Are any parents organizing to speak out again 2.0?

[Anonymous]

I know that there is a petition but are there any parent groups forming to raise their concerns about 2.0? The PTAs in most of the schools in our area are very weak, poorly attended, and don't attract much parent involvement. Our PTA only focuses on social activities.

[Anonymous]

Based on my experience, I'd rather organize to speak out in favor of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that there is a petition but are there any parent groups forming to raise their concerns about 2.0? The PTAs in most of the schools in our area are very weak, poorly attended, and don't attract much parent involvement. Our PTA only focuses on social activities.

The outrage against 2.0 is purely an Internet phenomenon.

[Anonymous]

No, the outrage is real whether you realize it or agree with it. High achieving kids are being left behind and bored under 2.0. True that group may be a small percentage of the total school population, but their needs should be met.
Imagine if the county decided to ignore the needs of special-needs students. Would that be ok just because those kids aren't the majority of students? No, of course not.
But, with the high achieving students, mcps is essentially saying "too bad either get into a gt center (even though there aren't nearly enough spots and they aren't convenient to all students) or go to private school, we won't meet your needs.

[Anonymous]

Not so. Just unglue your eyes and pea brain from the screen and chat with those not on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the outrage is real whether you realize it or agree with it. High achieving kids are being left behind and bored under 2.0. True that group may be a small percentage of the total school population, but their needs should be met.
Imagine if the county decided to ignore the needs of special-needs students. Would that be ok just because those kids aren't the majority of students? No, of course not.
But, with the high achieving students, mcps is essentially saying "too bad either get into a gt center (even though there aren't nearly enough spots and they aren't convenient to all students) or go to private school, we won't meet your needs.

Do you really think that this is not said to parents of SN kids? We are told you get what we decide to give you and if you're not happy, get services on your own or find a private school and pay for it on your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that there is a petition but are there any parent groups forming to raise their concerns about 2.0? The PTAs in most of the schools in our area are very weak, poorly attended, and don't attract much parent involvement. Our PTA only focuses on social activities.

The outrage against 2.0 is purely an Internet phenomenon.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the outrage is real whether you realize it or agree with it. High achieving kids are being left behind and bored under 2.0. True that group may be a small percentage of the total school population, but their needs should be met.
Imagine if the county decided to ignore the needs of special-needs students. Would that be ok just because those kids aren't the majority of students? No, of course not.
But, with the high achieving students, mcps is essentially saying "too bad either get into a gt center (even though there aren't nearly enough spots and they aren't convenient to all students) or go to private school, we won't meet your needs.

Do you really think that this is not said to parents of SN kids? We are told you get what we decide to give you and if you're not happy, get services on your own or find a private school and pay for it on your own.

If that is true, that is terrible too. I know, however, in our school that there are all sorts of special needs accommodations that require resources, time, etc. I support those efforts to accommodate those students. Accommodating higher achieving students, like I am advocating, would for example mean simply grouping those students together for math or reading or whatever for some or all of the day. This doesn't even cost anything. It seems like MCPS has a bias against students who achieve more than the grade level minimum standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the outrage is real whether you realize it or agree with it. High achieving kids are being left behind and bored under 2.0. True that group may be a small percentage of the total school population, but their needs should be met.
Imagine if the county decided to ignore the needs of special-needs students. Would that be ok just because those kids aren't the majority of students? No, of course not.
But, with the high achieving students, mcps is essentially saying "too bad either get into a gt center (even though there aren't nearly enough spots and they aren't convenient to all students) or go to private school, we won't meet your needs.

My high achieving kids are having their needs met more this year than in years past. My first grader gets books from the third grade teacher and continues to get more difficult work each quarter. I am VERY happy with 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If that is true, that is terrible too. I know, however, in our school that there are all sorts of special needs accommodations that require resources, time, etc. I support those efforts to accommodate those students. Accommodating higher achieving students, like I am advocating, would for example mean simply grouping those students together for math or reading or whatever for some or all of the day. This doesn't even cost anything. It seems like MCPS has a bias against students who achieve more than the grade level minimum standard.

This is NOT simple. It is anything but simple. This is a school system with 144,000 children. 64,000 of them are in elementary alone. Some of them learned to read at 2 and are several grade levels advanced. Some of them just arrived here and don't speak English. (Some of them are both!) Curriculum 2.0 is an attempt to get the curriculum in line with national common core standards, holding all students to a high standard while somehow managing to serve students well at both the top and the bottom. The old system worked very well for the top, not so well for the bottom. I really have to hand it to them -- they are trying. And I see nothing that says they are not succeeding so far, except on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that there is a petition but are there any parent groups forming to raise their concerns about 2.0? The PTAs in most of the schools in our area are very weak, poorly attended, and don't attract much parent involvement. Our PTA only focuses on social activities.

The outrage against 2.0 is purely an Internet phenomenon.

Agree.

DCUM is the only place I see people voicing negative opinions about 2.0.

[Anonymous]

I'm a realtor in MD and the curriculum question keeps coming up. I actually never steer them to dcum, and feed them historical facts. The school district IS still great, but there are a lot of questions.
My branch head said the teaching to proficiency is an Obama Education goal so many school districts nationally are going thru this. They are incentivized to do the same thing, bring up the average of the test scores. It's easier to do this by focusing on the bottom students and ESL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that there is a petition but are there any parent groups forming to raise their concerns about 2.0? The PTAs in most of the schools in our area are very weak, poorly attended, and don't attract much parent involvement. Our PTA only focuses on social activities.

The outrage against 2.0 is purely an Internet phenomenon.

Agree.

+1

[Anonymous]

The outrage against 2.0 is purely an Internet phenomenon.

This is an odd statement. I hear more complaining from actual parents and teachers and have only heard praise about it on DCUM and from school administrators. I don't think its an Internet phenomenon. It seems like half of our school have enrolled in Kumon. We know a few people with money who were planning on doing public K-8 and then private high school that decided to switch to private for elementary and middle school. On the extreme end of the spectrum. We actually know 3 families who will stay in Montgomery County if their child gets into a GT center but plan to move to VA if they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If that is true, that is terrible too. I know, however, in our school that there are all sorts of special needs accommodations that require resources, time, etc. I support those efforts to accommodate those students. Accommodating higher achieving students, like I am advocating, would for example mean simply grouping those students together for math or reading or whatever for some or all of the day. This doesn't even cost anything. It seems like MCPS has a bias against students who achieve more than the grade level minimum standard.

This is NOT simple. It is anything but simple. This is a school system with 144,000 children. 64,000 of them are in elementary alone. Some of them learned to read at 2 and are several grade levels advanced. Some of them just arrived here and don't speak English. (Some of them are both!) Curriculum 2.0 is an attempt to get the curriculum in line with national common core standards, holding all students to a high standard while somehow managing to serve students well at both the top and the bottom. The old system worked very well for the top, not so well for the bottom. I really have to hand it to them -- they are trying. And I see nothing that says they are not succeeding so far, except on DCUM.

The problem parents have is that some high achieving kids learned more in school LAST year b/f 2.0 was rolled out in our school. So, the school that taught them more advanced work last year (so, not an issue of a kid just showing up with certain knowledge - but this is work sanctioned by MCPS last year) is now giving them remedial-type work this year. This is happening and parents are, of course, the first to see it!

The administration is not able to speak freely and publicly know matter how much they may disagree with 2.0 (fear, job security, etc.). Parents have started speaking out, but we are all told that we are wrong. Ok. Proof then. Oh wait, the report cards have changed (no way to really quantify and measure this new 2.0 with these gobbledegook report cards), no more unit tests (another convenient way to avoid assessing how this 2.0 is working) and even Sup. Starr wanting to do away with standardized testing for 3 years (another convenient way to avoid proof that the kids in MCPS are falling off the academic grid. To the poster looking for proof: don't hold your breath. 2.0 is designed to be smoke and mirrors - no way to realize it is a disaster until it's too late. Trust the parents who are speaking out and trust the teachers who - like hostages unable to speak freely -- are sending signals and, in hushed tones, raising a lot of alarm bells about this ridiculous curriculum.

I believe it would be a profile in courage moment for a high profile administrator (principal or someone in the MCPS bureaucracy) to speak the truth about 2.0. Parents know that many in MCPS privately admit it is horrible and represents a "dumbing down" of education. It would be an amazing moment for someone of courage within the system to take a stand. Talk about becoming the instant face of a movement - one that represents excellence and resisting the dumbing down movement. That would be a game changer. So, to anyone out there from MCPS who knows what parents know about the inadequacy of 2.0, please speak out and be "partners in our kids education" in a way that means something.