Does anyone like Curriculum 2.0?

[Anonymous]

You know who is really LOL-ing?? Virginia schools and DC/MD privates, not to mention all the Asian and European countries that teach intensive and comprehensive coursework to their elementary students. And the test results consistently show that, as do the number of eventual math and engineering college graduates.

Too bad MoCo chose the slow students to set the pace and curriculum, no doubt in order to bring up average scores to mediocrity (proficiency) and receive more federal funds to teach to the lowest denominator.

Funny thing, you get to a real high school or university or the real world job and it's sink or swim. None of this "lets slow down everybody so the ESL kids can "master" whatever, that everyone else already has".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know who is really LOL-ing?? Virginia schools and DC/MD privates, not to mention all the Asian and European countries that teach intensive and comprehensive coursework to their elementary students. And the test results consistently show that, as do the number of eventual math and engineering college graduates.

Too bad MoCo chose the slow students to set the pace and curriculum, no doubt in order to bring up average scores to mediocrity (proficiency) and receive more federal funds to teach to the lowest denominator.

Funny thing, you get to a real high school or university or the real world job and it's sink or swim. None of this "lets slow down everybody so the ESL kids can "master" whatever, that everyone else already has".

Really? Can you provide the math curriculum used by all these Asian and European countries for grades K-2 so we can compare it to 2.0? I would really like to see the specific differences between this curriculum that is allegedly failing my 1st grader and what the average 1st grader is getting in Germany or Japan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know who is really LOL-ing?? Virginia schools and DC/MD privates, not to mention all the Asian and European countries that teach intensive and comprehensive coursework to their elementary students. And the test results consistently show that, as do the number of eventual math and engineering college graduates.

Too bad MoCo chose the slow students to set the pace and curriculum, no doubt in order to bring up average scores to mediocrity (proficiency) and receive more federal funds to teach to the lowest denominator.

Funny thing, you get to a real high school or university or the real world job and it's sink or swim. None of this "lets slow down everybody so the ESL kids can "master" whatever, that everyone else already has".

Really? Can you provide the math curriculum used by all these Asian and European countries for grades K-2 so we can compare it to 2.0? I would really like to see the specific differences between this curriculum that is allegedly failing my 1st grader and what the average 1st grader is getting in Germany or Japan.

Why don't you try using your own common sense. Dumbing down the curriculum, slowing down the kids who need more and eliminating pathways for kids to excel (math pathways, differentiated classrooms, etc.) will hurt kids. Don't you get it? Curriculum 2.0 is being TESTED on your children. It is nothing more than a pilot-program. Completely untested and unproven - yet rolled out in one of the largest and until-now "best" school districts. That should make you wonder and ask questions. When you start asking, you will have more questions because the rationale for 2.0 is murky at best - driven more by financial incentives and a world-view that suggests no child should be allowed to excel in school (lest anyone less able feel bad). After all, proficient should be good enough under 2.0. It is unconscionable to eliminate opportunities for children to excel in school. That's 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Well said. I hope the new Superintendent is listening and he has more than a teaspoon of brains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you try using your own common sense. Dumbing down the curriculum, slowing down the kids who need more and eliminating pathways for kids to excel (math pathways, differentiated classrooms, etc.) will hurt kids. Don't you get it? Curriculum 2.0 is being TESTED on your children. It is nothing more than a pilot-program. Completely untested and unproven - yet rolled out in one of the largest and until-now "best" school districts. That should make you wonder and ask questions. When you start asking, you will have more questions because the rationale for 2.0 is murky at best - driven more by financial incentives and a world-view that suggests no child should be allowed to excel in school (lest anyone less able feel bad). After all, proficient should be good enough under 2.0. It is unconscionable to eliminate opportunities for children to excel in school. That's 2.0.

Seriously, I get the anger. I've read all these posts. I am just an analytical, often skeptical person, and I would like to base my views on this on real comparative educational data. If people are saying the curriculum is dumbed down compared to that of other nations, I want to see that. I don't want to hear about what someone remembers from when they were a kid in Europe, or what anyone has heard from parents in Japan. I would like to see if there is anything out there describing the math work that early elementary school students are doing abroad, so I can compare it directly with what my child is doing. If there is no data, this is all baseless hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you try using your own common sense. Dumbing down the curriculum, slowing down the kids who need more and eliminating pathways for kids to excel (math pathways, differentiated classrooms, etc.) will hurt kids. Don't you get it? Curriculum 2.0 is being TESTED on your children. It is nothing more than a pilot-program. Completely untested and unproven - yet rolled out in one of the largest and until-now "best" school districts. That should make you wonder and ask questions. When you start asking, you will have more questions because the rationale for 2.0 is murky at best - driven more by financial incentives and a world-view that suggests no child should be allowed to excel in school (lest anyone less able feel bad). After all, proficient should be good enough under 2.0. It is unconscionable to eliminate opportunities for children to excel in school. That's 2.0.

Seriously, I get the anger. I've read all these posts. I am just an analytical, often skeptical person, and I would like to base my views on this on real comparative educational data. If people are saying the curriculum is dumbed down compared to that of other nations, I want to see that. I don't want to hear about what someone remembers from when they were a kid in Europe, or what anyone has heard from parents in Japan. I would like to see if there is anything out there describing the math work that early elementary school students are doing abroad, so I can compare it directly with what my child is doing. If there is no data, this is all baseless hysteria.

Thanks PP - I agree.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, I get the anger. I've read all these posts. I am just an analytical, often skeptical person, and I would like to base my views on this on real comparative educational data. If people are saying the curriculum is dumbed down compared to that of other nations, I want to see that. I don't want to hear about what someone remembers from when they were a kid in Europe, or what anyone has heard from parents in Japan. I would like to see if there is anything out there describing the math work that early elementary school students are doing abroad, so I can compare it directly with what my child is doing. If there is no data, this is all baseless hysteria.

I understand your frustration and need for data. I have 2 children currently in MCPS elementary schools. I have all the data (plenty) I need. The execution of curriculum 2.0 for each of these kids is a disaster. Their older sister was just one step ahead of this nonsense and was appropriately accelerated beginning in Grade 2. Her siblings -- more advanced than her at that stage -- are in limbo (2 years and counting).

[Anonymous]

Ok, DS is only in second grade, so our only experience is with 2.0. It doesn't seem that bad to me. DS is bright, his class has 4 math groups, so there is differentiation in the classroom. He still gets everything right on math tests, but we are not up in arms about it. When DS was a baby and I checked this forum about schools, I seem to recall parents being very critical of Everyday Math. So, are people simply never satisfied with math instruction?

[Anonymous]

Ok, DS is only in second grade, so our only experience is with 2.0. It doesn't seem that bad to me. DS is bright, his class has 4 math groups, so there is differentiation in the classroom. He still gets everything right on math tests, but we are not up in arms about it. When DS was a baby and I checked this forum about schools, I seem to recall parents being very critical of Everyday Math. So, are people simply never satisfied with math instruction?

My daughter took Algebra 1 in the 5th grade in MCPS. Her younger brothers' performance and knowledge base in math were ahead of her in the lower elementary school grades. Now, can you imagine what those boys have been doing the last 2 years without differentiation or an ability to move ahead in their current math classes (short of reading novels during math period while waiting for the class to move on and then being sent to the Principal's office for being disruptive)? My children are not geniuses, but I do know and understand when they each have mastered the curriculum. Perhaps, if you were in their shoes you would understand the situation. I cannot speak for others ... only my own. I am no fan of curriculum 2.0, terrible execution by teachers and administrators, the lack of subject differentiation, the poor math teaching and the banning of acceleration in math for capable and willing students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, DS is only in second grade, so our only experience is with 2.0. It doesn't seem that bad to me. DS is bright, his class has 4 math groups, so there is differentiation in the classroom. He still gets everything right on math tests, but we are not up in arms about it. When DS was a baby and I checked this forum about schools, I seem to recall parents being very critical of Everyday Math. So, are people simply never satisfied with math instruction?

Why are some schools doing differentiation and some not?

[Anonymous]

driven by the competence and philosophy of the math teacher (and or Principal)

[Anonymous]

Those whose kids don't have differentiated math instruction, what do your kids do during the math block? Have you been in class to see it? Is there whole class math instruction? DS's class has no full class math instruction. It is all groups rotating through centers and small group instruction with the teacher. A lot of games and manipulatives. We were told that is how 2.0 is supposed to be for math. Granted, none of the groups are doing algebra, so maybe not differentiated enough for some Tiger moms, but they are definitely working at different levels.

[Anonymous]

I do not believe mothers can get credit for taking math in MCPS elementary school. At least this does not happen at our school. Sounds like you have a progressive school and principal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why don't you try using your own common sense. Dumbing down the curriculum, slowing down the kids who need more and eliminating pathways for kids to excel (math pathways, differentiated classrooms, etc.) will hurt kids. Don't you get it? Curriculum 2.0 is being TESTED on your children. It is nothing more than a pilot-program. Completely untested and unproven - yet rolled out in one of the largest and until-now "best" school districts. That should make you wonder and ask questions. When you start asking, you will have more questions because the rationale for 2.0 is murky at best - driven more by financial incentives and a world-view that suggests no child should be allowed to excel in school (lest anyone less able feel bad). After all, proficient should be good enough under 2.0. It is unconscionable to eliminate opportunities for children to excel in school. That's 2.0.

Seriously, I get the anger. I've read all these posts. I am just an analytical, often skeptical person, and I would like to base my views on this on real comparative educational data. If people are saying the curriculum is dumbed down compared to that of other nations, I want to see that. I don't want to hear about what someone remembers from when they were a kid in Europe, or what anyone has heard from parents in Japan. I would like to see if there is anything out there describing the math work that early elementary school students are doing abroad, so I can compare it directly with what my child is doing. If there is no data, this is all baseless hysteria.

PP, I think that is a very reasonable question. Do you have any Russian friends? I am considered a lazy parent by most other Russians I know, the majority of whom do at least 30 minutes of "extra math" a day with their kids. They often use the very same textbooks they had learned from themselves back in the 1970s. If you don't know anyone who you could ask to show you their textbook, the "Russia Online" bookstore in Kensington has very friendly bilingual staff and a whole section of educational books for kids. There are some free websites as well, with worksheets for every grade level, that you may be able to read with Google Translate. Note that in Russia as in most European nations the curriculum is standardized across the entire country. So while some parents may be teaching their kids more advanced material than what a "typical" student at their grade level is learning "back home", a 1-st grade textbook is always a 1-st grade textbook.

Not that I am saying you have to do all that. I think that would be kinda crazy, actually. I certainly cannot imagine myself, as a parent of a 1st-grader, chasing after the Chinese moms in my neighborhood, asking to see their math textbooks to make sure that my kid was not falling behind their Tiger Cub.

But this year, I learned that DD's school will no longer offer the option for 5th graders to take 7th grade math. And the supposedly 6th-grade-level worksheets she is bringing home are really easy, definitely much easier than the "6-th grade extensions" she got last year. (Repercussions of 2.0? Her 4th grade teacher hinted as much.)

So not only are we now doing 15 minutes of "extra math" a day but I actually compared, for the first time, the "old" MCPS curriculum against the standard Russian curriculum found in these books and websites. Until about 5th grade they are fairly close. The main difference is the Russian curriculum goes into greater depth in arithmetic, with an emphasis on "tricky" word problems, whereas the MCPS curriculum takes what I personally feel to be confusing and largely useless tangents into probability and statistics. However, by 7th grade, Russian students are taking a rigorous algebra course as well as a proof-based geometry course. MCPS students taking Math B rehash 5th grade arithmetic and get their first introduction to equations and basic geometric concepts.

My takeaway from this is that the early elementary curriculum is probably ok as long as the "quick" students receive some challenge problems to keep them from getting bored. (My parents used to just point me to a bookshelf containing the translated works of Martin Gardner. I read them under my desk in math class and the teacher did not seem to mind.) The time to get worried is 5th grade.

That said, forcing 3rd grade students who took 4th grade math the previous year to repeat 3rd grade is careless and cruel and should not be tolerated. It may not affect us personally, but if there are any petitions circulating (meetings being held, torches and pitchforks being handed out, etc), just show me where to sign up.

[Anonymous]

Mothers and fathers and children that are more than satisfied with the challenge their kids are now getting in MCPS math curriculum 2.0 should be eternally grateful. Their opinion regarding unchallenged children in the MCPS system is totally irrelevant, invalid and immaterial to those children and families. This is should be obvious.