Who to vote in November in BOE for More Challenging Curriculum for Advanced Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another observation - the lower you aim, the lower the results you get.

Like the poster above, I'm also a proud product of the former Soviet Union's public schools. What was normal math to us is considered an extraordinary achievement by American public school standards. Why? The kids in Moscow were no smarter than the DC kids I know. The schools had far less money and resources. And parents spent far less time checking kids' homeworks and talking to teachers. So why the gap? Simple - far more was required of us by the system. Lowering expectations is not going to improve performance, it's going to lower the bar for everyone.

Privet
As yet another product of f USSR system, I woiul disagree with both of you.
Math curriccullum was harsh, and I don't think every kid should take pre-calc in high school, for some kids it's just waste of time.
What I like about MCPS system is opportunity to get education somewhat customized for student's need.
Now, new curriculum 2.0 just kills that option for so many kids

First f.USSR PP: no objections here. I did not say our system was a good fit for 100% of students, just that most bright kids of educated parents can handle the material. Acceleration (if done well) could indeed offer the best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand. Why are teachers unions against a more challening curriculum for advanced students? I thought teachers were also frustrated with changes under 2.0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will vote for whomever the Apple Ballot does not endorse.

+1
I do exactly this every election.
The status quo and unions are NOT helping our students.

Signed,
Former public school teacher

[Anonymous]

I will not vote for anti-intellectual morons that do not support options for capable MCPS students to advance or accelerate...period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will vote for whomever the Apple Ballot does not endorse.

+1
I do exactly this every election.
The status quo and unions are NOT helping our students.

Signed,
Former public school teacher[/quote]

LOL!

couldn't handle it, eh?

coward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will not vote for anti-intellectual morons that do not support options for capable MCPS students to advance or accelerate...period.

why the redundancy, moron?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand. Why are teachers unions against a more challening curriculum for advanced students? I thought teachers were also frustrated with changes under 2.0

I have never understood this either. I am a union supporter but the apple ballot candidates always seem to support the status quo and this does not always serve our children.
I know this is a large school system but that also means we cannot try a one size fits all strategy. That ends up as a race to the bottom. I have a kid in a HGC and I am amazed by how simple it is:
one teacher and 27 children - no aides.
No special resources or materials
So how do they do this?
a challenging and enriched curriculum
The entire class is at the same level so the teacher is teaching ONE group instead of trying to educate several different groups (in which case everyone is shortchanged).
You can get so much more done.
I don't understand why this approach is vilified so much by the educational establishment (I do not include teachers here).
The Math pathways are a similar approach and they worked. Moreover, kids were not consigned to a lower "track" for their entire school career. There were frequent opportunities for acceleration whenever warranted. There have been a lot of threads bemoaning the end of Math Pathways. I suggest we aim a little higher - lets have Pathways in all the subjects especially in the 4-8 grades (high school is less of a problem).
I too will not be voting for apple ballot candidates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will vote for whomever the Apple Ballot does not endorse.

+1
I do exactly this every election.
The status quo and unions are NOT helping our students.

Signed,
Former public school teacher[/quote]

LOL!

couldn't handle it, eh?

coward

No, retired after a very rewarding and productive career teaching middle schoolers. Certainly not for the faint of heart. Please come back when you are ready to engage in civil discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I will not vote for anti-intellectual morons that do not support options for capable MCPS students to advance or accelerate...period.

why the redundancy, moron?

You don't know why? Have you ever read any English literature. Your inquiry is the very definition of moron.

[Anonymous]

I guess it depends on what you consider "basic education". In the country where I grew up (f. USSR), the expectation was that all students regardless of ability will have two years of in-depth trigonometry/pre-calculus work by age 16. (Trigonometric equations, exponents, logarithms, limits, etc...) It appears that the only way to ensure that at least some students get the same level of education in this country is by advocating for more differentiation and acceleration. I don't know about PP but I am a very free-range parent and I don't think my child is a genius or even "gifted". But as a bright child of educated and somewhat involved parents, there is no reason why she should not be able to do the same level of work I did at her age, and I know plenty of kids from less-advantaged backgrounds who could do the same. And it is not someone's "gifted snowflakes" but those less-advantaged kids, the ones who don't have parents who are able to sit down with them every day and cover material not covered in the classroom, who really lose big time when you remove differentiation.

I identify with your evaluation. I attended elementary school in West Africa in the late 1950s and 1960s. My mathematical training was far superior than what my children receive in MCPS 60 years later. My children and I and not geniuses but I find the poor teaching of mathematics in MCPS at the elementary school level shocking. This observation has led to my teaching them myself to prepare them for the "real" world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I identify with your evaluation. I attended elementary school in West Africa in the late 1950s and 1960s. My mathematical training was far superior than what my children receive in MCPS 60 years later. My children and I and not geniuses but I find the poor teaching of mathematics in MCPS at the elementary school level shocking. This observation has led to my teaching them myself to prepare them for the "real" world.

I don't think that one's own 60-year-old self-serving memories constitute data. I was only in elementary school 25 years ago and I have very few specific memories of math class. But somehow I went on to do advanced math in high school and score well on the BC Calc AP. So if your story gets to be data then so does mine.

[Anonymous]

+100 to the PP who explained that the HGC works just fine w/ quite high kid counts because the teachers are all teaching to ONE level - not 3+ in a given class. Why in the world this is not common sense is really simply beyond me. I fail to see how it helps ANYONE for the teacher to have to divvy up her time among all the different groups rather than more directly focusing on a given work level. amazing...

[Anonymous]

I don't think that one's own 60-year-old self-serving memories constitute data. I was only in elementary school 25 years ago and I have very few specific memories of math class. But somehow I went on to do advanced math in high school and score well on the BC Calc AP. So if your story gets to be data then so does mine.

Why isn't my experience relevant? When I returned to the US I was 12 and the American public system placed me in the 9th grade attempting accommodate my needs based on a series of placement tests (still not challenging). I do know what I learned prior to returning to the US back then and I know what my children were doing here at the age of 12 in mathematics. Not comparable. Trust me...not comparable.

I'm glad you were able to do well in BC Calc AP. Good job! Will your children accomplish the same?

[Anonymous]

I doubt it

[Anonymous]

I think its safe to say that Panner is the better bet for a more challenging curriculum than the incumbents. I normally support the teachers union but its job is to increase benefits to its members the teachers not improve the curriculum. There is no mission or even political incentive for the union or union candidates to look at the curriculum. A non-union candidate who still respects teachers is a better bet to serve all needs..the teachers and the kids.


I will be voting against the incumbents this year.