2.0

[Anonymous]

I am sure that this topic has been covered ad nauseum, but as a new Kindergarten parent with nothing to compare it to except my own MCPS education way too many years ago, I am taking what the propaganda is telling me about how great this new curriculum at face value. So far, it makes sense. The little video on the grading system makes sense. What am I missing? Why do people hate it so much? My school seems to really push for high acheivement in reading (above the county requirements) and has already started to assess the kids for skill coming in so they can group them. My son got identified to do Jr. Great Books and that seems like a great program. So help me understand where the objections lie.

thanks!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am sure that this topic has been covered ad nauseum, but as a new Kindergarten parent with nothing to compare it to except my own MCPS education way too many years ago, I am taking what the propaganda is telling me about how great this new curriculum at face value. So far, it makes sense. The little video on the grading system makes sense. What am I missing? Why do people hate it so much? My school seems to really push for high acheivement in reading (above the county requirements) and has already started to assess the kids for skill coming in so they can group them. My son got identified to do Jr. Great Books and that seems like a great program. So help me understand where the objections lie.

thanks!!!

I'm with you.... People fear change. Based on everything I've I don't see where kids will not be allowed to advance. I welcome the approach of getting a deeper understanding of math for example instead of just memorizing tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure that this topic has been covered ad nauseum, but as a new Kindergarten parent with nothing to compare it to except my own MCPS education way too many years ago, I am taking what the propaganda is telling me about how great this new curriculum at face value. So far, it makes sense. The little video on the grading system makes sense. What am I missing? Why do people hate it so much? My school seems to really push for high acheivement in reading (above the county requirements) and has already started to assess the kids for skill coming in so they can group them. My son got identified to do Jr. Great Books and that seems like a great program. So help me understand where the objections lie.

thanks!!!

I'm with you.... People fear change. Based on everything I've I don't see where kids will not be allowed to advance. I welcome the approach of getting a deeper understanding of math for example instead of just memorizing tables.

I think the concern comes from people who feel that their children DO have a deeper understanding of the math but can't then get out of being taught the same thing over and over. It seems as though there is no way of proving competency and moving ahead--instead, they just get more of the same. (And depending on the classroom and the teacher, the "extensions" may not be all that inspiring.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sure that this topic has been covered ad nauseum, but as a new Kindergarten parent with nothing to compare it to except my own MCPS education way too many years ago, I am taking what the propaganda is telling me about how great this new curriculum at face value. So far, it makes sense. The little video on the grading system makes sense. What am I missing? Why do people hate it so much? My school seems to really push for high acheivement in reading (above the county requirements) and has already started to assess the kids for skill coming in so they can group them. My son got identified to do Jr. Great Books and that seems like a great program. So help me understand where the objections lie.

thanks!!!

I'm with you.... People fear change. Based on everything I've I don't see where kids will not be allowed to advance. I welcome the approach of getting a deeper understanding of math for example instead of just memorizing tables.

I think the concern comes from people who feel that their children DO have a deeper understanding of the math but can't then get out of being taught the same thing over and over. It seems as though there is no way of proving competency and moving ahead--instead, they just get more of the same. (And depending on the classroom and the teacher, the "extensions" may not be all that inspiring.)

It doesn't matter how parents "feel". Students are assessed on this... Just because you can do higher math doesn't necessarily mean you understand some basic concepts. There are millions of people walking around today like this... Once you ask them something outside of the box they crumble because they can't think for themselves and have simply learned rules.

[Anonymous]

2.0 is a load of crap if there is no way of assessing a students's capability (or teacher's capability) before, during and after implementation. After 2 MCPS school calendar years of this nonsense...that's all my children take away from this social experiment. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is that 2.0 eliminates opportunities for kids to move ahead/get enrichment or acceleration. Just last year, kids in my DC's class were grouped by ability for math and worked at an appropriate pace to that group. This year, the class all works together. So, the best math student in the grade and the worst student in the grade are doing the same work at the same time. That just can't be an efficient use of teacher time. It can't incentivize kids to do their best (faster kids get held back to the pace of the slower kids; slower kids feel pressured to rush to keep pace with faster kids). Everyone loses in this.
I encourage the OP to look past the PR hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Students are assessed on this... Just because you can do higher math doesn't necessarily mean you understand some basic concepts.

So when are they assessed on it? How often? Do you know for certain that they are assessed on a regular basis and either allowed to move on or given more instruction?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter how parents "feel". Students are assessed on this... Just because you can do higher math doesn't necessarily mean you understand some basic concepts. There are millions of people walking around today like this... Once you ask them something outside of the box they crumble because they can't think for themselves and have simply learned rules.

If you have mastered fractions and all their sundry manipulations you can add, multply, divide, factor and understand the associative, commutative and distributive properties. That child should not be confined to 1st, 2nd or 3rd math grade curricula. Unfortunately, most MCPS principals and teachers in MCPS elementary school here have no fundamental grasp of math education. This is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2.0 is a load of crap if there is no way of assessing a students's capability (or teacher's capability) before, during and after implementation. After 2 MCPS school calendar years of this nonsense...that's all my children take away from this social experiment. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap.

OP here: but why a load of crap. I am looking for specific criticisms that help me really understand what the problems are. Is the main complaint math? Or are there other issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Students are assessed on this... Just because you can do higher math doesn't necessarily mean you understand some basic concepts.

So when are they assessed on it? How often? Do you know for certain that they are assessed on a regular basis and either allowed to move on or given more instruction?

Its specifically states that kids are assessed 3 times per semester if I'm not mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter how parents "feel". Students are assessed on this... Just because you can do higher math doesn't necessarily mean you understand some basic concepts. There are millions of people walking around today like this... Once you ask them something outside of the box they crumble because they can't think for themselves and have simply learned rules.

If you have mastered fractions and all their sundry manipulations you can add, multply, divide, factor and understand the associative, commutative and distributive properties. That child should not be confined to 1st, 2nd or 3rd math grade curricula. Unfortunately, most MCPS principals and teachers in MCPS elementary school here have no fundamental grasp of math education. This is a fact.

Sure if you can demonstrate that understanding when pressed you should move on, if you just now how to get the right answer you should not. Thats the whole issue... I have the feeling that most parents complaining do not know the distinction.

[Anonymous]

Tell us where a 2nd grader will move on to in his second grade MCPS math class -if he or she passes your test? You seem to have all the answers.

[Anonymous]

I would love to hear some middle and high school math teachers weigh in on this issue. From what I have heard, elementary schools got some pushback from middle and high school math teachers who complained that many of the kids who got accelerated math in ES were lacking in some basic fundamental understanding of the concepts they learned. They could do math, but like party tricks. They didn't really understand what they were doing. Now of course there are always going to be a few kids who really do get it and can move much more quickly. But I don't think that number is as large as the number of parents screaming that Johnny will wilt without learning calculus in 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you have mastered fractions and all their sundry manipulations you can add, multply, divide, factor and understand the associative, commutative and distributive properties. That child should not be confined to 1st, 2nd or 3rd math grade curricula. Unfortunately, most MCPS principals and teachers in MCPS elementary school here have no fundamental grasp of math education. This is a fact.

I will be devil's advocate. Assume you have a child who has mastered spoken and written French, and all their school has to offer is brief PTA-sponsored after-school French class. Or a child who has been taking Suzuki violin since they were 3, and all the school has to offer is introductory violin in 4th grade. Should they be confined to the school's curriculum? From an outsider's perspective this is what it sounds like to me to have to provide acceleration two or three grade levels ahead in math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you have mastered fractions and all their sundry manipulations you can add, multply, divide, factor and understand the associative, commutative and distributive properties. That child should not be confined to 1st, 2nd or 3rd math grade curricula. Unfortunately, most MCPS principals and teachers in MCPS elementary school here have no fundamental grasp of math education. This is a fact.

I will be devil's advocate. Assume you have a child who has mastered spoken and written French, and all their school has to offer is brief PTA-sponsored after-school French class. Or a child who has been taking Suzuki violin since they were 3, and all the school has to offer is introductory violin in 4th grade. Should they be confined to the school's curriculum? From an outsider's perspective this is what it sounds like to me to have to provide acceleration two or three grade levels ahead in math.

Another good point which is often overlooked... its like a first grade teacher being required to teach addition and Calculus