Curriculum 2.0 was discriminatory, MCPS should make amends to the students harmed

[Anonymous]

Ask Pat O’Neill what she’s going to do to make it up to all those kids. After all, she was a cheerleader for 2.0, and people keep voting her in.....

[Anonymous]

Oh FFS, my white kids were harmed too. Enough with identity politics Op. I take responsibility for not being proactive on behalf of my children, you do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could you link to where JHU concluded this? Curriculum 2.0 was basically an early version of Common Core. The curriculum itself was not discriminatory. All I can imagine is that you are saying that the way it was rolled out made it ineffective especially for more at-risk kids.

No. The curriculum was written assuming that kids had lots of background knowledge, and every new concept being taught assumed that kids had this background knowledge. Teachers in high FARMS schools had to backtrack 5 or 6 steps to get students to understand what was being introduced. It wasn't an issue in more affluent schools because the kids had the background knowledge, but in the less affluent schools it took a lot of time and kids didn't get what they were intended to get out of the curriculum. I remember teaching a 3rd grade quarter one social studies lesson that was supposed to be about the foundations of democracy in the Roman Republic and my students didn't even have even the basic understanding of government. They also didn't know the geography related to being able to figure out who would be the leaders of countries vs. states vs. cities. That would be explored in quarter two. Makes all the sense in the world, right? .

I wouldn't blame that on the new curriculum.

I blame that on the students not learning well before your class. Whether that is due to their not studying, their family not allowing them to study, or their previous teachers did not do a good job, is not something to put blame on the current curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at school. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

6 ways to calculate/articulate/draw/find the answer of 19+4=?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

6 ways to calculate/articulate/draw/find the answer of 19+4=?

I never saw a worksheet that asked for 6 ways. Asking for 2 ways seems quite reasonable to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

6 ways to calculate/articulate/draw/find the answer of 19+4=?

If you think that is stupid, I do not object. But I never consider the previous curriculum to be not stupid. So the current one is not any worse.

But that is not our focus here in this thread. We are instead, discussing how "advanced" the 2.0 is so that parents would have to teach their kids at home for them to be able to understand the class at school.
I for one, do not think that is the case.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll trying to stir things up, OP what do you think could or should be done?

People can't go back and redo their school age years. One time payment? If so, how much and how do you decide who was eligible, both in terms of who was hurt by the curriculum and how many years of the curriculum did you have to have to be considered hurt? Payment to get some form of additional schooling? Reduced entrance requirements and/or tuition to Montgomery College?

What do you have in mind?

This is pretty clearly a troll.

+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

And my pre-2.0 kid learned this crazy system of 1's being lines and 10's being squares and 100's being rectangles.

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

The important part is the underlined bolded.

I think teaching kids why you compose and decompose (carry/borrow) is important. If you go through the steps without teaching them the "why", then yes, it's pointless.

If you are math person, you can see that decomposing is the same as borrowing, just different words and a different way to look at it. I read an article from a math teach who said using the word "borrow" was not a good way to teach them since the word "borrow" means you give it back. How do you give back the number? Decompose is a much better word.

The problem is that many early years teachers lack numeracy. And it's difficult to find good math teachers in the upper grades, too. There are always shortages of STEM teachers.

A lot of people don't like math, and IMO, part of it is because they were never taught the "whys" of math, only the steps. That's super boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

My children were in a different school system prior to 2.0. That school actually taught my kid math. Imagine that.