New grading system in MCPS --why???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually do not have a problem with N, I and P, under the condition that there is a defined and uniformly applied level of mastery to get a P. I do have a big problem with how MCPS is implementing the 4th point, the ES.

There is no value in offering a rare and random measurement on a report card. Our principal has pointed out that ES will be rare because many times an ES can not be achieved because there is no opportunity to do more than the assignment. She gave math examples of where this would be apply. ES will also not represent above grade work so a child doing enrichment in math would still get a P for getting all the answers correct. In other subjects it may or may not be given but probably not.

You will have no idea when you see your child's report card why they received an ES in some subjects and Ps in others. You will have no idea whether they could have achieved an ES if they had done something differently. There is no opportunity for the child to apply themselves and work harder in subjects where they are less gifted and get the reward of a higher grade. This is just wrong because the value of education is to reward merit not just natural talents.

I loved our teacher last year who is more old school. She gave the kids spelling tests every week and the words went home each week for practice. My child is not gifted at spelling, she's terrible at it. She did extra practice every week and was incredibly proud to get everything correct each week and move from an S to O. The lesson that she learned wasn't about spelling, it was that sometimes you need to work to learn and there is reward if you do this.

My child is a kick ass speller. But it won't matter, because they are not even graded on spelling on the new report card.

[Anonymous]

You shouldn't have recycle the overview, as that was an ignorant move. And FWIW, maybe you should learn to be a bit more resourceful by looking up definitions.

I know what metacognition means; that wasn't the point of what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that mixing in a bunch of overwrought intellectual buzzwords doesn't make a curriculum any better for the children who are learning. I further would question how one could objectively evaluate a student's "metacognition" at the tender age of 7.

Also, I think using"Jerry's kids" as a perjorative is an ignorant move.

[Anonymous]

Ahhh, here we go again......

Please communicate with your child's teacher. They are full of information about 2.0 and their perspective of it. Mine said 2.0 isn't ready for prime time, but she does believe in the curriculum change. She is not appreciating the over zealous parents who are not understanding the paradigm shift. She's working 12 hour days to make sure the kids get what they need (i.e., she is actually planning for the kids). If you get a teacher who isn't adapting the curriculum for the kids, I think you have a problem.

I am not thrilled about "P" being the top, but if the goal is your child learning and building each concept they have mastered, they have mastered, it is acceptable.

I just remember as a kid wanting to do the best. If everyone get a "P" , then how does a kid find that desire to be the best? It's like giving a ribbon to every kid who shows up, but not rewarding the winner. It's aspiration to mediocrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You shouldn't have recycle the overview, as that was an ignorant move. And FWIW, maybe you should learn to be a bit more resourceful by looking up definitions.

I know what metacognition means; that wasn't the point of what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that mixing in a bunch of overwrought intellectual buzzwords doesn't make a curriculum any better for the children who are learning. I further would question how one could objectively evaluate a student's "metacognition" at the tender age of 7.

Also, I think using"Jerry's kids" as a perjorative is an ignorant move.

Step in my shoes and then tell me Jerry's kids isn't appropriate. These children have been enabled since K - passed along regardless of mastery.

And yes, you can assess metacognition at a young age. They are learning HOW to learn at the elementary level. A graphic organizer that has them connect prior knowledge to new information is assessing metacognition. So if you read about the farm, you find out if any kids have ever VISITED a farm.

You have them identify what they don't know with a KWL. That way they figure out HOW to fill in the gaps. You use Think Alouds. So a teacher will model HOW to solve a problem through demonstrating process and communicating the process aloud.

You debrief processes. That way, students can hear from each other, which naturally leads to discourse at the advanced levels.

So please don't make fun of the educational terms. Learn about them, and if you have a question, email the teacher.

Ignorant responses like yours make me cringe.

[Anonymous]

Look, fine. You and I clearly don't see eye to eye. I don't think that larding summaries of a curriculum for parental consumption with terms of art and jargon is a good way to communicate with us educational laypersons (if I were explaining my job to you, I wouldn't use every industry-specific term I use with my coworkers). Frankly, I still think that your language is deplorable and cruel, and I would have a lot more respect for your input if you showed more compassion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, fine. You and I clearly don't see eye to eye. I don't think that larding summaries of a curriculum for parental consumption with terms of art and jargon is a good way to communicate with us educational laypersons (if I were explaining my job to you, I wouldn't use every industry-specific term I use with my coworkers). Frankly, I still think that your language is deplorable and cruel, and I would have a lot more respect for your input if you showed more compassion.

So b/c I'm tough I have no compassion? You're blaming me for trying to teach 18 year olds how to read after being passed along for years?

All I'm saying is that the system is broken, and they're trying to fix it. Curriculum 2.0, while not perfect b/c nothing is, is the best attempt at helping kids develop critical thinking skills. Understand it first and realize that it has good aspects. And THEN attempt to question components that are weak.

I feel sorry for these kids, but sadly, they don't even know how low they are. I'm excluding the "W" schools, who tend to attract kids who don't need help. But there are so many out there - the "masses" who are graduating with NO skills.

[Anonymous]

This is what my daughter truly said about her first 2nd grade evaluation sent home Under 2.0 today:

“The teacher doesn’t expect you to get the best, only the second best.”

If you look, and you can’t miss it, there is a picture chart that says in big type “Aim For Proficiency.”

ES – “Exceptional” is at the very bottom and is the smallest target. I guess when Mr. Starr needs a medical doctor for his family he’ll look right away for only the second best. As long as the doctor is proficient.

[Anonymous]

12:38 -- Interesting to hear that report about ES. I've been wondering how a child who has been assessed at a 6th grade level in both the map-R and the F-P assessment would get a P and not an ES in reading!

And for those wondering about the report card showing whether a child is "above grade", it is NOT on the interim progress report card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, fine. You and I clearly don't see eye to eye. I don't think that larding summaries of a curriculum for parental consumption with terms of art and jargon is a good way to communicate with us educational laypersons (if I were explaining my job to you, I wouldn't use every industry-specific term I use with my coworkers). Frankly, I still think that your language is deplorable and cruel, and I would have a lot more respect for your input if you showed more compassion.

So b/c I'm tough I have no compassion? You're blaming me for trying to teach 18 year olds how to read after being passed along for years?

All I'm saying is that the system is broken, and they're trying to fix it. Curriculum 2.0, while not perfect b/c nothing is, is the best attempt at helping kids develop critical thinking skills. Understand it first and realize that it has good aspects. And THEN attempt to question components that are weak.

I feel sorry for these kids, but sadly, they don't even know how low they are. I'm excluding the "W" schools, who tend to attract kids who don't need help. But there are so many out there - the "masses" who are graduating with NO skills.

If you are a teacher in Montgomery County, I think your attitude speaks volumes of what is wrong with the system.

Even with 2.0, elementary schools (including schools that feed into the "W" schools) will keep passing kids that have not mastered basic skills. That isn't preventable until teachers quit giving out grades that kids don't earn. That's not a curriculum problem. That's a teacher problem.

My children can reflect how easy it is to skate by. The only reason they learned to read is that I had them privately tested and found out that I had been lied to for years by their teachers. My kids were actually several years below grade level in reading and they had learning disabilities. My oldest was in 5th grade with A's and B's on her report card. The report card had always reflected she was on grade level for reading. My youngest is in 3rd grade and began 2.0 last year. And yes, our school is in the Winston Churchill cluster.

To say that there are kids in certain neighborhoods that "don't need help" is ignorant and disrespectful but unfortunately a common attitude from MCPS teachers and administrators. The difference in this part of town, parents can sometimes afford to go outside the system to get their children the help that they need. Sometimes though, even families on this side of the county have trouble paying for private educational support when their child needs it. Some families have been hit hard by the economy and some families at our school live in Section 8 housing in the Scotland Community. Just because you have a 20854 zip code doesn't necessarily mean you are a millionaire.

Change because the system is broken is only good if the new system was better than the one it was replacing. You teach high school students. No offense, but how in the hell do you know this year's crop of 3rd graders will be better off by the time you have them in your class? Parents are on the front lines everyday. Those of us who have older kids are in a position to see what the impact of 2.0 means to our kids and it is crap. What school system in their right mind would go with a curriculum that hasn't been fully tested, revised, and tested again before implementing it county wide?

[Anonymous]

Meh. Maybe this will help kids aspire to actual accomplishment rather than just the "A" that their parents seem to need them to get. Under the old system with grades A-D, kids were given the message "You are the top, or second from the top, or third from the top, or at the bottom." Under this system, they are told either "You have mastered this exceptionally, or you are proficient at it, or you are still learning it, or you are not learning it." It seems to me that the latter is a much more productive message to send kids. Except for kids or parents who are dependent upon hearing that they are "the top." They will be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Maybe this will help kids aspire to actual accomplishment rather than just the "A" that their parents seem to need them to get. Under the old system with grades A-D, kids were given the message "You are the top, or second from the top, or third from the top, or at the bottom." Under this system, they are told either "You have mastered this exceptionally, or you are proficient at it, or you are still learning it, or you are not learning it." It seems to me that the latter is a much more productive message to send kids. Except for kids or parents who are dependent upon hearing that they are "the top." They will be disappointed.

But it all depends on how various teachers decide to define proficient. If getting 100% is proficient, but getting 85% is also proficient, why bother trying to get all the answers right? It will encourage a lot of kids to just do a half-assed job of things,knowing there is no difference in the resulting grade. You can argue it will make kids aspire to actual accomplishment, and the parents want the As, but i could argue it hides mediocrity. The parents don't want to see Bs, knowing other kids got As, and now they won't have to.

[Anonymous]

There is no gray area about what is and is not proficient. Students are being graded against a standard and teachers have checks for understanding to accompany every lesson. It is not 85% or higher = proficient or anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no gray area about what is and is not proficient. Students are being graded against a standard and teachers have checks for understanding to accompany every lesson. It is not 85% or higher = proficient or anything like that.

So are you saying kids are being graded on how well they articulate their understanding during the "lesson"? Does that mean group learning time? In math for example, where there generally is a right and wrong answer to problems, are students not being given math tests? Could a child get all the answers correct, and not receive a P due to the teacher's assessment of understanding at some time other than the test? Could 2 students get the same score on a written test, but one get a higher grade because of the teacher's "checks for understanding"?

[Anonymous]

OK, so interim reports came out yesterday. Any ES's? One of my elementary school age kids was all P's and one I; the other elementary kid all P's and 6 ES's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, so interim reports came out yesterday. Any ES's? One of my elementary school age kids was all P's and one I; the other elementary kid all P's and 6 ES's.

See ES's are given when deserved!