Confused about math(s) now

[Anonymous]

What specifically is wrong with 2.0 math?

I'll try to answer as someone without a math background but who has very math centric kids. We switched from private to public when we came to this area. Yes, I see a BIG difference. I also know parents who had pre 2.0 kids and they all say it has radically gone downhill.

1. Its too slow and imposes artificial ceilings. There is way too much repetition.
2. It isn't challenging. I saw that my kids were bored. More worrisome was that they saw math as super easy and requiring no effort to always get the right answer. It became obvious that they were not appreciating or absorbing any of the concepts or strategies that were being attempted to be taught because the problems were just too easy. They were showing work because they were told to do it and it was just an exercise in following instructions. This is no different than memorizing formulas. I don't think MCPS realizes how badly they missed the mark with removing more complex or harder problems.
3. The flow is just strange and seems to jump to something entirely different before ever developing any mastery or depth of understanding of the prior concept. Its isn't a speed issue but they will oddly do the same thing again and again and then just switch to a new topic. The whole cycle repeats again later.
4. It doesn't address the need for number and equation fluency. You can draw circles the first time but you need to be able to do faster mental calculation to move forward in math.
5. It presents complexity rather than simplicity which is entirely the opposite of what math intends to accomplish. Again, just strange.
6. Ironically, it misses on the depth factor. Worksheets will come home and I can understand what they are trying to convey but they always fail to teach the kids why this strategy or way of looking at a problem is important. They always miss the important component. For the kids, it just seems like a labor intensive process to produce an answer that you could have found in a simpler way. It takes supplementation to present the actual concept.
7. The paragraph writing to explain the strategy that you were told to use is just bizarre. There's more focus on writing composition now in math than actual mathematical reasoning, fluency, relational understanding, and computation. There is real danger that they are missing the ability to understand equations and symbols.
8. It removes the fun, sense of accomplishment, and drive to solve problems because its easy, laborious, and counter intuitive.
9. Someone in MCPS needs to provide some Q/A on the worksheets. There are grammatical errors and this makes a difference with word problems.

Overall, I think its a broken system and I'm not sure who benefits from this. Maybe its a mistake or maybe its just a way to lower the achievement gap by disallowing math oriented students from progressing. I can't imagine that this actually helps kids that struggle in math anymore than the kids that are good at math.

What is wonderful is that we live in a time when school is not the only avenue for education. In fact, the prominence of the traditional school may be diminishing as more on-line, tutoring, and enrichment programs expand. At least we aren't trapped in MCPS math, even if we can't afford 30K for private tuition. So, yes math is bad in MCPS but you can overcome this by doing it on your own even if you aren't a math expert. I have learned through my kids that math is cool, fun, and all about the excitement of solving a challenge. I never thought about this way until I had them. Its too bad that they can't experience this in school but we can do it at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'll try to answer as someone without a math background but who has very math centric kids. We switched from private to public when we came to this area. Yes, I see a BIG difference. I also know parents who had pre 2.0 kids and they all say it has radically gone downhill.

I am a parent who had a pre-2.0 kid, and I say that overall, math is better under 2.0 than it was before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The highly educated parents DO NOT like 2.0. Its a sharp divide between parents with more education and who went to school in countries that rank high in math (China, Korea, Russia, India, Sweden, France etc). I have met moms that don't mind 2.0 but sadly these were the not so bright, PTA cheerleader types.

DH and I have Ph.D.s and are fine with 2.0. I did Brain Bowl and band instead of cheerleading, but it's true that I am involved in the PTA, so your stereotype is correct in that one particular.

To counter, DH and I are Ph.D.'s in a heavy math field and we do not like 2.0.

We don't mind the depth and breadth of 2.0 and we agree this approach is great for teaching kids that might otherwise find math difficult. What we DO mind is that the 2.0 approach assumes that even after adding such depth and breadth, there are no children who can handle those extensions and still move at a faster pace than others. MCPS may have accelerated too much in the past but they have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction for 2.0. There are DEFINITELY children who can learn all the various techniques provided in 2.0 and still do it at a faster pace and do so at earlier grades than offered - compacted 4-5 math.

To summarize: there are people with valid points both in favor of 2.0 math and against 2.0 math.

Which makes me wonder why so many posters on DCUM keep insisting that EVERYBODY (except possibly [insulting insults go here]) hates 2.0 math.

I am PP in bold before - nowhere did I say anything about our opinion applying to everybody - so I hope you are not referring to my post in that manner...

[Anonymous]

I am a parent who had a pre-2.0 kid, and I say that overall, math is better under 2.0 than it was before.

Curious to know if your older child was in the less advanced classes. I understand that there was stigma before with being in the basic rather than the accelerated or advanced classes. The parents with older kids that I know all have kids who are advanced at math so they see a sharp decline. I know one parent who is relieved that their younger child doesn't have to worry about being in the low math class. She's open that her kid isn't strong in math.

Beyond making kids that don't understand as quickly feel better, which I actually agree is an important goal, I don't see that 2.0 is helping them. It won't prepare then for math at a selective university and it won't prepare them for a STEM career. If they don't develop the fluency, it will impede there scores down the road as no points are given for circle drawing on the SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a parent who had a pre-2.0 kid, and I say that overall, math is better under 2.0 than it was before.

Curious to know if your older child was in the less advanced classes. I understand that there was stigma before with being in the basic rather than the accelerated or advanced classes. The parents with older kids that I know all have kids who are advanced at math so they see a sharp decline. I know one parent who is relieved that their younger child doesn't have to worry about being in the low math class. She's open that her kid isn't strong in math.

Beyond making kids that don't understand as quickly feel better, which I actually agree is an important goal, I don't see that 2.0 is helping them. It won't prepare then for math at a selective university and it won't prepare them for a STEM career. If they don't develop the fluency, it will impede there scores down the road as no points are given for circle drawing on the SAT.

No. My older child was (and still is) advanced at math. My younger child is also advanced at math.

[Anonymous]

^^^and there's a lot more emphasis on fluency under 2.0 than there was pre-2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To counter, DH and I are Ph.D.'s in a heavy math field and we do not like 2.0.

We don't mind the depth and breadth of 2.0 and we agree this approach is great for teaching kids that might otherwise find math difficult. What we DO mind is that the 2.0 approach assumes that even after adding such depth and breadth, there are no children who can handle those extensions and still move at a faster pace than others. MCPS may have accelerated too much in the past but they have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction for 2.0. There are DEFINITELY children who can learn all the various techniques provided in 2.0 and still do it at a faster pace and do so at earlier grades than offered - compacted 4-5 math.

To summarize: there are people with valid points both in favor of 2.0 math and against 2.0 math.

Which makes me wonder why so many posters on DCUM keep insisting that EVERYBODY (except possibly [insulting insults go here]) hates 2.0 math.

I am PP in bold before - nowhere did I say anything about our opinion applying to everybody - so I hope you are not referring to my post in that manner...

No, I apologize! I certainly wasn't referring to your post.

[Anonymous]

I'll try to answer as someone without a math background but who has very math centric kids. We switched from private to public when we came to this area. Yes, I see a BIG difference. I also know parents who had pre 2.0 kids and they all say it has radically gone downhill.

1. Its too slow and imposes artificial ceilings. There is way too much repetition.
2. It isn't challenging. I saw that my kids were bored. More worrisome was that they saw math as super easy and requiring no effort to always get the right answer. It became obvious that they were not appreciating or absorbing any of the concepts or strategies that were being attempted to be taught because the problems were just too easy. They were showing work because they were told to do it and it was just an exercise in following instructions. This is no different than memorizing formulas. I don't think MCPS realizes how badly they missed the mark with removing more complex or harder problems.
3. The flow is just strange and seems to jump to something entirely different before ever developing any mastery or depth of understanding of the prior concept. Its isn't a speed issue but they will oddly do the same thing again and again and then just switch to a new topic. The whole cycle repeats again later.
4. It doesn't address the need for number and equation fluency. You can draw circles the first time but you need to be able to do faster mental calculation to move forward in math.
5. It presents complexity rather than simplicity which is entirely the opposite of what math intends to accomplish. Again, just strange.
6. Ironically, it misses on the depth factor. Worksheets will come home and I can understand what they are trying to convey but they always fail to teach the kids why this strategy or way of looking at a problem is important. They always miss the important component. For the kids, it just seems like a labor intensive process to produce an answer that you could have found in a simpler way. It takes supplementation to present the actual concept.
7. The paragraph writing to explain the strategy that you were told to use is just bizarre. There's more focus on writing composition now in math than actual mathematical reasoning, fluency, relational understanding, and computation. There is real danger that they are missing the ability to understand equations and symbols.
8. It removes the fun, sense of accomplishment, and drive to solve problems because its easy, laborious, and counter intuitive.
9. Someone in MCPS needs to provide some Q/A on the worksheets. There are grammatical errors and this makes a difference with word problems.

Overall, I think its a broken system and I'm not sure who benefits from this. Maybe its a mistake or maybe its just a way to lower the achievement gap by disallowing math oriented students from progressing. I can't imagine that this actually helps kids that struggle in math anymore than the kids that are good at math.

What is wonderful is that we live in a time when school is not the only avenue for education. In fact, the prominence of the traditional school may be diminishing as more on-line, tutoring, and enrichment programs expand. At least we aren't trapped in MCPS math, even if we can't afford 30K for private tuition. So, yes math is bad in MCPS but you can overcome this by doing it on your own even if you aren't a math expert. I have learned through my kids that math is cool, fun, and all about the excitement of solving a challenge. I never thought about this way until I had them. Its too bad that they can't experience this in school but we can do it at home.

I notice how 17:04 ignored every substantive point in this post. I've noticed that behavior in meeting with MCPS staff too. They can never respond to the issues. They can only say its great, its deeper, and then give NO evidence or even a substantive response. Sad and pathetic IMO.

[Anonymous]

17:35

How on earth can respond that there is more focus on fluency in 2.0 than pre-2.0????? There is NO focus on fluency at all. There isn't even consistent unit testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I notice how 17:04 ignored every substantive point in this post. I've noticed that behavior in meeting with MCPS staff too. They can never respond to the issues. They can only say its great, its deeper, and then give NO evidence or even a substantive response. Sad and pathetic IMO.

17:04 is not interested in doing a point-by-point rebuttal of your post. 17:04 has explained why 17:04 likes 2.0 math better many, many times on DCUM. (I'm 17:04.)

If you want to know the reasoning of people who like 2.0 math better, you can search the archives.

Or you can assume (wrongly) that anybody who disagrees with you is either ignorant or on the MCPS payroll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:35

How on earth can respond that there is more focus on fluency in 2.0 than pre-2.0????? There is NO focus on fluency at all. There isn't even consistent unit testing.

If your definition of "fluency" includes unit testing, your definition must be different from mine.

In my experience of pre-2.0, there was very little drill and repetition, and parents were responsible for making sure that the kids learned their math facts. Under 2.0, there is a lot more drill and repetition, and learning math facts is part of class.

[Anonymous]

17:46 you didn't explain anything. You ignored every point and just said you like it better. This isn't credible, valuable, or legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:46 you didn't explain anything. You ignored every point and just said you like it better. This isn't credible, valuable, or legitimate.

If you want to know, do a search.

If you don't want to know, don't.

[Anonymous]

If your definition of "fluency" includes unit testing, your definition must be different from mine.

In my experience of pre-2.0, there was very little drill and repetition, and parents were responsible for making sure that the kids learned their math facts. Under 2.0, there is a lot more drill and repetition, and learning math facts is part of class.

Single digit addition and subtraction is not fluency. I think you are confusing very basic mad minutes with fluency. Fluency comes from working with many problem sets of varying degrees of complexity using the numerical and equation based (i.e. normal math) approach. Its great that you are impressed that your child can answer 1+1=2 quickly in their head but fluency comes from being able to work with larger numbers and more complex equations quickly not drawing silly pictures all the time which is GONE from 2.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If your definition of "fluency" includes unit testing, your definition must be different from mine.

In my experience of pre-2.0, there was very little drill and repetition, and parents were responsible for making sure that the kids learned their math facts. Under 2.0, there is a lot more drill and repetition, and learning math facts is part of class.

Single digit addition and subtraction is not fluency. I think you are confusing very basic mad minutes with fluency. Fluency comes from working with many problem sets of varying degrees of complexity using the numerical and equation based (i.e. normal math) approach. Its great that you are impressed that your child can answer 1+1=2 quickly in their head but fluency comes from being able to work with larger numbers and more complex equations quickly not drawing silly pictures all the time which is GONE from 2.0.

Single-digit addition and subtraction sure is part of fluency in math -- unless you think it's possible to be fluent in math without having memorized math facts?. And fluency in anything comes from drill and repetition. Fluency in being able to add two-digit numbers comes from adding two-digit numbers a lot. Fluency in being able to work with larger numbers comes from working with larger numbers a lot. Fluency in being able to solve more complex equations comes from solving more complex equations a lot.

There was very little drill and repetition in pre-2.0 math (or at least in pre-2.0 accelerated math). There is a lot more now. In fact, that is one of the reasons people who don't like 2.0 math don't like 2.0 math.

(Where did I say that I was impressed that my child has memorized 1+1=2?)