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

[Anonymous]

I found this link and its a great summary articulating the core problems with MCPS 2.0 math program.

http://www.tagpdx.org/what'swrongwithnewmath.htm

Many parents are completely in the dark knowing that the math program sucks but not understanding math well enough to know exactly why it sucks. I absolutely hate the patronizing attitude I've seen MCPS staff take with other parents who don't know enough to point out the problems with specificity. Its a very nasty - Gee, Charlotte math just isn't the way it was when you were a kid, you just don't understand it- attitude. They back down quickly when they encounter a parent who does understand math deeply and calls their bluff.

MCPS needs to stop circling their wagons and defending the incompetent staff in the curriculum office so they can adopt a real math curriculum.

[Anonymous]

I am so glad there are parents like you to bring us into the light!

[Anonymous]

This is just one side of things, its not the truth, its only an opinion.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I'm in the minority. Love 2.0 math. I have one advanced and one on grade level 2.0 math student. I also have a pre-2.0 student who struggled for years with the old curriculum. Supplement at home if it feels too slow (my son would attempt his older sisters homework for challenge). I really believe my kids have developed a deep understanding of math thanks to the strategies and repetition. They can solve difficult problems in their heads and explain how they got the answer. Most importantly, they can apply their skills to novel problems. I'm not a mathematician or a teacher so maybe I'm missing something, but it works well for us.

I have a long list of MCPS complaints but math instruction isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

They differentiate in my DC's 2nd grade class, too, and they did 3 yrs ago when other DC was also in 2nd grade. I don't have too much of a problem with 2.0 math. Sometimes, I do find the "explanations" that the kids have to do too much, though, but it forces them to really think and verbalize their logic which is a pretty good thing, IMO. In that way, it's harder. My DC gets ES opportunities from the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't think pre 2.0 math was all that great, either. American kids still did terribly on the PISA test pre CC standards. At least with CC standards, the kids are required to think more. Not saying 2.0 curriculum is 100% great, but I don't think we should rah rah over what we've been doing in the past.

http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/top-us-students-fare-poorly-international-pisa-test-scores-shanghai-tops-world-finland-slips_693/

"* Stagnation. U.S. scores on PISA exams haven’t improved over the past decade. See here. That’s a bit of a contrast from the NAEP exam where American students have been showing modest improvement. I believe the NAEP exam plays to U.S. strengths of simple equation solving. It has fewer word problems where students have to apply their knowledge to a new circumstance and write their own equations and models."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in the minority. Love 2.0 math. I have one advanced and one on grade level 2.0 math student. I also have a pre-2.0 student who struggled for years with the old curriculum. Supplement at home if it feels too slow (my son would attempt his older sisters homework for challenge). I really believe my kids have developed a deep understanding of math thanks to the strategies and repetition. They can solve difficult problems in their heads and explain how they got the answer. Most importantly, they can apply their skills to novel problems. I'm not a mathematician or a teacher so maybe I'm missing something, but it works well for us.

I have a long list of MCPS complaints but math instruction isn't one of them.

I agree with you. My DD has about 3 or 4 worksheets per night with one or two being a "challenge" for extra points. We require her to do the challenge since the general worksheets can be done very quickly. Once in a while my DH, who has engineering degrees from MIT and Standford, complains that the work is too repetive because DD has to solve a problem in multiple ways. That said, he admits it is more challenging then what he was doing in 3rd grade.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP, particularly in terms of weighing down mathematical analysis with mumbo-jumbo. Many students are more than capable of doing the math, but can't explain it, which doesn't mean they don't understand it. Some students also may not have the reading and multitasking skills to wade through every text and direction (particularly for the PARCC math test, which is aligned to the Common Core). This means that many students will not fare well in math class, not because they lack math understanding, but because language competency intrudes far too much in the math curriculum, which is completely inappropriate at the elementary school level. Middle schoolers and higher schoolers would be expected to be more articulate in this regard.

As usual, the curriculum also teaches far too many concepts and doesn't dig deep. This is problematic, because it means that most students will not reach levels of critical thinking skills and analysis that students in other countries are working on, through more challenging work in fewer subjects.

Having lived in different countries, I have noticed that this is not just a problem with Common Core. The USA has a long curriculum tradition of going "a mile wide, an inch deep" compared to other countries - and this partly explains why American students have such low performance scores in worldwide tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with OP, particularly in terms of weighing down mathematical analysis with mumbo-jumbo. Many students are more than capable of doing the math, but can't explain it, which doesn't mean they don't understand it. Some students also may not have the reading and multitasking skills to wade through every text and direction (particularly for the PARCC math test, which is aligned to the Common Core). This means that many students will not fare well in math class, not because they lack math understanding, but because language competency intrudes far too much in the math curriculum, which is completely inappropriate at the elementary school level. Middle schoolers and higher schoolers would be expected to be more articulate in this regard.

As usual, the curriculum also teaches far too many concepts and doesn't dig deep. This is problematic, because it means that most students will not reach levels of critical thinking skills and analysis that students in other countries are working on, through more challenging work in fewer subjects.

Having lived in different countries, I have noticed that this is not just a problem with Common Core. The USA has a long curriculum tradition of going "a mile wide, an inch deep" compared to other countries - and this partly explains why American students have such low performance scores in worldwide tests.

The "mile wide inch deep" math curriculum was worse pre 2.0.

I disagree to some point with your statement: some kids can do the math but not explain it because they really don't understand what they are doing. I think this is how a lot of kids learned math a long time ago.. as in "this is how you solve this math problem: do step 1, then step 2, etc..." The explanation of why you do step 1, 2 wasn't nearly in depth enough for a lot of kids. They just followed the steps because that's what they were told to do.

[Anonymous]

The article raises some good points. I wish it were a little more concrete in it's criticism. I agree the biggest problem is the lack of focus on basic numeracy and practice with standard algorithms. There is a point where the student needs to be able to execute basic arithmetic quickly and without error, so that they can be thinking about the bigger task. I'm seeing a real problem with this as my son has entered MS. Yes, he understands each of the tasks conceptually but makes too many errors. Really, how many people fail at division because they don't understand it conceptually? They fail because they don't have enough practice with the algorithm to be meticulous or they fail because they're slowed down by weak math facts and a single long division problem requires so many. Yes, at some point everyone does division by calculator, still being able to follow a sequence of operations without being bogged down in the details is exactly what is needed to move on in math.

[Anonymous]

2.0 is working for us, in fact it has turned math around for my DD who is now excelling where she previously wasn't.

[Anonymous]

I think the combination of the new curriculum with also the abandonment of formal acceleration avenues is muddying what people are unhappy about. I like what dd is learning and it seems she is doing more complicated math than I would think I probably did at her age.

But what I dislike is that the differentiation is so up to each teacher to figure out and implement themselves. It does not need to be this way. Gradea could regroup across classes for math to allow kids who he it to move quicker. What I dislike is the minimal differentiation and the fact that the county seems to not provide much formal supports or process for helping create meaningful differentiation.

Yes I know about compacted math. That is only stating in 4th though.