MCPS-Big fail!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those parents supplementing at home because you feel MCPS is not doing its job.. what are you supplementing, math only? Writing? What exactly is MCPS not teaching your kid that you teach them at home?

For me, DC#1 is 4th and DC#2 is in 1st grade.

DC#1 has learned from MCPS in previous years:
- multiplication math facts up to 12
- cursive
- addition and subtraction the "old" way (borrowing/carrying) as well as other methods taught under 2.0 math

DC#2 is going to be learning how to read an analog clock. While this is not necessary in these times, I think it helps with math, ie, fractions, counting by 5's, 10's, etc.

Both DCs are reading about 2 yrs above grade level. Both DCs have learned to read math word problems and figure out the answer. I see some of their assignments, and while it is different from what I am used to, I see that it teaches them to think, and not just do worksheet after worksheet of 2+2, 2+3, 4+2, etc..

I supplement at bit at home because I feel like the class sizes are too big (26+ kids), and I know it's nearly impossible for the teacher to give my DC individualized attention for more than 5 min. a day. I work with my DCs on a few math tricks I use to do math quickly in my head.

But, for the most part, I think MCPS has been educating my kids. DC#1 is on track to take Algebra in 7th grade. That's pretty advanced to me.

What are they missing? I don't think it's necessary for such young kids to have test after tests in class to see if my kids are learning. I see that in the class and HW they bring home.

It seems to me, from what I have read on this forum, that may parents are unhappy about the lack of communication between the teacher and the parent. Some parents aren't seeing HW, tests, etc.. brought home. But some parents are. Some kids are not learning multiplication math facts, or having enough comments written on assignments. Some parents are unhappy because the kid seems to be really good at some subject, usually math, but gets a P in the report card. So, the parents don't understand the grading system or how their kids are doing.

Some teachers just suck and some are great. That's not going to change by getting rid of 2.0. Maybe the crappy teachers are more magnified because of the new curriculum. If they are crappy teachers to begin with, throw in a new curriculum with little prep time, and you get an even crappier teacher.

These issues are not largely due to 2.0, but a teacher communication issue, a lack of uniformity (or standards) in the lesson plans, and MCPS' grading rubric.

I'm still not clear based on this thread what it is exactly that some parents see lacking in their kids' education. Another PP asked for something similar, for people who are complaining about it, to state what grades their kids are in, what do they think is missing, etc.... But the only responses I have seen are the same thing: "It sucks, so I'm supplementing at home, keeping quiet, etc.."

Unless someone gives some concrete reason why MCPS is failing, I can only assume that people who are complaining just want more individualized attention to their children (which can't happen in a big public school) and want their kids to be able to jump several math and reading levels because they think that means the kid is smarter and will be able to "compete" globally" (which it doesn't).

Someone tell me something different.

Why do you say more individual attention isn't possible in a big public school? My friends in other public schools are shocked when I tell them my Kindergartener has 25 kids in her class with one teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Critical thinking" in elementary school? C'mon folks, don't you see that this is a red herring? It is virtually impossible to quantify and/or evaluate a child's critical thinking skills at this age. Could this be why the proponents of 2.0 continue to claim that this is the area where 2.0 shines?

I'm skeptical. Under 2.0, the types of things that one can easily judge (spelling, math, etc.) are gutted…but impossible to measure things like "getting a deeper understanding" and "critical thinking" are things were *told* are happening so well. There is no measurement offered to support this theory. Yes, I'm skeptical indeed.

Also, how are we to believe that all of these difficult-to-measure/esoteric ideas like "critical thinking" are taking place in over-crowded classrooms. Again, are we really to believe that all of this unquantified/unsubstantiated higher-order thinking is taking place in classrooms with 30+ children? That's the size of my DD's class.

I don't think that they're impossible to measure. They're certainly not impossible to observe. And even if they were impossible to measure, so what? Do we only do things we can measure? Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. (I did not make up this saying.)

Using my adult "critical thinking" skills, I think you're missing the point.

The point - albeit a cynical one - is that the bureaucrats who've decided that this system is so great have also systematically banished all the standard educational measurement tools. Gone are the unit tests. Gone are report cards that actually tell parents anything ("everyone gets a P", yay!). We're told the standardized tests don't "align" with the new curriculum - oops!. Kids are failing things like Algebra tests in record numbers. Schoolwork rarely comes home (certainly not in the volume it used to pre-2.0).

Yup, my critical thinking tells me to be very skeptical of a large institution that tells me it knows better and yet hides from every opportunity to prove to me that what they're doing *is* actually better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or looking at it this way: of all the kids who graduated from MCPS, one in four of them went to MC. So I think that's a pretty big number.
With a HS diploma, none of them should have needed remediation in math in order to take a college math course for credit.

No, that is not what the report says.

Here is a link to the report: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/Developmental%20Education%20at%20Montgomery%20College%202015-2.pdf

Note that it is not looking at MCPS graduates. It is looking at Montgomery College enrollees. In 2011, 73% of of new students at Montgomery College were deemed not college-ready in math. What percent of these new students were MCPS graduates? I didn't find it in the report, but maybe it's there.

Further, the new students were deemed not college-ready in math based solely on standardized test scores (Accuplacer, ACT, SAT). However, these test scores overstate the need for remediation. See, for example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/many-students-could-skip-remedial-classes-studies-find/2012/02/28/gIQA5p5rgR_blog.html

That is why the OLO report recommends that Montgomery College:

1. Pilot the use of multiple measures to assess college readiness.
2. Partner with MCPS to develop end-of-course exams that both MCPS and Montgomery College can use as markers of math proficiency and college readiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Using my adult "critical thinking" skills, I think you're missing the point.

The point - albeit a cynical one - is that the bureaucrats who've decided that this system is so great have also systematically banished all the standard educational measurement tools. Gone are the unit tests. Gone are report cards that actually tell parents anything ("everyone gets a P", yay!). We're told the standardized tests don't "align" with the new curriculum - oops!. Kids are failing things like Algebra tests in record numbers. Schoolwork rarely comes home (certainly not in the volume it used to pre-2.0).

Yup, my critical thinking tells me to be very skeptical of a large institution that tells me it knows better and yet hides from every opportunity to prove to me that what they're doing *is* actually better.

They have not systematically banished all of the standard educational measurement tools. The unit tests are still there. Not everyone gets a P. The MSAs don't align with the new curriculum, which is why the PARCC tests are replacing them. There is no evidence that kids are failing algebra tests in record numbers, not to mention that these kids had the previous math curriculum in elementary school, not the current one. And my 2.0 kid brings just as much schoolwork home as my pre-2.0 kid.

What's more, none of this is relevant to the question of whether the curriculum should focus on critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those parents supplementing at home because you feel MCPS is not doing its job.. what are you supplementing, math only? Writing? What exactly is MCPS not teaching your kid that you teach them at home?

For me, DC#1 is 4th and DC#2 is in 1st grade.

DC#1 has learned from MCPS in previous years:
- multiplication math facts up to 12
- cursive
- addition and subtraction the "old" way (borrowing/carrying) as well as other methods taught under 2.0 math

DC#2 is going to be learning how to read an analog clock. While this is not necessary in these times, I think it helps with math, ie, fractions, counting by 5's, 10's, etc.

Both DCs are reading about 2 yrs above grade level. Both DCs have learned to read math word problems and figure out the answer. I see some of their assignments, and while it is different from what I am used to, I see that it teaches them to think, and not just do worksheet after worksheet of 2+2, 2+3, 4+2, etc..

I supplement at bit at home because I feel like the class sizes are too big (26+ kids), and I know it's nearly impossible for the teacher to give my DC individualized attention for more than 5 min. a day. I work with my DCs on a few math tricks I use to do math quickly in my head.

But, for the most part, I think MCPS has been educating my kids. DC#1 is on track to take Algebra in 7th grade. That's pretty advanced to me.

What are they missing? I don't think it's necessary for such young kids to have test after tests in class to see if my kids are learning. I see that in the class and HW they bring home.

It seems to me, from what I have read on this forum, that may parents are unhappy about the lack of communication between the teacher and the parent. Some parents aren't seeing HW, tests, etc.. brought home. But some parents are. Some kids are not learning multiplication math facts, or having enough comments written on assignments. Some parents are unhappy because the kid seems to be really good at some subject, usually math, but gets a P in the report card. So, the parents don't understand the grading system or how their kids are doing.

Some teachers just suck and some are great. That's not going to change by getting rid of 2.0. Maybe the crappy teachers are more magnified because of the new curriculum. If they are crappy teachers to begin with, throw in a new curriculum with little prep time, and you get an even crappier teacher.

These issues are not largely due to 2.0, but a teacher communication issue, a lack of uniformity (or standards) in the lesson plans, and MCPS' grading rubric.

I'm still not clear based on this thread what it is exactly that some parents see lacking in their kids' education. Another PP asked for something similar, for people who are complaining about it, to state what grades their kids are in, what do they think is missing, etc.... But the only responses I have seen are the same thing: "It sucks, so I'm supplementing at home, keeping quiet, etc.."

Unless someone gives some concrete reason why MCPS is failing, I can only assume that people who are complaining just want more individualized attention to their children (which can't happen in a big public school) and want their kids to be able to jump several math and reading levels because they think that means the kid is smarter and will be able to "compete" globally" (which it doesn't).

Someone tell me something different.

I would like teachers who spelled properly.
I would like teachers who exhibited a real thirst for knowledge and challenge.
I would like teachers to push my kid, not just settle for "fine."
That's for starters.

So if I'm understanding correctly, your complaint is more about individual teachers rather than the curriculum, correct? Seems like better teacher training would be a wider issue than just at the MCPS level.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article. I assume you noted that the percentage at MC needing math remediation increased from 53 to 72? Can you explain that away too?

Remedial education, catch-up coursework for the not-quite-college-ready, is a massive bottleneck in higher education. What if some students could get by without it?

Here, in that vein, is a guest post written by Jon Marcus for the Hechinger Report, a nonprofit based at Teachers College, Columbia University that produces in-depth education journalism.

Even as policymakers struggle to reform remedial-education requirements blamed for derailing the aspirations of countless community-college students, two new studies suggest that many of those students would do fine without them.


President Obama on a recent visit to Northern Virginia Community College.(Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)The studies, both by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, found that as many as a third of students sidetracked into remedial classes because of their scores on standardized tests would have earned a B or better if they had simply proceeded directly to college-level courses.

Three out of five of all entering community-college students are required to take remedial classes in math and other subjects, spending time and tuition money reviewing material they should have learned in high school, yet earning no credit from these classes toward their degrees.

More than 75 percent never graduate — in many cases, the researchers say, because they drop out from boredom and frustration. Providing remedial education also costs community colleges an estimated $2.5 billion a year.

Most rely on two principal standardized tests, called COMPASS and ACCUPLACER, to measure students’ college readiness. The researchers said their findings show those test scores should not be the only trigger for diverting students into remedial courses.

They said high-school grade-point averages were better gauges of preparedness for college-level work and would reduce the number of students assigned to remedial courses by from 15 to as much as 50 percent.

Researchers arrived at these conclusions by examining the performance of 19,000 students entering a large urban community college and a state community-college system over several years. They declined to name the school or state, but said the results were convincing enough to apply to all community colleges.

“This is not a few students,” said Clive Belfield, one of the researchers. “This is more than half who will take at least one of these courses. Most don’t get through it, and even if they do get through it, they really did not need to be there.”

Some community colleges already use other means to determine if a student needs remedial work. Montgomery College in Maryland, for example, accepts certain minimum scores on the SAT, ACT, or AP tests as proof that students there can handle college-level math and English, and students can appeal their ACCUPLACER scores.

Montgomery College also offers the ACCUPLACER test to juniors at 13 Montgomery County public high schools, helping them to pinpoint what they still need to learn.

Still, the college found that 53 percent of recent high-school graduates who enrolled there in 2010 were not prepared for college-level math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article. I assume you noted that the percentage at MC needing math remediation increased from 53 to 72? Can you explain that away too?

53% in 2010 vs. 73% in 2011? That's a huge jump. What's your explanation for it? Here are some possible explanations I can think of:

1. The 53% number in the Washington Post article is a mistake.
2. The 2010 cut-offs were different from the 2011 cut-offs.
3. The natural variability in number of new students deemed not college-ready in math is considerable.
4. For some reason, new students at Montgomery College were way worse in math in 2011 than in 2010, and the test scores accurately reflect this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article. I assume you noted that the percentage at MC needing math remediation increased from 53 to 72? Can you explain that away too?

53% in 2010 vs. 73% in 2011? That's a huge jump. What's your explanation for it? Here are some possible explanations I can think of:

1. The 53% number in the Washington Post article is a mistake.
2. The 2010 cut-offs were different from the 2011 cut-offs.
3. The natural variability in number of new students deemed not college-ready in math is considerable.
4. For some reason, new students at Montgomery College were way worse in math in 2011 than in 2010, and the test scores accurately reflect this.

If you compare the 53% and the 73% (both are big numbers) to the data on the county math exams, MCPS has been doing a poor job for YEARS teaching our kids math. Compound that with implementing math curriculums before they are completely written and tested (thus far Algebra 2.0 and Geometry 2.0), I can predict the math deficiency problem of high school graduates is only going to get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article. I assume you noted that the percentage at MC needing math remediation increased from 53 to 72? Can you explain that away too?

53% in 2010 vs. 73% in 2011? That's a huge jump. What's your explanation for it? Here are some possible explanations I can think of:

1. The 53% number in the Washington Post article is a mistake.
2. The 2010 cut-offs were different from the 2011 cut-offs.
3. The natural variability in number of new students deemed not college-ready in math is considerable.
4. For some reason, new students at Montgomery College were way worse in math in 2011 than in 2010, and the test scores accurately reflect this.

If you compare the 53% and the 73% (both are big numbers) to the data on the county math exams, MCPS has been doing a poor job for YEARS teaching our kids math. Compound that with implementing math curriculums before they are completely written and tested (thus far Algebra 2.0 and Geometry 2.0), I can predict the math deficiency problem of high school graduates is only going to get worse.

This doesn't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article. I assume you noted that the percentage at MC needing math remediation increased from 53 to 72? Can you explain that away too?

53% in 2010 vs. 73% in 2011? That's a huge jump. What's your explanation for it? Here are some possible explanations I can think of:

1. The 53% number in the Washington Post article is a mistake.
2. The 2010 cut-offs were different from the 2011 cut-offs.
3. The natural variability in number of new students deemed not college-ready in math is considerable.
4. For some reason, new students at Montgomery College were way worse in math in 2011 than in 2010, and the test scores accurately reflect this.

Look at Table 2-1 in the report. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/Developmental%20Education%20at%20Montgomery%20College%202015-2.pdf

The rate of placement in remedial coursework for math, for recent high school graduates at Montgomery College, was 70% in 2008, 73% in 2009, 70% in 2010, and 71% in 2011. So I think that the 53% number in the Washington Post is either a mistake, or measuring something else.

The report also says that in the fall of 2013, 25% of MCPS graduates enrolled in Montgomery College. The high schools with the largest proportion of graduating students enrolling at Montgomery College were Seneca Valley (41%), Kennedy (36%), Einstein (36%), Gaithersburg (36%), and Magruder (35%). Seven of the MCPS high schools had fewer than 25% of graduating students enroll at Montgomery College - the report doesn't say which one, but I assume that they are the high schools with the lowest percentages of poor students.

And the report says that in the fall of 2013, 79% of recent high school graduates enrolled in Montgomery College were from MCPS.

Also, here are the links to the two reports that say that placement tests are not strong predictors of course grades and college performance and are better predictors of who is likely to succeed in college coursework than who is likely to fail:

http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/predicting-success-placement-tests-transcripts.pdf
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/high-stakes-predict-success.pdf