2.0 vs Common Core

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While some of your points are valid, I am afraid that you did not understand all parents' complaints clearly. There are definitely complaints against CC instead of 2.0.

For instance, in CC math, there is no much framework on acceleration. This is particularly devastating for MCPS where a large number of students are ahead of CC.

Meanwhile, the analogy of 2.0 / travel plan is inappropriate since 2.0 is not as transparent/precise to parents as any real travel plan. For instance, the P grade is really vague. How can we claim that we have visited Eiffel Tower? Climbed up the tower? Reach the base of the tower? Or in Paris?

Does CC even address acceleration? It's a set of standards. Acceleration is left up to the states.

I thought it was a fine analogy. Don't take everything so literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some of your points are valid, I am afraid that you did not understand all parents' complaints clearly. There are definitely complaints against CC instead of 2.0.

For instance, in CC math, there is no much framework on acceleration. This is particularly devastating for MCPS where a large number of students are ahead of CC.

Meanwhile, the analogy of 2.0 / travel plan is inappropriate since 2.0 is not as transparent/precise to parents as any real travel plan. For instance, the P grade is really vague. How can we claim that we have visited Eiffel Tower? Climbed up the tower? Reach the base of the tower? Or in Paris?

Does CC even address acceleration? It's a set of standards. Acceleration is left up to the states.

I thought it was a fine analogy. Don't take everything so literally.

PP here.

Overall, at the top level, it is insufficient to only state that grade A students must meet requirement B. This country is too big to have such any one-size-fit-all milestone.

CC math does address acceleration. page 80 in the following document.
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Mathematics_Appendix_A.pdf

However, their acceleration is not suitable for MC students. The acceleration kicks in just too late.

With this, do you still feel that your destination/travel plan analogy is valid? When CC addresses acceleration, it is not only destination any more, is it?

[Anonymous]

Common Core is a list of standards -- what knowledge, skills, or abilities students should have by the end of X grade.

Curriculum 2.0 is the actual curriculum, or the plan for how the CC standards will be taught to the students.

The two need to be aligned so that they match and can work together, but they are not the same thing. In states that have adopted Common Core, school districts can theoretically choose from among many different curriculums as long as they will result in the correct standards being met at the correct time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some of your points are valid, I am afraid that you did not understand all parents' complaints clearly. There are definitely complaints against CC instead of 2.0.

For instance, in CC math, there is no much framework on acceleration. This is particularly devastating for MCPS where a large number of students are ahead of CC.

Meanwhile, the analogy of 2.0 / travel plan is inappropriate since 2.0 is not as transparent/precise to parents as any real travel plan. For instance, the P grade is really vague. How can we claim that we have visited Eiffel Tower? Climbed up the tower? Reach the base of the tower? Or in Paris?

Does CC even address acceleration? It's a set of standards. Acceleration is left up to the states.

I thought it was a fine analogy. Don't take everything so literally.

The following is just my understanding, so take it for what it's worth.

Common Core (CC) does not need to address acceleration because it is a floor (minimum requirement) and not a ceiling (maximum permitted) for what is to be taught when. Schools under CC are required to teach such that their students meet minimum standards; they are not required to only allow students to learn those specific skills at that specific level.

Basically, if a student needs acceleration in a particular subject area then they will by definition have already met CC grade-level standards so CC's minimum expectations are no longer particularly relevant for that student in that subject area. The school is still responsible for meeting the child's educational needs regardless of whether they are currently below, at, or above the grade-level standard mandated by Common Core. Common Core is the list of required minimum objectives for each grade level. It is not the tactical plan for how teaching must be accomplished. The curriculum of the specific school or district is what should address how acceleration will be handled for students who need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While some of your points are valid, I am afraid that you did not understand all parents' complaints clearly. There are definitely complaints against CC instead of 2.0.

For instance, in CC math, there is no much framework on acceleration. This is particularly devastating for MCPS where a large number of students are ahead of CC.

Meanwhile, the analogy of 2.0 / travel plan is inappropriate since 2.0 is not as transparent/precise to parents as any real travel plan. For instance, the P grade is really vague. How can we claim that we have visited Eiffel Tower? Climbed up the tower? Reach the base of the tower? Or in Paris?

Anonymous wrote:I think of the standards as being like the destination. It's the place you want the students to be at the end of the year, or at graduation.

2.0 is the travel plan. With a new destination, MCPS needed a new travel plan. If you were planning on a driving vacation to Disney and then decided to see the Eiffel Tower instead, you wouldn't use the same car or road maps. Similarly, if you decided that you wanted your first graders to exhibit a higher lever of understanding of non-fiction texts, more phonics, a little more about place value and measurement, and a little less about money, then you'll need different lesson plans. 2.0 are those different lesson plans. At the same time that MCPS changed their curriculum to reflect 2.0 they made a bunch of other changes. For example, they made changes in how students are grouped, and how they report student performance to parents, which have nothing to do with Common Core.

People often complain about "Common Core" when really what they're complaining about is the roadmap (curriculum) people are using to get there. It's like the difference between complaining that Disney is a stupid place to go because you don't like Mickey Mouse, and complaining because you are carsick and you wish your cheap parents had paid for airline tickets.

In addition to adopting standards, there are many other important decisions that must be made at the state or local level before purchasing or writing a curriculum. Among them. What do we do when students are currently not meeting benchmarks or not on track to meet benchmarks? What do we do with students who meet benchmarks ahead of schedule? and What do we do with students with disabilities for whom the benchmarks may be temporarily or permanently unattainable?

MCPS has thought through detailed answers to those questions, and used them to guide the creation of 2.0, but many people do not like some of the answers that MCPS has given. They may have very valid criticisms to those answers but those criticisms aren't criticisms of Common Core. They are criticisms of 2.0. Common Core says "This is what should be taught in a third grade math class". It doesn't answer the question of whether 2nd grader who are ahead should be placed in third grade math classes. That question, and many other similar questions, has been left to the state and local authorities to decide.