Excellent summary about what is so wrong about the MCPS math curriculum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I hate about mcps math- it's appallingly slow. My second grader is bored and seems to be doing the same easy worksheet over and over. Teacher says some kids are way behind so she can't move quicker.

They differentiate in our kid's class - second grade. I visited once when they were doing math and there were three groups - one obviously higher than the others in what the kids were doing.

Same with ours. However this might be a new thing.

I wrote that post you both quoted. So I asked my second grader last night about groups. Said there are groups but they all get the same worksheets. It sounds more like group work rather than group differentiation. It's ok, she's excited about the money unit now.

My now 5th grader had differentiated math groups in 2nd, though that means the higher groups got harder and more worksheets (DC said DC looked at a friend's math worksheet, and it was different and easier than DC's), but they do all learn the same concepts and follow the same curriculum. It's the same for my now 2nd grader, who also gets ES opportunity worksheets that not all kids are getting.

[Anonymous]

My DS was in the pilot year of 2.0 in second. So, I have no idea if things have improved since then. It was clear the teacher was very alarmed by the new approach. We set up a conference because all they were doing were story problems involving two-digit addition without an algorithm. She said there were enrichment materials for anyone like DS who had mastered the material and we were right to ask. We said if it's story problems about three-digit addition without an algorithm, that's not going to help. Sure enough that's what started coming home. The teacher's hands were completely tied. But at the end of the year she was able to get DS moved to the accelerated math group (which still existed in those days) and that allowed him to avoid 2.0 until 5th grade when the compacted 5 curriculum was rolled out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds like most of us are in agreement with what is wrong:
1. lack of differentiation. I hear at some schools they move kids up for math. Others not so much
2. forcing strategies on the kids when they don't need them.

Yes but the article touched on a very important point that is actually the bigger problem. The new math curriculum does not teach students the underlaying foundation of math or develop math centric skills to be able to execute advanced math. By thinking that math can be broken up into these small segments that are presented in no logical order, the creators failed to understand that math is a system not an anthology independent concepts. Each math concept is not like a work of fiction that can be read separately and in various order. By thinking that math is an exercise that is better understood through verbalization and language skills because this is how the MCPS staff think, they have failed to deliver a curriculum that builds math skills rather than language skills.

I actually think that the fight to bring back acceleration is not the right fight. Accelerating through a bad curriculum that doesn't teach math doesn't solve the problem. The fight needs to be about taking math curriculum development out of the hands of MCPS staff. MCPS can look to the private who adopt other published and research reviewed math curriculums. Once the curriculum is fixed, then parents should fight for students to receive the appropriate level of education for their abilities which means grouping and acceleration.

The problem is that there are no checks and balances within MCPS. MCPS central office staff pulled staff that they liked into the curriculum office. These individuals are in no way qualified to create a curriculum!! They can not hold themselves accountable and never will. They will only rationalize, avoid, and ignore the problem that they created because they are the ones at fault.

Yes, acceleration in a bad curriculum is worthless. It was only a viable solution when it was an escape valve, which it was until now. The above grade level ES students were the last to be pulled into 2.0 and many students skirted just ahead of the rollout as long as possible. The HS magnet is still an escape valve because it begins with courses that haven't been touched by reform and outpaces the ones that ever will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS was in the pilot year of 2.0 in second. So, I have no idea if things have improved since then. It was clear the teacher was very alarmed by the new approach. We set up a conference because all they were doing were story problems involving two-digit addition without an algorithm. She said there were enrichment materials for anyone like DS who had mastered the material and we were right to ask. We said if it's story problems about three-digit addition without an algorithm, that's not going to help. Sure enough that's what started coming home. The teacher's hands were completely tied. But at the end of the year she was able to get DS moved to the accelerated math group (which still existed in those days) and that allowed him to avoid 2.0 until 5th grade when the compacted 5 curriculum was rolled out.

I'm the PP @9:54. My DC was also in 2nd grade the year 2.0 was introduced. The rollout was not very good, I agree. I tried to force DC to learn the algorithm method because I thought the way they were learning wasn't good. DC rejected my help as DC is good at math and really didn't need my help. I was frustrated, but let it go. Turns out, all was fine in 3rd when they did learn the algorithms a long with other methods. They were laying the foundation in 2nd grade. I also did a lot more research on some of the methods they were/are teaching, and it now makes sense why they teach it the way they do.

DC is now in compacted math and uses the standard algorithm to do math. My now 2nd grader's math worksheets look a bit different than DC#1's worksheets when this DC was in 2nd, so looks like there was some improvement. I'm pretty satisfied with what my now 2nd grader is learning in math: money unit, though at times I do wish they pick up the pace a bit, but I understand that this is a large public school with varying needs. I don't think 2nd graders need to be tracked at such an early age. This DC does get ES opportunities, though.

I do think that some teachers/schools were better at teaching the new math than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS was in the pilot year of 2.0 in second. So, I have no idea if things have improved since then. It was clear the teacher was very alarmed by the new approach. We set up a conference because all they were doing were story problems involving two-digit addition without an algorithm. She said there were enrichment materials for anyone like DS who had mastered the material and we were right to ask. We said if it's story problems about three-digit addition without an algorithm, that's not going to help. Sure enough that's what started coming home. The teacher's hands were completely tied. But at the end of the year she was able to get DS moved to the accelerated math group (which still existed in those days) and that allowed him to avoid 2.0 until 5th grade when the compacted 5 curriculum was rolled out.

I'm the PP @9:54. My DC was also in 2nd grade the year 2.0 was introduced. The rollout was not very good, I agree. I tried to force DC to learn the algorithm method because I thought the way they were learning wasn't good. DC rejected my help as DC is good at math and really didn't need my help. I was frustrated, but let it go. Turns out, all was fine in 3rd when they did learn the algorithms a long with other methods. They were laying the foundation in 2nd grade. I also did a lot more research on some of the methods they were/are teaching, and it now makes sense why they teach it the way they do.

DC is now in compacted math and uses the standard algorithm to do math. My now 2nd grader's math worksheets look a bit different than DC#1's worksheets when this DC was in 2nd, so looks like there was some improvement. I'm pretty satisfied with what my now 2nd grader is learning in math: money unit, though at times I do wish they pick up the pace a bit, but I understand that this is a large public school with varying needs. I don't think 2nd graders need to be tracked at such an early age. This DC does get ES opportunities, though.

I do think that some teachers/schools were better at teaching the new math than others.

Thanks for the update, I had gleaned from other comments that there is now more going on in second grade than that year which was truly stark. My DS is now in sixth so even a guinea pig for what your oldest experienced. I'm sure the improvements are in part due to the initial outcry from parents and teachers so it doesn't do to be too complacent as they are still rolling out courses this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I hate about mcps math- it's appallingly slow. My second grader is bored and seems to be doing the same easy worksheet over and over. Teacher says some kids are way behind so she can't move quicker.

They differentiate in our kid's class - second grade. I visited once when they were doing math and there were three groups - one obviously higher than the others in what the kids were doing.

Same with ours. However this might be a new thing.

I wrote that post you both quoted. So I asked my second grader last night about groups. Said there are groups but they all get the same worksheets. It sounds more like group work rather than group differentiation. It's ok, she's excited about the money unit now.

As one of the PPs above - I saw different work being done by the different groups - including different worksheets.

[Anonymous]

The variance in what is done by one teacher versus another is due to the fact that the curriculum office didn't really deliver any materials. Small amounts of poor quality worksheets and materials have been trickling out but its widely left to teachers to watch videos with poorly articulated concepts to them come up with their own. This means that teachers have to struggle to come up with the basics. MCPS does not allow differentiation to mean acceleration so the teacher can't create anything that touches on a segment or level that is considered the next grade level up. This is as poorly defined as the ES grades leaving teachers in a real bind to do any substantive differentiation.

I agree though that the worst problem is that it overall a really bad curriculum. Differentiation with bad material is not much better than slow as snails pace with bad material.

MCPS knows that this has been an utter failure. They just don't know what to do about it and they protect their own.

[Anonymous]

If the teachers don't understand how to do/teach the math, then your child will suffer. That said, I have a DC that was a guinea pig for every year of 2.0, but her math foundation is stronger than older sibling who was on an accelerated track in the old system. The previous math system in MCPS was supremely broken, this method is teaching math fundamentals and these students will do better in high school math (which is what prompted the switch in the first place).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the teachers don't understand how to do/teach the math, then your child will suffer. That said, I have a DC that was a guinea pig for every year of 2.0, but her math foundation is stronger than older sibling who was on an accelerated track in the old system. The previous math system in MCPS was supremely broken, this method is teaching math fundamentals and these students will do better in high school math (which is what prompted the switch in the first place).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the teachers don't understand how to do/teach the math, then your child will suffer. That said, I have a DC that was a guinea pig for every year of 2.0, but her math foundation is stronger than older sibling who was on an accelerated track in the old system. The previous math system in MCPS was supremely broken, this method is teaching math fundamentals and these students will do better in high school math (which is what prompted the switch in the first place).

This is very true, especially so for early ES teachers who are not math people themselves. Some districts have had to bring in trainers to teach the teachers, and the teachers have stated that this was immensely helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the teachers don't understand how to do/teach the math, then your child will suffer. That said, I have a DC that was a guinea pig for every year of 2.0, but her math foundation is stronger than older sibling who was on an accelerated track in the old system. The previous math system in MCPS was supremely broken, this method is teaching math fundamentals and these students will do better in high school math (which is what prompted the switch in the first place).

All of this is my experience as well.

But yes, it does no good to change the curriculum but not train the teachers. I don't know how much training the teachers had. At least neither of my children has ever encountered a math teacher like one math teacher I had, who discouraged the girls from going on to accelerated math because math is hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the teachers don't understand how to do/teach the math, then your child will suffer. That said, I have a DC that was a guinea pig for every year of 2.0, but her math foundation is stronger than older sibling who was on an accelerated track in the old system. The previous math system in MCPS was supremely broken, this method is teaching math fundamentals and these students will do better in high school math (which is what prompted the switch in the first place).

Yes, ES teachers who didn't go into teach out of a love for math has been a perennial problem. However, the issues with 2.0 go far beyond weak teachers. To exaggerate just a bit it's a curriculum written by math haters, it takes the abstraction out of math and replace that with verbal skills. It de-emphasizes algorithm and tells the person who understands a concept there are yet another three methods to be learned. It undermines rote arithmetic which similar to reading needs to be learned in early child hood or it will not happen. Having some of these skills down pat in ES unlocks higher math more than lip service to deep understanding ever will.

Comparing two siblings is never going to be definitive. I know my second has always been stronger in math and I won't credit 2.0 with that, I also see a lack of discipline applying algorithms which I will hate on MCPS for. Anecdote is biased. Anyway, you might want to wait until you see what has happened to those high school classes. At the moment they have been thoroughly gutted by the curriculum office. In fact they are being written while being taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, ES teachers who didn't go into teach out of a love for math has been a perennial problem. However, the issues with 2.0 go far beyond weak teachers. To exaggerate just a bit it's a curriculum written by math haters, it takes the abstraction out of math and replace that with verbal skills. It de-emphasizes algorithm and tells the person who understands a concept there are yet another three methods to be learned. It undermines rote arithmetic which similar to reading needs to be learned in early child hood or it will not happen. Having some of these skills down pat in ES unlocks higher math more than lip service to deep understanding ever will.

Comparing two siblings is never going to be definitive. I know my second has always been stronger in math and I won't credit 2.0 with that, I also see a lack of discipline applying algorithms which I will hate on MCPS for. Anecdote is biased. Anyway, you might want to wait until you see what has happened to those high school classes. At the moment they have been thoroughly gutted by the curriculum office. In fact they are being written while being taught.

I think that you misunderstand the word "algorithm". All of those various methods are algorithms. And knowing how to solve a given problem in several different ways (i.e., using several different algorithms) actually does promote deep understanding much better than "here's how you do the standard algorithm, now do it over and over and over again".

[Anonymous]

The people in the curriculum office simply aren't equipped to properly draft the materials or train the teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, ES teachers who didn't go into teach out of a love for math has been a perennial problem. However, the issues with 2.0 go far beyond weak teachers. To exaggerate just a bit it's a curriculum written by math haters, it takes the abstraction out of math and replace that with verbal skills. It de-emphasizes algorithm and tells the person who understands a concept there are yet another three methods to be learned. It undermines rote arithmetic which similar to reading needs to be learned in early child hood or it will not happen. Having some of these skills down pat in ES unlocks higher math more than lip service to deep understanding ever will.

Comparing two siblings is never going to be definitive. I know my second has always been stronger in math and I won't credit 2.0 with that, I also see a lack of discipline applying algorithms which I will hate on MCPS for. Anecdote is biased. Anyway, you might want to wait until you see what has happened to those high school classes. At the moment they have been thoroughly gutted by the curriculum office. In fact they are being written while being taught.

I think that you misunderstand the word "algorithm". All of those various methods are algorithms. And knowing how to solve a given problem in several different ways (i.e., using several different algorithms) actually does promote deep understanding much better than "here's how you do the standard algorithm, now do it over and over and over again".

Nope, I should have said algorithmic fluency. To multiply three-digit numbers takes understanding but it also takes a bunch of single-digit calculations. Nine multiplication and six additions before carries (I could program a computer to do it). Mess up any of those and the answer is wrong. That may happen because basic facts are weak (or just slow enough that concentration falters) or because there hasn't been enough practice executing the chosen method, lack of fluency. I was referring to the latter. Yes, all the methods work and they aren't even very different. But the time spent wading through methods actually comes at the expense of practice. This same meticulousness is needed for Algebra just as much as the understanding is.