I have average-bright kids and I hate Starr and 2.0 too
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Sorry for the proclamation but I just want to put out there that the hatred for 2.0 is not just about gifted kids not getting a good education. My kids are smart but not academically motivated by traditional work. They get bored and while they pick up concepts quickly they are perfectly happy for things to be easy. They just aren't academically cometitive or self motivated if it isn't interesting. This curriculum is terrible for them because they are not learning how to challenge themselves or gain any study skills. They will probably end up as a C students some point down the road. If there was any instruction or student based reward for doing better academically, they would respond and learn what I thought they would get from MCPS. I was wrong.
I'm putting this out there because I'm not alone but the debate about 2.0 always seems to be from the parents of gifted kids not the average kids. This will not help change the situation because MCPS hates the "gifted' parents and tries to hide the shortcomings of 2.0 as just a bunch of gifted parents complaining. It would be nice if the parents being so vocal through the GTA and other gifted groups would reach out to the parents of average kids. We're pissed off too. |
Anonymous
|
What, specifically, about Curriculum 2.0 is unchallenging and anti-study-skills for them?
How did the previous curriculum challenge them and give them study skills? How do you know that it's the curriculum, and not something else, for example the teachers? What do you mean by "student based reward for doing better academically" -- grades? or...? |
Anonymous
| I thought 2.0 ws supposed to go more in depth and involve more written expression....?.....but I really don't know.... |
Anonymous
I agree! I also think it is important to recognize that this is socialism. That's right 2.0 s socialism. We don't like it b/c this is socialism at its core. It is "let's pretend everyone is equal" but those with real economic or political power will have the means to opt out (either by moving or going private). This is why it feels so wrong. |
Anonymous
| 2.0 is nationalizing the means of production? |
Anonymous
| Wha? Lack of incentives leads to mediocrity, bad habits, and boredom? No way! |
Anonymous
| I grew up in a socialist country. Calling 2.0 socialist is an insult, to socialism. There is nothing more incentive rich than schools in China. |
Anonymous
| Are you saying that elementary students should get letter grades, because otherwise they won't be motivated to learn? |
Anonymous
Better than the current grades nonsense. I am not the op though. |
Anonymous
There is less writing not more. Math is very easy. They don't even need to think at all. My older child had more writing assignments and homework than my younger children do now. My kids are not the types who will just compose stories or write independently if there isn't an assignment. I saw a lot of improvement with my older child because he had assignments to do and was always given work the next level up even though he isn't brilliant. It didn't take him hours or anything but he had to at least think and do the work. My younger kids are not getting the same practice or opportunity to learn unless I impose a second curriculum which I don't really want to do. For math, the way 2.0 in our school is working is that kids only get enrichment if they finish everything, ask for it, and demonstrate something magical. I've seen a few enrichment assignments and they are not any more difficult than the basic ones anyway. My kids are also not ones to ask for more to do. They are happy to doodle or talk with others. My kids are not gifted but they could become very good students if they went to a school that actually taught something and gave a damn whether kids were learning. |
Anonymous
Actually there is a big emphasis on writing. Each marking period there is a large writing project. I know this because at the school where I work the computer lab always sems to be occupied by a lower grade. The staff development teacher explained to me that 2.0 has the kids on the computers quite a bit with regards to writing. Maybe you don't see a lot coming home, but know that it takes a long time to get through a writing piece (probably involves research, many lessons, completing different organizers, etc.). When I see a primary grade in the computer lab, there are also a handful of parents in there as well. It's quite a bit of time and effort to get a class full of 1st grade kids through the writing process when technology is involved. I teach an upper grade, so 2.0 hasn't hit us yet. |
Anonymous
|
Another bad idea of 2.0. Get the writing solid first, then add in technology. Unless a child has a LD, no need to use computers for writing until they start big essays.
The more I hear about 2.0, the worse it sounds. |
Anonymous
|
Commenter at 11:03: what evidence do you have that C2.0 is putting children on computers more than the previous curriculum?
My pre-C2.0 child was in the computer lab once a week. My C2.0 child is in the computer lab once a week. Or is it just that, if something isn't right, it must be the fault of C2.0? |
Anonymous
|
I COMPLETELY agree with you, OP.
Basically the whole school day is a waste of time, and my son starts learning when he gets home. Were it not for providing essential social skills in a group setting, home-schooling would be better. My son is seriously unmotivated this year and he just coasts along doing nothing. It frustrates me enormously to see my voracious and perceptive bookworm, who animatedly discusses so many fascinating topics at the dinner table, turn into the most uninvolved daydreamer in the classroom. I do not think it is a problem with the teacher. She is experienced, kind and calm. But there is no way she can handle differenciation and acceleration for that many children. So the problem is with 2.0. |
Anonymous
| 2.3 billion dollar bureaucracy with little trickle down to student education |