Arghh MCPS Math!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If all 3rd graders get "P" on their report cards, and if all of them will be slated to either do 4th grade Math or 4/5 compacted Math, then how do you explain the fact that the kids who get into HGC are heads and shoulders ahead of them? Even when they have got the same "P" on their report card?

..because getting into compacted math is not just about the report card. There are multiple things that the teacher looks at - four areas, from what I remember of DC's compacted math assessment. Also, kids in HGC are not automatically in compacted math. Conversely, there are lots of kids in compacted math but didn't make into HGC. They don't always go hand in hand. There are a few kids in my DC's HGC class that are not in compacted math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird that people are suggesting that a 3rd grader at the top of her math class needs to be doing additional math work at home. Wouldn't the teacher have noticed a problem?

Not if the teacher didn't notice she was using her fingers. The kid is obviously getting the right answer, but could be using her fingers in some cases. All the teacher is seeing is that the kid getting the right answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If all 3rd graders get "P" on their report cards, and if all of them will be slated to either do 4th grade Math or 4/5 compacted Math, then how do you explain the fact that the kids who get into HGC are heads and shoulders ahead of them? Even when they have got the same "P" on their report card?

They are not heads and shoulders above. In my child's HGC compacted math class there are also kids in the class who aren't in the HGC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird that people are suggesting that a 3rd grader at the top of her math class needs to be doing additional math work at home. Wouldn't the teacher have noticed a problem?

If the third-grader is doing addition and subtraction ON HER FINGERS, then yes, she needs to do additional math work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, MCPS teaching methods in elementary school is are ridiculous - it's the mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum which really doesn't help the children retain much.

Second, the math curriculum progressed extremely slowly in early elementary but speeds up later.

Third, teach your child the important stuff at home. It's the only way without paying for private. Some teachers don't like this, but... it's not their kid.

This is totally the opposite of what I have read on previous posts in the MD school forum, prior to 2.0. People were complaining that the math curriculum pre 2.0 was a mile wide and an inch deep. 2.0 math is supposed to be the opposite -- a mile deep and an inch wide, particularly for the early years.

I'm not comparing it to pre-2.0, which we did not experience, but to schools in Europe and Asia, where DH and I come from. Math here is a joke, and so is pretty much everything at the primary level. Not surprising, given the US academic ranking.

Yes, but most parents here don't force their ES kids to go to afterschool tutoring everyday for several hours, or to Saturday schools, like they do in a lot of the Asian countries

And most of the Asian countries teach math by rote. In the long term, that's not the best way to learn math.

Point taken, PP, but Europeans don't do after-school prep schools and they're still better than the US. That's because rote learning at the elementary school level is the BEST way to teach math to young kids, actually, when used as the primary tool alongside more creative methods. Here it's the reverse, creative methods are used primarily and rote takes a back seat. My husband is a mathematician/statistician and has seen how in young children mathematical understanding develops concomitantly and even after the memorization of math techniques. It may seem counter-intuitive to you - however it works. First teach a reliable method (instead of counting pasta like in MCPS), then the child will gradually understand why they're using it.
And all this "explain your answer in words" thing is a huge waste of time in the lower grades, because most kids' brains aren't developed enough to verbalize their mathematical thought process. It's akin to that effort on learning to read in K - not developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, MCPS teaching methods in elementary school is are ridiculous - it's the mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum which really doesn't help the children retain much.

Second, the math curriculum progressed extremely slowly in early elementary but speeds up later.

Third, teach your child the important stuff at home. It's the only way without paying for private. Some teachers don't like this, but... it's not their kid.

This is totally the opposite of what I have read on previous posts in the MD school forum, prior to 2.0. People were complaining that the math curriculum pre 2.0 was a mile wide and an inch deep. 2.0 math is supposed to be the opposite -- a mile deep and an inch wide, particularly for the early years.

I'm not comparing it to pre-2.0, which we did not experience, but to schools in Europe and Asia, where DH and I come from. Math here is a joke, and so is pretty much everything at the primary level. Not surprising, given the US academic ranking.

Yes, but most parents here don't force their ES kids to go to afterschool tutoring everyday for several hours, or to Saturday schools, like they do in a lot of the Asian countries

And most of the Asian countries teach math by rote. In the long term, that's not the best way to learn math.

Point taken, PP, but Europeans don't do after-school prep schools and they're still better than the US. That's because rote learning at the elementary school level is the BEST way to teach math to young kids, actually, when used as the primary tool alongside more creative methods. Here it's the reverse, creative methods are used primarily and rote takes a back seat. My husband is a mathematician/statistician and has seen how in young children mathematical understanding develops concomitantly and even after the memorization of math techniques. It may seem counter-intuitive to you - however it works. First teach a reliable method (instead of counting pasta like in MCPS), then the child will gradually understand why they're using it.
And all this "explain your answer in words" thing is a huge waste of time in the lower grades, because most kids' brains aren't developed enough to verbalize their mathematical thought process. It's akin to that effort on learning to read in K - not developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

This argument gets played out a lot on this forum. Most European countries are much more homogeneous than the US, and they have *much* better social welfare programs than the US, which plays a lot into how well kids do in school.

Let's take like for like as much as possible, then compare. I'm not saying the US is great at teaching math, but the old rote way wasn't that great either here, based on that NYT article about how American *adults* are terrible at math compared to other industrialized, and some not so industrialized countries. We have an education problem in this country, well before 2.0, or common core.

The UK, for example, also did better than the US, but still didn't crack the top 20. They are probably the most like the US in their culture and diversity compared to other European countries. But, they also have better social welfare programs than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Point taken, PP, but Europeans don't do after-school prep schools and they're still better than the US. That's because rote learning at the elementary school level is the BEST way to teach math to young kids, actually, when used as the primary tool alongside more creative methods. Here it's the reverse, creative methods are used primarily and rote takes a back seat. My husband is a mathematician/statistician and has seen how in young children mathematical understanding develops concomitantly and even after the memorization of math techniques. It may seem counter-intuitive to you - however it works. First teach a reliable method (instead of counting pasta like in MCPS), then the child will gradually understand why they're using it.
And all this "explain your answer in words" thing is a huge waste of time in the lower grades, because most kids' brains aren't developed enough to verbalize their mathematical thought process. It's akin to that effort on learning to read in K - not developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

In my experience, mathematicians/statisticians are particularly unqualified to talk methods for teaching math. By and large, they are intuitive learners of math and therefore have no experience with the problems that non-intuitive math learners encounter.

Have you read this article, which is specifically about the teaching of math?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird that people are suggesting that a 3rd grader at the top of her math class needs to be doing additional math work at home. Wouldn't the teacher have noticed a problem?

If the third-grader is doing addition and subtraction ON HER FINGERS, then yes, she needs to do additional math work.

Maybe there is a problem with the curriculum if she is talented in math and hasn't been taught basic math facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, MCPS teaching methods in elementary school is are ridiculous - it's the mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum which really doesn't help the children retain much.

Second, the math curriculum progressed extremely slowly in early elementary but speeds up later.

Third, teach your child the important stuff at home. It's the only way without paying for private. Some teachers don't like this, but... it's not their kid.

This is totally the opposite of what I have read on previous posts in the MD school forum, prior to 2.0. People were complaining that the math curriculum pre 2.0 was a mile wide and an inch deep. 2.0 math is supposed to be the opposite -- a mile deep and an inch wide, particularly for the early years.

I'm not comparing it to pre-2.0, which we did not experience, but to schools in Europe and Asia, where DH and I come from. Math here is a joke, and so is pretty much everything at the primary level. Not surprising, given the US academic ranking.

Yes, but most parents here don't force their ES kids to go to afterschool tutoring everyday for several hours, or to Saturday schools, like they do in a lot of the Asian countries.

And most of the Asian countries teach math by rote. In the long term, that's not the best way to learn math.

Asian Americans outperform the kids in China, Japan and South Korea on the PISA. White kids in the US outscored almost all European countries. It's not the educational system in the US, it's the demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird that people are suggesting that a 3rd grader at the top of her math class needs to be doing additional math work at home. Wouldn't the teacher have noticed a problem?

If the third-grader is doing addition and subtraction ON HER FINGERS, then yes, she needs to do additional math work.

Maybe there is a problem with the curriculum if she is talented in math and hasn't been taught basic math facts.

No, it's not a problem with the curriculum, because my third-grader has done math facts drills in class since first grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of weird that people are suggesting that a 3rd grader at the top of her math class needs to be doing additional math work at home. Wouldn't the teacher have noticed a problem?

If the third-grader is doing addition and subtraction ON HER FINGERS, then yes, she needs to do additional math work.

Maybe there is a problem with the curriculum if she is talented in math and hasn't been taught basic math facts.

No, it's not a problem with the curriculum, because my third-grader has done math facts drills in class since first grade.

Perhaps it was the second grade teacher? That is when addition/subtraction math facts are supposed to be mastered by rote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3rd grader is good in math but she has never done any addition or subtraction drills and I see her counting on her hands. My older child, in 5/6 compacted, did have math drills.

Not so in my dc's case. Did multiplication drills in 3rd last year. Teacher sent home flash cards to practice at home. They did these multiplication games in class where you had to be quick to answer to win the game, basically, math drills. My 1st grader does addition and subtraction worksheets, and each week they take a little quiz on these worksheets. Dc doesn't use fingers. Hasn't done that since K. I'm thinking your 3rd grader is not as good in math as you think.

Hey genius, do you think it's possible your child does better in math because he/she was properly taught via drills and rote memorization? Telling someone their child is not as smart as they think is unneccessary and makes you look like an ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, MCPS teaching methods in elementary school is are ridiculous - it's the mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum which really doesn't help the children retain much.

Second, the math curriculum progressed extremely slowly in early elementary but speeds up later.

Third, teach your child the important stuff at home. It's the only way without paying for private. Some teachers don't like this, but... it's not their kid.

This is totally the opposite of what I have read on previous posts in the MD school forum, prior to 2.0. People were complaining that the math curriculum pre 2.0 was a mile wide and an inch deep. 2.0 math is supposed to be the opposite -- a mile deep and an inch wide, particularly for the early years.

I'm not comparing it to pre-2.0, which we did not experience, but to schools in Europe and Asia, where DH and I come from. Math here is a joke, and so is pretty much everything at the primary level. Not surprising, given the US academic ranking.

+1000


Yes, but most parents here don't force their ES kids to go to afterschool tutoring everyday for several hours, or to Saturday schools, like they do in a lot of the Asian countries

And most of the Asian countries teach math by rote. In the long term, that's not the best way to learn math.

Point taken, PP, but Europeans don't do after-school prep schools and they're still better than the US. That's because rote learning at the elementary school level is the BEST way to teach math to young kids, actually, when used as the primary tool alongside more creative methods. Here it's the reverse, creative methods are used primarily and rote takes a back seat. My husband is a mathematician/statistician and has seen how in young children mathematical understanding develops concomitantly and even after the memorization of math techniques. It may seem counter-intuitive to you - however it works. First teach a reliable method (instead of counting pasta like in MCPS), then the child will gradually understand why they're using it.
And all this "explain your answer in words" thing is a huge waste of time in the lower grades, because most kids' brains aren't developed enough to verbalize their mathematical thought process. It's akin to that effort on learning to read in K - not developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

[Anonymous]

Yea right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3rd grader is good in math but she has never done any addition or subtraction drills and I see her counting on her hands. My older child, in 5/6 compacted, did have math drills.

Not so in my dc's case. Did multiplication drills in 3rd last year. Teacher sent home flash cards to practice at home. They did these multiplication games in class where you had to be quick to answer to win the game, basically, math drills. My 1st grader does addition and subtraction worksheets, and each week they take a little quiz on these worksheets. Dc doesn't use fingers. Hasn't done that since K. I'm thinking your 3rd grader is not as good in math as you think.

Hey genius, do you think it's possible your child does better in math because he/she was properly taught via drills and rote memorization? Telling someone their child is not as smart as they think is unneccessary and makes you look like an ass.

Thanks!