Is your principal allowing math acceleration and grouping?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on anecdotal evidence from the moms and teachers I know, all schools group by ability within the class...but very few group by ability for the entire class. To clarify: the majority of schools are no longer grouping kids by ability for math and then having one teacher teach the low kids, one teach the average, and one teach the high (like they used to prior to 2.0). Thus, most of our kids get a solid fifteen minutes of small group instruction per day....way to go, mcps!

This is what I heard as well. Cannot imagine this is somehow better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on anecdotal evidence from the moms and teachers I know, all schools group by ability within the class...but very few group by ability for the entire class. To clarify: the majority of schools are no longer grouping kids by ability for math and then having one teacher teach the low kids, one teach the average, and one teach the high (like they used to prior to 2.0). Thus, most of our kids get a solid fifteen minutes of small group instruction per day....way to go, mcps!

This is what I heard as well. Cannot imagine this is somehow better.

How much in their seats direct instruction was happening before? DD is only in second grade, but she has never had prolonged in her seat instruction in any subject. There has always been a combination of direct instruction, small group, games, centers and independent work - ever since kindergarten. Prior to 2.0, were kids in the primary grades getting more prolonged teacher-led direct instruction in subjects?

[Anonymous]

Your second grader has always had 2.0, PP. Before 2.0, kids were grouped by ability and each teacher had a group of kids on the same level for the math block. So, the teacher had 15-20 kids who were all on the same level for the math block. Now, the teacher has all of the kids from her home room class (no switching), and has to rotate three or four groups on different levels through a quick group instruction. It doesn't make any sense, particularly since some grades still switch for reading if necessary (my third grader went to another class for reading bc no one else in his class was reading on his level....and a handful of other kids switched for reading as well).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your second grader has always had 2.0, PP. Before 2.0, kids were grouped by ability and each teacher had a group of kids on the same level for the math block. So, the teacher had 15-20 kids who were all on the same level for the math block. Now, the teacher has all of the kids from her home room class (no switching), and has to rotate three or four groups on different levels through a quick group instruction. It doesn't make any sense, particularly since some grades still switch for reading if necessary (my third grader went to another class for reading bc no one else in his class was reading on his level....and a handful of other kids switched for reading as well).

This isn't true. I taught at three schools in MCPS and we NEVER did this before 5th grade. Some schools did, but by no means did all, or even most, schools do it.

[Anonymous]

My pre-2.0 kid switched for math in k thru 1, then it stopped in 2nd and 3rd thanks to 2.0.

Perhaps only the better schools did this prior to 2.0? We go to a "good school" although that label is no longer meaningful given 2,0....now all of the schools are equally adequate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your second grader has always had 2.0, PP. Before 2.0, kids were grouped by ability and each teacher had a group of kids on the same level for the math block. So, the teacher had 15-20 kids who were all on the same level for the math block. Now, the teacher has all of the kids from her home room class (no switching), and has to rotate three or four groups on different levels through a quick group instruction. It doesn't make any sense, particularly since some grades still switch for reading if necessary (my third grader went to another class for reading bc no one else in his class was reading on his level....and a handful of other kids switched for reading as well).

Yes, I know my 2nd grader has always had 2.0. My question was, prior to 2.0, when the entire class during math block was on the same level, how much of math block was spent on direct teacher instruction vs individual seat work, games, puzzles, etc? What I am asking, is how much difference is there in actual direct instruction time. Our school still has kids switch to other classes for reading groups, but that does not mean the teacher is providing direct instruction during the entire reading block. She works with the kids who have come to her class for 15 minutes or so, and then those kids go back to their own classrooms for the rest of reading block, and do individual or small group work. Prior to 2.o, was the teacher standing in front of the homogeneous class lecturing or leading whole class discussion for the entire math block?

[Anonymous]

20:52, if you equate "good school" with "school where parents bitch and moan that their children must be consistently working three grade levels ahead regardless of whether or not they are actually ready for it until they get what they want", then I'm sure you are in a good school.

[Anonymous]

It was a mix of activities, but at least the teacher wasn't racing through three or four separate lessons since all the kids were on the same level. When all the kids are on the same math level, the teacher can introduce THE CONCEPT to the entire class, then reinforce in small groups if necessary. Go observe your kids math instruction and report back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a mix of activities, but at least the teacher wasn't racing through three or four separate lessons since all the kids were on the same level. When all the kids are on the same math level, the teacher can introduce THE CONCEPT to the entire class, then reinforce in small groups if necessary. Go observe your kids math instruction and report back.

I have observed my child's math instruction. That is why I am asking what it looked like before. The teacher did not appear to be racing through the material. And frankly, from all the complaints about 2.0 math being too easy, I would not think that racing through the lessons would be the complaint, as long as the supplemental activities are also differentiated (as they are at our school). If the math is so easy, why would you want the teacher spending even more time on it?
The curriculum and the implementation are two different things. I think the curriculum can be appropriately challenging if implemented properly. OTOH, having full class homogeneous instruction for 2 hours won't help if the curriculum is too easy.

[Anonymous]

My first-grader is also getting algebra -- as enrichment (I think). And it really is. The arithmetic skill is just addition and subtraction of one-digit and two-digit numbers, but in order to solve the problems, she really has to understand what addition and subtraction mean, and what an equals sign means. It's understanding what she's doing, vs. just being able to do it. There was some emphasis on this with my pre-2.0 child, but there's more emphasis on it now, and I think that's a good thing.

(And both of them have had way more emphasis on understanding what you're doing in math than I remember having in elementary school.)

[Anonymous]

PP you can put the Algebraic label on preschool stuff and its still accurate. You can call your infant's shape shorter Geometry too and you would be correct. I've noticed just lately that worksheets are coming home with the "Algebra" label on them. This is such a bogus attempt at impressing parents while the schools cling to sub par math curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP you can put the Algebraic label on preschool stuff and its still accurate. You can call your infant's shape shorter Geometry too and you would be correct. I've noticed just lately that worksheets are coming home with the "Algebra" label on them. This is such a bogus attempt at impressing parents while the schools cling to sub par math curriculum.

whether you call it algebra or not, my second grader is doing things in math that I never did in second grade.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP at 8:32, and I don't follow the logic of the PP at 14:32. Under 2.0, my first-grader is doing complicated and challenging math problems that require her to understand some fundamental and very important math ideas. If this is part of a "sub par math curriculum", what would my first-grader be doing in a super par math curriculum?

[Anonymous]

whether you call it algebra or not, my second grader is doing things in math that I never did in second grade.

Not to be snarky but did you grow up in Appalachia? This stuff is very, very easy. I doubt that my children will become scientists or math experts when they grow up so it matters less to us but it is pretty bad.

I've volunteered in the classrooms and the kids are bored with this stuff. Unless its a game that they can keep playing, most kids finish their work without any real effort and are just bored. Some go back to writing work they didn't finish, some do a few extra "enrichment problems" that are not different, and some just do nothing.

My son had never taken more than 5 minutes to finish his math homework all year. His perspective on math is that its easy and boring. I would like to see the school give them something that warrants at least 30 seconds of thought or gets them to actually think about how they can use these strategies or solve a problem. MCPS really messed up on math.

[Anonymous]

I think that they could improve math by removing some of their arbitrary ceilings. In Montessori, preschoolers and kindergarteners do multiplication not because its advanced but because added one number to itself multiple times naturally relates to coating and skip counting. Its a natural connection to addition and simply understanding sets. They don't ask kids to memorize multiplication tables or even over ally focus on the computation aspect it really is about the concept. This takes the mystery out of math and gives kids the ability to start recognizing patterns and order of operations. MCPS seems to think that this is a concept not allowable until the 3rd grade or perhaps in very simple limited ways at the end of 2nd.

They also should do simple things like add more digits and place values to concepts that they are teaching. Once a child can do double digit addition, there is no reason not to add other place values. The concept is the same and there is value in showing kids that its no big deal to add more numbers. This also helps with kids who do mental calculations easily and don't give a hoot about the multiple strategies for a problem so easy they do it in their heads anyway.

In first grade, there is no reason why they couldn't introduce perimeter or concepts of height/depth/width. My K knows this stuff already and it would make the lessons more interesting than just stopping at naming the shapes and identifying 3 basic properties.

There are many things that they could do to improve the math curriculum but they need to care. I don't think MCPS cares about math.