If you loved MCPS 2.0, you’ll love the regional model

[Anonymous]

I just realized that MCPS by trying to ram the regional model in with the boundary study is falling for the same traps they did when they implemented 2.0. The key selling point with 2.0 was to provide everyone with higher level Math/English. What happened is they had to slow everything down and so fast learners weren’t challenged, and learners who were behind weren’t able to keep up, and even average learners were bored. They slowed down math acceleration trying that the new program would dive deeper.

This is what will happen with the Regional Model if enacted.

[Anonymous]

That was not 2.0 and very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was not 2.0 and very different.

Same idea “raising the low bar/ squashing the ceiling”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was not 2.0 and very different.

Same idea “raising the low bar/ squashing the ceiling”

Yep. Taylor isn't fooling anyone, and he doesn't care that he isn't.

[Anonymous]

I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.

Not really, all kids will go to their home schools except for a select few. Your school doesn't have advanced classes and you don't get into another school or cannot make it work, same as now, too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.

Not really, all kids will go to their home schools except for a select few. Your school doesn't have advanced classes and you don't get into another school or cannot make it work, same as now, too bad.

Well, “same as now” except in the DCC and NEC, where over 40% of students use the consortium choice process to pick a school other than their home school. MCPS doesn’t care to admit that they’re reducing flexibility, access, and opportunity for those students.

[Anonymous]

What's MCPS 2.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.

Not really, all kids will go to their home schools except for a select few. Your school doesn't have advanced classes and you don't get into another school or cannot make it work, same as now, too bad.

Well, “same as now” except in the DCC and NEC, where over 40% of students use the consortium choice process to pick a school other than their home school. MCPS doesn’t care to admit that they’re reducing flexibility, access, and opportunity for those students.

They know, that’s why they are doing it. It’s not about our kids, it about money and politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model

OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model

OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP

There is no argument to make, and as I said, it doesn’t compare to the proposed regional model at all.
One is not like the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model

OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP

There is no argument to make, and as I said, it doesn’t compare to the proposed regional model at all.
One is not like the other.

They are like each other in that they are both BS, masquerading as "equity" and "in-depth rigor."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?

A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/

But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model

OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP

There is no argument to make, and as I said, it doesn’t compare to the proposed regional model at all.
One is not like the other.

They are like each other in that they are both BS, masquerading as "equity" and "in-depth rigor."

It was obvious something was going on when they cut the MVA, a trade program and early education saying it was budget, but the next year Taylor got a huge budget increase and now will get another one with this. Something more is behind it and no good can come of this.