2.0 1st grade curriculum: Carbon Dioxide? Yes! Telling time? No!

[Anonymous]

I have two kids about 7yrs apart and I can't get over how terrible the new curriculum is.

1st grade pre 2.0
Learned math facts in K
Tracked math classes (Mine went into 2nd grade math)
Reading groups, skies the limit on levels
Learned normal age appropriate things in science/geography

1st grade 2.0
Learning math facts in 1st (soooo slowly)
No tracked classes. Math groups that meet 8-10min a day instead
No acceleration except for an occasional sheet once every few weeks
Reading groups unable to bypass following years highest level. So nothing into 3rd grade levels allowed, confirmed by 2 teachers.
Not one lesson telling time or learning a calendar. Kids learn time in 2nd grade now when questioned.
Currently learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. Volunteered in class. Kids are completely baffled.


I am just so disappointed. How do we rationalize not teaching kids how to tell time until 8yrs old but they need to learn about carbon footprint? Please tell me it gets better. 1st grade has been so boring and strange.

[Anonymous]

MCPS sucks!! It's getting worse every year. Very disappointing.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

My daughter is in Pre-Calc as a 9th grader. I definitely wasn't complaining about acceleration. Kids NEED acceleration. They don't need to be dumbed down and now dumbed down by easier grades too. My youngest daughter has no chance to even take this same route and she seems to be even brighter. Instead she is learning math facts up to 12 right now, which most preschools teach when kids are 4.

You can not rationalize no need for acceleration but teaching 6yr olds about carbon dioxide is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

If there is no math tracking,,then what are the groups that are meeting each day? random?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

LOL. And why even teach kids to read digital clocks when they can just ask Siri what time it is?
And why waste time teaching kids fractions when the earth is cooking and heating and boiling due to their carbon footprint?
No child left behind, because if you go this slow there is no "behind".

[Anonymous]

Teachers and administrators out there: I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints like this. I am a parent, not a teacher. Teaching is not my profession so I feel comfortable leaving curriculum development to the national and local curriculum experts. I acknowledge that my idea of what is "normal" and "appropriate" at each age might not align with the school system's curriculum. If I need my child to know something they haven't covered yet, like analog clocks, I teach them myself. I do not say things like "MCPS sucks," maligning a huge and incredibly complicated system with one juvenile word. I do not demand my child be put in math and reading classes two levels higher than their own. If they do truly know it all already, they may come home and read or do math or build cool stuff in their free time. I know you are not put in your job to validate my child's brilliance or my parenting. I know you have a difficult job, and you have reasons for everything you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

+1 on the telling time. I volunteered in my DC's 2nd grade class to help teach telling time, and knowing what "quarter" meant was very useful. Some school districts no longer teach how to read an analog clock, or how to write in cursive. I know some parents have stated that their kids haven't learned cursive in mcps, but mine have (in 3rd grade).

Yes, it is it the school policy, not the curriculum. I think it's great that kids learn about the environment as part of science at an early age. They may not understand the big picture, but they can certainly understand that what one does everyday contributes to the environmental pollution. My 6 yr old DD asked me why I couldn't drive her to school instead of her taking the bus. I had to explain to her about the concept of "carbon footprint". I don't think that's a hard concept for a child to learn. You just have to present it so a 6 yr old can understand it.

Some things are slower, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At this age, too much too quick acceleration in math for 99% of kids is not the best idea. There have been lots of complains by parents and teachers about how too many kids pre 2.0 were accelerated too quickly in math, and they were finding that these kids were missing or weak in the fundamentals.

[Anonymous]

My daughter is in Pre-Calc as a 9th grader. I definitely wasn't complaining about acceleration. Kids NEED acceleration. They don't need to be dumbed down and now dumbed down by easier grades too. My youngest daughter has no chance to even take this same route and she seems to be even brighter. Instead she is learning math facts up to 12 right now, which most preschools teach when kids are 4.

You can not rationalize no need for acceleration but teaching 6yr olds about carbon dioxide is a good thing.

This is an issue with your school, not 2.0. My child is at a Maryland Focus School that most DCUM parent's wouldn't deign to consider and they are doing math facts up to 100. Or they were, before they moved to shapes and solids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

+1 on the telling time. I volunteered in my DC's 2nd grade class to help teach telling time, and knowing what "quarter" meant was very useful. Some school districts no longer teach how to read an analog clock, or how to write in cursive. I know some parents have stated that their kids haven't learned cursive in mcps, but mine have (in 3rd grade).

Yes, it is it the school policy, not the curriculum. I think it's great that kids learn about the environment as part of science at an early age. They may not understand the big picture, but they can certainly understand that what one does everyday contributes to the environmental pollution. My 6 yr old DD asked me why I couldn't drive her to school instead of her taking the bus. I had to explain to her about the concept of "carbon footprint". I don't think that's a hard concept for a child to learn. You just have to present it so a 6 yr old can understand it.

Some things are slower, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At this age, too much too quick acceleration in math for 99% of kids is not the best idea. There have been lots of complains by parents and teachers about how too many kids pre 2.0 were accelerated too quickly in math, and they were finding that these kids were missing or weak in the fundamentals.

So instead you think no one should be accelerated? That is the way to go instead of not allowing so many to go thru? Just take it away from everyone and teach a baseline level math to everyone?

And you think it is okay for some schools to teach math facts to 100, some teach time, some teach cursive while others do not? So some schools are or are not following the 1st grade curriculum and you are okay with that?

And do we really think most 6 and 7 year olds don't know what a quarter is? When do they learn money. In 4th grade?

[Anonymous]

OP, sounds like you should go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

My daughter is in Pre-Calc as a 9th grader. I definitely wasn't complaining about acceleration. Kids NEED acceleration. They don't need to be dumbed down and now dumbed down by easier grades too. My youngest daughter has no chance to even take this same route and she seems to be even brighter. Instead she is learning math facts up to 12 right now, which most preschools teach when kids are 4.

You can not rationalize no need for acceleration but teaching 6yr olds about carbon dioxide is a good thing.

Maybe you weren't, but other people were, including

1. people on DCUM
2. the high school math teachers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there is no math tracking,,then what are the groups that are meeting each day? random?

Not the OP, but I have a kid in 2nd grade in MCPS.

Our school has NO math tracking. Not sure if this is school specific, or just MCPS policy because DD is our first kid going through.
No math groups that meet daily. My DD is a pretty good reporter, so I'm pretty confident that she's not just making it up. All kids get the same worksheets.

What ESs in MoCo have math tracking for 1st and 2nd graders? We have two younger kids, and are currently renting, so are open to moving into a different cluster!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, sounds like you should go private.

I agree with this. For better or for worse, privates teach exactly what the parents want, which is usually exactly what they learned as kids. They are also usually willing to accelerate as much as parents want, for better or for worse, because the customer is always right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

+1 on the telling time. I volunteered in my DC's 2nd grade class to help teach telling time, and knowing what "quarter" meant was very useful. Some school districts no longer teach how to read an analog clock, or how to write in cursive. I know some parents have stated that their kids haven't learned cursive in mcps, but mine have (in 3rd grade).

Yes, it is it the school policy, not the curriculum. I think it's great that kids learn about the environment as part of science at an early age. They may not understand the big picture, but they can certainly understand that what one does everyday contributes to the environmental pollution. My 6 yr old DD asked me why I couldn't drive her to school instead of her taking the bus. I had to explain to her about the concept of "carbon footprint". I don't think that's a hard concept for a child to learn. You just have to present it so a 6 yr old can understand it.

Some things are slower, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At this age, too much too quick acceleration in math for 99% of kids is not the best idea. There have been lots of complains by parents and teachers about how too many kids pre 2.0 were accelerated too quickly in math, and they were finding that these kids were missing or weak in the fundamentals.

So instead you think no one should be accelerated? That is the way to go instead of not allowing so many to go thru? Just take it away from everyone and teach a baseline level math to everyone?

And you think it is okay for some schools to teach math facts to 100, some teach time, some teach cursive while others do not? So some schools are or are not following the 1st grade curriculum and you are okay with that?

And do we really think most 6 and 7 year olds don't know what a quarter is? When do they learn money. In 4th grade?

No where did I state that any kind of acceleration was bad. I stated that "some things are *slower*", not that there is no acceleration at all. I am not ok with schools not following policy, but perhaps some teachers deviate a bit from the curriculum based on the needs of the kids? That's a teacher/principal issue, not a curriculum issue.

When I was teaching the 2nd graders about telling time, some of them didn't know what a quarter was. That's how I know it was useful for a child to know what a quarter is before they learn to tell time. Yes, there are some kids who don't know the value of coins by 1st grade, though I believe they teach it in mcps, but can't remember if it was 1st or 2nd grade.