Does anyone like Curriculum 2.0?

[Anonymous]

By eliminating opportunities for achievement, enrichment and acceleration (where appropriate), it seems like 2.0 wants to dismantle the very things that made MCPS so good in the past. Why? Why? Why? Who's ideology is driving this? Is it Sup. Starr? Is it the school board? Who? Parents deserve answers and kids deserve better!

I agree with this statement. We got to this point by the system being too big and top down, enough parents having the financial resources to just walk away go to private or do tutoring outside of school, a defensive mindset within MCPS, and Starr's shortcomings as a leader. Starr did not kick off the ball t develop 2.0 but the complete failure and rigidity in implementation is on him. His arrogance and dismissal of any parent or teacher concern means that any improvement or change will be a hard fought battle.

Re-introducing acceleration and a rational grading system would not mean that everything in 2.0 would need to be thrown out. There is no reason why a performance based grading system can not work with this curriculum. MCPS desperately wants everyone to believe that what is done is done and can't be altered. This is just completely untrue.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

The curriculum has been in development since before he came, but his ideology and opposition to ability grouping was evident in his days in Stamford.

[Anonymous]

I understand that. I am taking issue with people's lumping of Dr. Starr's ideology and the curriculum in together...they want to throw out the curriculum (that covers 8 other subject areas in addition to math, by the way) because their child can no longer be placed in a math class three grade levels ahead. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

The curriculum has been in development since before he came, but his ideology and opposition to ability grouping was evident in his days in Stamford.

There is still a lot of ability grouping so I don't see how this is achieving his goal. In my first grader's class, there are separate groups for reading, writing and math that are all ability based. She knows exactly what level each of her peers is performing at. And in my 3rd grader's class, they pull out advanced kids for reading and math a couple of times a week. It is clear from talks with my 3rd grader that everyone knows that those are the smart kids. So I don't see how limiting students to on-grade level instruction is achieving the social justice goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

The curriculum has been in development since before he came, but his ideology and opposition to ability grouping was evident in his days in Stamford.

There is still a lot of ability grouping so I don't see how this is achieving his goal. In my first grader's class, there are separate groups for reading, writing and math that are all ability based. She knows exactly what level each of her peers is performing at. And in my 3rd grader's class, they pull out advanced kids for reading and math a couple of times a week. It is clear from talks with my 3rd grader that everyone knows that those are the smart kids. So I don't see how limiting students to on-grade level instruction is achieving the social justice goal.

Our school doesn't pull out in third grade for accelerated math. In fact, my DC's teacher keeps insisting up and down that there are no groups. However, my DC has told me it's obvious that there are groups. There seems to be a lot of variations in how each school interprets 2.0 and for the most part I don't feel as if the schools are being forthcoming with information.

[Anonymous]

bump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

The curriculum has been in development since before he came, but his ideology and opposition to ability grouping was evident in his days in Stamford.

There is still a lot of ability grouping so I don't see how this is achieving his goal. In my first grader's class, there are separate groups for reading, writing and math that are all ability based. She knows exactly what level each of her peers is performing at. And in my 3rd grader's class, they pull out advanced kids for reading and math a couple of times a week. It is clear from talks with my 3rd grader that everyone knows that those are the smart kids. So I don't see how limiting students to on-grade level instruction is achieving the social justice goal.

Would you please let me know which school your DC attend? We are buying a house and want to be in a better school. DC 6 and 8 don't like school any more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS should be ashamed of the 2.0 curriculum. Last year, as a 2nd grader, my DC loved math and looked forward to math every day. Last year, our school hadn't yet implemented 2.0 and my DC was able to do 3rd grade math in a separate classroom in which he thrived. This year, as a 3rd grader under 2.0, my DC is in a large class of 3rd graders of all different ability levels where he is re-doing 3rd grade math (but a much simpler version of what he did last year). He dislikes math this year and complains routinely about how boring it is.

I initially trusted the teachers and administrators who promised that they would make sure that everyone's needs would be met under 2.0. Well, a quick glance at the classwork and homework tells a different story. The homework looks like busy-time in a Kindergarten class. Last week it was "color 1/2 of the circle blue." That was it. Pathetic.

Name your school, please!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you Pp. In fact, I think your points demonstrate that there is more to this curriculum than meets the eye. It is really about an ideology (an ideology that is about mediocrity for all, lack of objective measurements, twisted ideas about social justice and equality). Under this ideology, the needs of individual students (and groups of students) are sacrificed to the purported greater good of "leveling the playing field.". However, they do it by dumbing down the curriculum and eliminating any assessments that would show that some kids, in fact, accel at academics. This is the "everyone gets a medal" soccer mentality.

This is not true at all. Dr. Starr's "ideology" that many on here complain about has been around for less than 2 years, since he is new here. This curriculum has been in development for the last five years. It is really not that complicated. The curriculum is about infusing critical thinking skills into the subjects. It's based on state standards, no one pulled it out of nowhere...there are a lot of tin foil hats on DCUM.

The curriculum has been in development since before he came, but his ideology and opposition to ability grouping was evident in his days in Stamford.

There is still a lot of ability grouping so I don't see how this is achieving his goal. In my first grader's class, there are separate groups for reading, writing and math that are all ability based. She knows exactly what level each of her peers is performing at. And in my 3rd grader's class, they pull out advanced kids for reading and math a couple of times a week. It is clear from talks with my 3rd grader that everyone knows that those are the smart kids. So I don't see how limiting students to on-grade level instruction is achieving the social justice goal.

Our school doesn't pull out in third grade for accelerated math. In fact, my DC's teacher keeps insisting up and down that there are no groups. However, my DC has told me it's obvious that there are groups. There seems to be a lot of variations in how each school interprets 2.0 and for the most part I don't feel as if the schools are being forthcoming with information.

Name your school, please!

[Anonymous]

I think the curriculum is okay. What I don't like is the assessment/report card. We rarely get feedback as to how well our child is doing until the the report card. Very few graded papers are coming home. Spelling tests are apparently given weekly, but we never see the papers come home graded. The report card is confusing and too subjective. Proficent doesn't tell me much about how much of the material my child is understanding. 70%, 80%, 90%, 95%?! My child also feels he doesn't receive enough feedback so he doesn't feel any desire to push harder because "No matter what I do I mostly get a P." On the rare papers that do come home we see perfect papers with a P on them and papers where he's missed 3 problems out of 10 with a P on them. So the P is meaningless to us. Where are the objective measures?

[Anonymous]

Well said!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in too.

LET'S DO IT!!!!

Even the teachers hate this new curriculum and complain. Parents don't like it either (except for those who have great teachers who make up for what 2.0 lacks.

However, educators who sit in an office away from the kids all the time think it's best for our kids. I don't want my kid part of this high risk experiment any longer.

Our kids are being used as guinea pigs in a very high risk experiment indeed.



The teachers hate 2.0, the principals hate 2.0 and many, many parents hate it. This is a top-down, bureaucracy-driven social experiment. It is about removing opportunities for high-achieving students. It is about one-size-fits-all in a giant school system. It is about dismantling the entire curriculum in order to (supposedly) correct over-acceleration. Guess what? If the problem was "over acceleration" then the solution is to simply stop over accelerating! You don't need to change (dumb down) the curriculum, eliminate unit testing, change the report card, and eliminate grouping by ability in order to address prior over-acceleration. When the "solution" is a wholesale overhaul of the system like this, you need to be very suspicious. This curriculum that is all about an ideology (of mediocrity). THAT has nothing to do with remedying past over-acceleration.

This curriculum will lead to a greater-than-ever divide of the haves vs. the have-nots. Public school kids will be hindered under this system meanwhile the kids attending private schools will not. Students at Sidwell, St. Albans, Holton, NCS, etc. will not be subjected to this system - but our public school kids will. Already, parents who are able to pay are contemplating moving kids out of our "high-functioning" elementary school. In addition, parents with financial resources are choosing to supplement with tutoring or outside academic programs. I've never before seen such a stark difference between public vs. private (or between financial resources vs. not). By eliminating opportunities for achievement, enrichment and acceleration (where appropriate), it seems like 2.0 wants to dismantle the very things that made MCPS so good in the past. Why? Why? Why? Who's ideology is driving this? Is it Sup. Starr? Is it the school board? Who? Parents deserve answers and kids deserve better!

[Anonymous]

There is still a lot of ability grouping so I don't see how this is achieving his goal. In my first grader's class, there are separate groups for reading, writing and math that are all ability based. She knows exactly what level each of her peers is performing at. And in my 3rd grader's class, they pull out advanced kids for reading and math a couple of times a week. It is clear from talks with my 3rd grader that everyone knows that those are the smart kids. So I don't see how limiting students to on-grade level instruction is achieving the social justice goal.

Do you mind to tell us the name of the school?

[Anonymous]

I am not in Mont. County but in another Maryland county school. I don't like that I was sent a letter over the summer that informed me my rising 3rd grade son would be in GT reading and math this fall. Come to find out at Back to School night that there really is no GT anymore. I do like that they finally got rid of the lame anthology reading books and are now reading actual books. I feel like they sent us these GT letters to keep us quiet about there not being a separate GT class anymore. Isn't it in COMAR that there should be a separate GT curriculum? My son has been reading many grades levels above his current grade since he started K and now, the first year he is eligible to be in GT classes, they no longer offer them. I understand that they want to allow all students to be challenged but to get rid of classes that finally challenge the advanced students is a mistake.