohibited from getting the accommodation. THAT is keeping kids down under this new curriculum.

Yes, these accommodations are now banished at our MCPS elementary. Probably 7-10 kids a year were taking 3 years above grade level math. Now they can't. Holding the top down is a convenient way to cause any top/bottom gaps to get smaller. It's good that the Algebra in 7th grade pathway has been reinstated, but it's not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, those accommodations are prohibited under 2.0. That is the whole point. If she had been the exact same student a couple of years ago (i.e., pre-2.0), that type of accommodation would be easy to accomplish. Now, the exact same student is prohibited from getting the accommodation. THAT is keeping kids down under this new curriculum.

Yes, these accommodations are now banished at our MCPS elementary. Probably 7-10 kids a year were taking 3 years above grade level math. Now they can't. Holding the top down is a convenient way to cause any top/bottom gaps to get smaller. It's good that the Algebra in 7th grade pathway has been reinstated, but it's not enough.

There are 7-10 math prodigies per year at your MCPS elementary school? Wow.

Speaking of math, "holding the top down is a convenient way to cause any top/bottom gaps to get smaller" is true only if you make some pretty major assumptions. Such as:

1. There are enough math prodigies (whoops, high achievers) in the white and Asian demographic groups to have a meaningful effect on those groups' math scores.
2. The number of high achievers in the black and Asian demographic groups is too small to make a difference on those groups' math scores.
3. Kids who don't get to take above-grade-level math score worse on math tests for grade-level math.l
4. Nobody will notice if the math scores for the white and Asian demographic groups go down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, those accommodations are prohibited under 2.0. That is the whole point. If she had been the exact same student a couple of years ago (i.e., pre-2.0), that type of accommodation would be easy to accomplish. Now, the exact same student is prohibited from getting the accommodation. THAT is keeping kids down under this new curriculum.

Yes, these accommodations are now banished at our MCPS elementary. Probably 7-10 kids a year were taking 3 years above grade level math. Now they can't. Holding the top down is a convenient way to cause any top/bottom gaps to get smaller. It's good that the Algebra in 7th grade pathway has been reinstated, but it's not enough.

There are 7-10 math prodigies per year at your MCPS elementary school? Wow.

Speaking of math, "holding the top down is a convenient way to cause any top/bottom gaps to get smaller" is true only if you make some pretty major assumptions. Such as:

1. There are enough math prodigies (whoops, high achievers) in the white and Asian demographic groups to have a meaningful effect on those groups' math scores.
2. The number of high achievers in the black and Asian demographic groups is too small to make a difference on those groups' math scores.
3. Kids who don't get to take above-grade-level math score worse on math tests for grade-level math.l
4. Nobody will notice if the math scores for the white and Asian demographic groups go down.

Not the PP, but while I agree with all your points for certain students there probably does need to be extra acceleration. Lets be honest, the ability of math students is going to vary by more than one grade in either direction in a place like MoCo where we have some of the richest and educated inhabitants in the US along side with many poor and English language learners. Having the grade for Algebra (for example) being 7th for accelerated, 8th on grade and 9th remedial just isn't enough for the kids who need the acceleration. My daughter is at an HGC, she's on path to take Algebra in 7th and there are ~25 kids there who are on track to take Algebra in 6th. These kids are handling it easily; why should this not be allowed anymore?

[Anonymous]

Exactly! Why won't MCPS ALLOW this type of acceleration for the kids who need it. I can understand a general notion that the population of kids, in general, needs to go deeper or slow down in math. That's fine as a starting point. That philosophical notion should not, however, artificially prohibit kids who really are high math achievers to get their needs met.
We would be appalled if MCPS summarily decided it would no longer offer the more remedial level classes (basically, saying kids in X grade should be able to do X and if you don't meet that mark, too bad for you). That is exactly what is happening for the high achievers now (their options for advancement have been summarily dismissed).

[Anonymous]

Met with my child's teacher yesterday and asked about that mysterious letter we all received. She tells me there has been minor changes with the new 2.0 - basically no difference. It has not been "dumbed down" as I've heard people say. The main reason is that the HGC curriculum writers were pulled to write the regular 4th grade curriculum and that the HGC curriculum was being rolled out a quarter at a time - teachers were not getting enough planning time. Since the former curriculum already met common core (and the fact there were to be few changes to it anyway) they will revert back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Met with my child's teacher yesterday and asked about that mysterious letter we all received. She tells me there has been minor changes with the new 2.0 - basically no difference. It has not been "dumbed down" as I've heard people say. The main reason is that the HGC curriculum writers were pulled to write the regular 4th grade curriculum and that the HGC curriculum was being rolled out a quarter at a time - teachers were not getting enough planning time. Since the former curriculum already met common core (and the fact there were to be few changes to it anyway) they will revert back.

Did you actually fall for that b.s.? Hope not. On its face, it is inaccurate. The fact that opportunities for advanced math (anything beyond math 4/5) have been eliminated under 2.0 is a huge change and a "dumbing down" of the opportunities that used to be available at the HGC (and elsewhere). Three years ago when my DD was at the same HGC that my DD is at now, she was able to do Math 6 or Math 7 in 4th grade. This year the maximum opportunity available for HGC students is math 4/5. This is true regardless of the child's math ability. How is this not a dumbing down?

MCPS is great at dancing around the obvious and using semantics to hide-the-ball. That seems to be at work here. Look, I'm quite happy with the HGC - particularly the non-math aspects - but to pretend that 2.0 hasn't impacted (dumbed down) math at the HGC as well as at the home schools, is just not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Met with my child's teacher yesterday and asked about that mysterious letter we all received. She tells me there has been minor changes with the new 2.0 - basically no difference. It has not been "dumbed down" as I've heard people say. The main reason is that the HGC curriculum writers were pulled to write the regular 4th grade curriculum and that the HGC curriculum was being rolled out a quarter at a time - teachers were not getting enough planning time. Since the former curriculum already met common core (and the fact there were to be few changes to it anyway) they will revert back.

My child's teacher said much the same thing.

[Anonymous]

My child's teacher said that she didn't like the letter. She said that the new curriculum has not yet been written for HGC. She also said that there is no HGC curriculum this year for science or social studies. She has had to supplement so that the material is appropriate for this group of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Met with my child's teacher yesterday and asked about that mysterious letter we all received. She tells me there has been minor changes with the new 2.0 - basically no difference. It has not been "dumbed down" as I've heard people say. The main reason is that the HGC curriculum writers were pulled to write the regular 4th grade curriculum and that the HGC curriculum was being rolled out a quarter at a time - teachers were not getting enough planning time. Since the former curriculum already met common core (and the fact there were to be few changes to it anyway) they will revert back.

Did you actually fall for that b.s.? Hope not. On its face, it is inaccurate. The fact that opportunities for advanced math (anything beyond math 4/5) have been eliminated under 2.0 is a huge change and a "dumbing down" of the opportunities that used to be available at the HGC (and elsewhere). Three years ago when my DD was at the same HGC that my DD is at now, she was able to do Math 6 or Math 7 in 4th grade. This year the maximum opportunity available for HGC students is math 4/5. This is true regardless of the child's math ability. How is this not a dumbing down?

MCPS is great at dancing around the obvious and using semantics to hide-the-ball. That seems to be at work here. Look, I'm quite happy with the HGC - particularly the non-math aspects - but to pretend that 2.0 hasn't impacted (dumbed down) math at the HGC as well as at the home schools, is just not true.

I was not referring to math.

[Anonymous]

My child's teacher said that the former HGC curriculum does not meet Common Core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child's teacher said that the former HGC curriculum does not meet Common Core.

Interesting. Yet, presumably, the former seemingly-well-received HGC curriculum represented the best of MCPS. I don't think anyone (even the biggest proponents of Common Core) would suggest that it is the same level or above. So, what's the story? Is Common Core simply different? Is this a semantic question: i.e., yes, the old HGC curriculum was "better" but CC insists on different areas of study? What is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child's teacher said that the former HGC curriculum does not meet Common Core.

Interesting. Yet, presumably, the former seemingly-well-received HGC curriculum represented the best of MCPS. I don't think anyone (even the biggest proponents of Common Core) would suggest that it is the same level or above. So, what's the story? Is Common Core simply different? Is this a semantic question: i.e., yes, the old HGC curriculum was "better" but CC insists on different areas of study? What is it?

My impression was that she meant that the previous HGC curriculum didn't cover some material required by common core not that it was less rigorous.