Curriculum 2.0 was discriminatory, MCPS should make amends to the students harmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes the curriculum is to blame. I'm an UMC mom but I have to teach my kids at home the concepts because they didn't learn them at home. It failed poor kids precisely because they most likely didn't have a person like me at home to teach them because the school failed to do it.

I can't see much difference in different curriculums because I never rely on the school to teach my DC math. Just by glancing through them I felt both (the previous and the current) curriculum being reasonable.

What concepts do you have to teach your kids that you think is required by 2.0 but not 1.0?

My children were in a different school system prior to 2.0. That school actually taught my kid math. Imagine that.

That's great. What curriculum did they use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS, my white kids were harmed too. Enough with identity politics Op. I take responsibility for not being proactive on behalf of my children, you do the same.

Clap clap clap clap clap clap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

The important part is the underlined bolded.

I think teaching kids why you compose and decompose (carry/borrow) is important. If you go through the steps without teaching them the "why", then yes, it's pointless.

If you are math person, you can see that decomposing is the same as borrowing, just different words and a different way to look at it. I read an article from a math teach who said using the word "borrow" was not a good way to teach them since the word "borrow" means you give it back. How do you give back the number? Decompose is a much better word.

The problem is that many early years teachers lack numeracy. And it's difficult to find good math teachers in the upper grades, too. There are always shortages of STEM teachers.

A lot of people don't like math, and IMO, part of it is because they were never taught the "whys" of math, only the steps. That's super boring.

That's always been a concern, but I think there's more to it.

Yes, it's important to know why carry/borrow works, and it's helpful to learn alternative methods. But end of the day, it's also good to have a rote method that kicks-in and eliminate the thought from a routine process. My DC had 2.0 from 2nd grade and is in HS now. He's not bad at math, he's happy to do some arithmetic in his head, but his methods are scattershot, and whenever I work with him, I get the answer quicker, and I do not get it wrong. Last night he's doing a dot product and needs 8*12, and got the wrong answer, I said 80 and 16, he's like, oh sure, I was thinking about how many 12s make 60 but I had it wrong and then... He does have number sense, he shouldn't be sent back to third grade, but he's grown up without discipline. Yep, I should have made him do more practice, but school should reinforce that, too, because there's a stage beyond number sense. The pendulum swung too far, I don't like kids being taught with no motivation (although I don't think that was happening in my lifetime), but if you don't get past the navel-gazing stage of arithmetic, it's impossible to notice more sophisticated patterns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

The important part is the underlined bolded.

I think teaching kids why you compose and decompose (carry/borrow) is important. If you go through the steps without teaching them the "why", then yes, it's pointless.

If you are math person, you can see that decomposing is the same as borrowing, just different words and a different way to look at it. I read an article from a math teach who said using the word "borrow" was not a good way to teach them since the word "borrow" means you give it back. How do you give back the number? Decompose is a much better word.

The problem is that many early years teachers lack numeracy. And it's difficult to find good math teachers in the upper grades, too. There are always shortages of STEM teachers.

A lot of people don't like math, and IMO, part of it is because they were never taught the "whys" of math, only the steps. That's super boring.

That's always been a concern, but I think there's more to it.

Yes, it's important to know why carry/borrow works, and it's helpful to learn alternative methods. But end of the day, it's also good to have a rote method that kicks-in and eliminate the thought from a routine process. My DC had 2.0 from 2nd grade and is in HS now. He's not bad at math, he's happy to do some arithmetic in his head, but his methods are scattershot, and whenever I work with him, I get the answer quicker, and I do not get it wrong. Last night he's doing a dot product and needs 8*12, and got the wrong answer, I said 80 and 16, he's like, oh sure, I was thinking about how many 12s make 60 but I had it wrong and then... He does have number sense, he shouldn't be sent back to third grade, but he's grown up without discipline. Yep, I should have made him do more practice, but school should reinforce that, too, because there's a stage beyond number sense. The pendulum swung too far, I don't like kids being taught with no motivation (although I don't think that was happening in my lifetime), but if you don't get past the navel-gazing stage of arithmetic, it's impossible to notice more sophisticated patterns.

I agree, repetition is key, and rote learning for things like multiplication tables is still valuable. My kids in MCPS have learned their x tables by rote in and out of school (told by teachers to practice at home). I did make my kids practice at home because I felt they weren't practicing enough at school.

I do not like how they spent too much time learning how to add/subtract in six different ways since it left little time to spend on practicing the old way. I think balance is key. My kids are in 5th and 8th now, and they use the algorithm. I have taught them short cuts using base 10. They learned a bit of it in school, but again, not enough time spent practicing it in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree, repetition is key, and rote learning for things like multiplication tables is still valuable. My kids in MCPS have learned their x tables by rote in and out of school (told by teachers to practice at home). I did make my kids practice at home because I felt they weren't practicing enough at school.

I do not like how they spent too much time learning how to add/subtract in six different ways since it left little time to spend on practicing the old way. I think balance is key. My kids are in 5th and 8th now, and they use the algorithm. I have taught them short cuts using base 10. They learned a bit of it in school, but again, not enough time spent practicing it in school.

For my pre-2.0 kid, the teachers explicitly told us that drilling math facts was the parents' responsibility. My 2.0 kid did math facts drills as part of math class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I'm not sure this problem is unique to 2.0.

It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html

Quote from this NYT article:

"One especially nonsensical result stems from the Common Core’s suggestion that students not just find answers but also “illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.”

Love this ... this is at least 3 ways , right?

"Instead of memorizing familiar steps, students now practice even stranger rituals, like drawing dots only to count them or breaking simple addition problems into complicated forms (62+26, for example, must become 60+2+20+6) without understanding why. This can make for even poorer math students. “In the hands of unprepared teachers,” Lampert says, “alternative algorithms are worse than just teaching them standard algorithms.”

Yes! 62+26 can be ...60+2+26 or 62+6+20 or just plain "62+26"

The important part is the underlined bolded.

I think teaching kids why you compose and decompose (carry/borrow) is important. If you go through the steps without teaching them the "why", then yes, it's pointless.

If you are math person, you can see that decomposing is the same as borrowing, just different words and a different way to look at it. I read an article from a math teach who said using the word "borrow" was not a good way to teach them since the word "borrow" means you give it back. How do you give back the number? Decompose is a much better word.

The problem is that many early years teachers lack numeracy. And it's difficult to find good math teachers in the upper grades, too. There are always shortages of STEM teachers.

A lot of people don't like math, and IMO, part of it is because they were never taught the "whys" of math, only the steps. That's super boring.

That's always been a concern, but I think there's more to it.

Yes, it's important to know why carry/borrow works, and it's helpful to learn alternative methods. But end of the day, it's also good to have a rote method that kicks-in and eliminate the thought from a routine process. My DC had 2.0 from 2nd grade and is in HS now. He's not bad at math, he's happy to do some arithmetic in his head, but his methods are scattershot, and whenever I work with him, I get the answer quicker, and I do not get it wrong. Last night he's doing a dot product and needs 8*12, and got the wrong answer, I said 80 and 16, he's like, oh sure, I was thinking about how many 12s make 60 but I had it wrong and then... He does have number sense, he shouldn't be sent back to third grade, but he's grown up without discipline. Yep, I should have made him do more practice, but school should reinforce that, too, because there's a stage beyond number sense. The pendulum swung too far, I don't like kids being taught with no motivation (although I don't think that was happening in my lifetime), but if you don't get past the navel-gazing stage of arithmetic, it's impossible to notice more sophisticated patterns.

I agree, repetition is key, and rote learning for things like multiplication tables is still valuable. My kids in MCPS have learned their x tables by rote in and out of school (told by teachers to practice at home). I did make my kids practice at home because I felt they weren't practicing enough at school.

I do not like how they spent too much time learning how to add/subtract in six different ways since it left little time to spend on practicing the old way. I think balance is key. My kids are in 5th and 8th now, and they use the algorithm. I have taught them short cuts using base 10. They learned a bit of it in school, but again, not enough time spent practicing it in school.

To be clear, I'm not just talking about memorizing a times table. It's also necessary to settle on an algorithm and internalize it. Also, picking up a pencil and doing a problem the boring way when that's quicker than regrouping, is still important, especially once you've moved beyond using basic arithmetic everyday. But 2.0 emphasized number sense, and at least downplayed these other skills. I'm skeptical that ES teachers with weak math understanding are to blame.

[Anonymous]

If it were a choice between number sense OR speed and accuracy in doing a problem by hand (which it isn't), I'd pick number sense. You can do a calculation quickly and accurately using a calculator, and calculators are ubiquitous. But a calculator won't tell you whether the answer makes sense.

[Anonymous]

This assumes that URM would have been level without 2.0. I am not sure you can show causation only corralation.

Truth is URM simply haven’t show the propensity to test well as a group no matter the SES or the locality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This assumes that URM would have been level without 2.0. I am not sure you can show causation only corralation.

Truth is URM simply haven’t show the propensity to test well as a group no matter the SES or the locality.

MCPS has zero information about the student's family's socioeconomic status. Here is all that MCPS has data about:

1. the student's address
2. whether or not the student is eligible for free or reduced meals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This assumes that URM would have been level without 2.0. I am not sure you can show causation only corralation.

Truth is URM simply haven’t show the propensity to test well as a group no matter the SES or the locality.

MCPS has zero information about the student's family's socioeconomic status. Here is all that MCPS has data about:

1. the student's address
2. whether or not the student is eligible for free or reduced meals

Lots of studies have shown that blacks still have the testing gap no matter their SES or which school they reside in. The cause for this is unclear. Also FARMs is a pretty good SES indicator is it not?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't discrimination imply that MCPS treated groups of children differently? Everyone had the same curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it were a choice between number sense OR speed and accuracy in doing a problem by hand (which it isn't), I'd pick number sense. You can do a calculation quickly and accurately using a calculator, and calculators are ubiquitous. But a calculator won't tell you whether the answer makes sense.

I grew up with calculators and I don't enjoy mental calculations, but I still think settling on and practicing an algorithm is a necessary stage of development. My DC runs into keying issues with calculators, too. Some are carelessness, some are order of operations and distributive law. Even with a multiline calculator, there are plenty of ways to type something that doesn't mean what's intended. (And, there's still things to make sense of like, when your phone calculator is vertical 3 + 4 * 5 is different than when it's horizontal.) Anyway for my DC it's like years of wishy washy, show me how you do it, have muddied the fact that math is deterministic. But my only point is, I work with my kids all the time and I see quirks in their background knowledge, there's no way this is unique to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were a choice between number sense OR speed and accuracy in doing a problem by hand (which it isn't), I'd pick number sense. You can do a calculation quickly and accurately using a calculator, and calculators are ubiquitous. But a calculator won't tell you whether the answer makes sense.

I grew up with calculators and I don't enjoy mental calculations, but I still think settling on and practicing an algorithm is a necessary stage of development. My DC runs into keying issues with calculators, too. Some are carelessness, some are order of operations and distributive law. Even with a multiline calculator, there are plenty of ways to type something that doesn't mean what's intended. (And, there's still things to make sense of like, when your phone calculator is vertical 3 + 4 * 5 is different than when it's horizontal. *) Anyway for my DC it's like years of wishy washy, show me how you do it, have muddied the fact that math is deterministic. But my only point is, I work with my kids all the time and I see quirks in their background knowledge, there's no way this is unique to them.

*Never, mind phone calculators have algebraic logic when they look like business calcs, but MCPS tends to have buisness calculators in the lower grades and scientific later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it were a choice between number sense OR speed and accuracy in doing a problem by hand (which it isn't), I'd pick number sense. You can do a calculation quickly and accurately using a calculator, and calculators are ubiquitous. But a calculator won't tell you whether the answer makes sense.

For the purpose of studying math, speed and accuracy of simple calculations by hand is much more useful, if not more important.

Sure, when you see calculations like 2.364*3, you can use a calculator.

However in math courses at high grades, you don't encounter much of that. Instead, what you see most about "number calculation" would be things like single or double digit additon/multiplication (e.g. (12x+3y)*7)
and a lot of fraction simplification. For most of these, you do not use a calculator. Being able to do simple calculations fast and accurately would be very useful.

Number sense, on the other hand, may be good to have, but not much useful unless your kid is really into math (competitions etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll trying to stir things up, OP what do you think could or should be done?

People can't go back and redo their school age years. One time payment? If so, how much and how do you decide who was eligible, both in terms of who was hurt by the curriculum and how many years of the curriculum did you have to have to be considered hurt? Payment to get some form of additional schooling? Reduced entrance requirements and/or tuition to Montgomery College?

What do you have in mind?

This is pretty clearly a troll.

+10

Troll or not, they are serving you the tea.