I'm an old mom who attended the Center and magnets for MS and HS-- AMA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: the top district in the Nation (MCPS) sticks with a Curriculum (2.0) they developed with a multinational corporation (Pearson) for nearly a decade with failing results until they pay half a million to the top education research lab in the Nation (Johns Hopkins) finally tells them quit it! Does this sound like something one of the top school districts in the Nation would even ponder?

It kinda does, though. Most of the school districts in the US wouldn't develop a curriculum. They'd just use whatever outdated crap their state board authorized however many years ago. I didn't like 2.0 either, but there's nothing wrong or surprising about a large system like MCPS attempting to develop its own curriculum.

I disagree.

As you said, most school systems (including large ones) would not develop their own curriculum. They go with published materials which have been developed by subject matter experts, generally reviewed by many other subject matter experts and professionally edited. It is surprising that a small department whose primary expertise was pedagogical thought that acting on an ad hoc basis, they could do better. While a published textbook may be more out of date than a notebook binder given to the teacher a few days before the quarter she’s supposed to start teaching it, this does not seem particularly advantageous to me. It was wrong that in its hubris, MCPS decided to operate more as a private company with a profit/prestige motive, using our kids as guinea pigs, than as a public service that should prioritize educating children according to proven best practices.

You may well be one of the many that feels the MCPS curriculum was fine based on your children’s personal experiences. If so, I am genuinely pleased for you. However, I’m convinced that such are experiences are due to teachers who recognized the curriculum deficiencies and compensated for them independently. I base my experiences on the time I spent serving on a curriculum committee, reading the curriculum at central office before it went online with 2.0, becoming completely inaccessible, and talking to teachers, asking very specific questions. An independent audit concluded that the MCPS curriculum was objectively bad. This is not just whining from a few privileged malcontents.

Incidentally, in line with OP’s historical observations on GT education in MCPS, 15 years ago when my DC was in an HGC, the teacher, who sent her own daughter to a private school, used that private school’s grammar curriculum to teach her MCPS GT class.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: the top district in the Nation (MCPS) sticks with a Curriculum (2.0) they developed with a multinational corporation (Pearson) for nearly a decade with failing results until they pay half a million to the top education research lab in the Nation (Johns Hopkins) finally tells them quit it! Does this sound like something one of the top school districts in the Nation would even ponder?

It kinda does, though. Most of the school districts in the US wouldn't develop a curriculum. They'd just use whatever outdated crap their state board authorized however many years ago. I didn't like 2.0 either, but there's nothing wrong or surprising about a large system like MCPS attempting to develop its own curriculum.

I disagree.

As you said, most school systems (including large ones) would not develop their own curriculum. They go with published materials which have been developed by subject matter experts, generally reviewed by many other subject matter experts and professionally edited. It is surprising that a small department whose primary expertise was pedagogical thought that acting on an ad hoc basis, they could do better. While a published textbook may be more out of date than a notebook binder given to the teacher a few days before the quarter she’s supposed to start teaching it, this does not seem particularly advantageous to me. It was wrong that in its hubris, MCPS decided to operate more as a private company with a profit/prestige motive, using our kids as guinea pigs, than as a public service that should prioritize educating children according to proven best practices.

You may well be one of the many that feels the MCPS curriculum was fine based on your children’s personal experiences. If so, I am genuinely pleased for you. However, I’m convinced that such are experiences are due to teachers who recognized the curriculum deficiencies and compensated for them independently. I base my experiences on the time I spent serving on a curriculum committee, reading the curriculum at central office before it went online with 2.0, becoming completely inaccessible, and talking to teachers, asking very specific questions. An independent audit concluded that the MCPS curriculum was objectively bad. This is not just whining from a few privileged malcontents.

Incidentally, in line with OP’s historical observations on GT education in MCPS, 15 years ago when my DC was in an HGC, the teacher, who sent her own daughter to a private school, used that private school’s grammar curriculum to teach her MCPS GT class.

Amen.

Who's "proven best practices"?

[Anonymous]

Interesting topic OP! I'm also an Eastern and Blair magnet grad in my 40s, now raising kids here after 25 years away. My kids aren't in magnets now (selection is now lottery based in their age groups) but they are still getting an excellent education in good old GT classes (I know, shocker). I don't have many complaints about the standards, and I'm sort of typically DCUM (UMC and whiny).

We have moved a lot, and my kids have attended both private school and public schools in other areas (and other countries actually). The schools are just strong here, despite whatever GS/US News/Schooldigger tells you. I'm routinely surprised by some of the things the kids are learning (some topics I learned in Magnet Chem in 9th grade my 6th grader just covered ).

Guys, be grateful. It's not pretty out there, especially during a pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: the top district in the Nation (MCPS) sticks with a Curriculum (2.0) they developed with a multinational corporation (Pearson) for nearly a decade with failing results until they pay half a million to the top education research lab in the Nation (Johns Hopkins) finally tells them quit it! Does this sound like something one of the top school districts in the Nation would even ponder?

It kinda does, though. Most of the school districts in the US wouldn't develop a curriculum. They'd just use whatever outdated crap their state board authorized however many years ago. I didn't like 2.0 either, but there's nothing wrong or surprising about a large system like MCPS attempting to develop its own curriculum.

I disagree.

As you said, most school systems (including large ones) would not develop their own curriculum. They go with published materials which have been developed by subject matter experts, generally reviewed by many other subject matter experts and professionally edited. It is surprising that a small department whose primary expertise was pedagogical thought that acting on an ad hoc basis, they could do better. While a published textbook may be more out of date than a notebook binder given to the teacher a few days before the quarter she’s supposed to start teaching it, this does not seem particularly advantageous to me. It was wrong that in its hubris, MCPS decided to operate more as a private company with a profit/prestige motive, using our kids as guinea pigs, than as a public service that should prioritize educating children according to proven best practices.

You may well be one of the many that feels the MCPS curriculum was fine based on your children’s personal experiences. If so, I am genuinely pleased for you. However, I’m convinced that such are experiences are due to teachers who recognized the curriculum deficiencies and compensated for them independently. I base my experiences on the time I spent serving on a curriculum committee, reading the curriculum at central office before it went online with 2.0, becoming completely inaccessible, and talking to teachers, asking very specific questions. An independent audit concluded that the MCPS curriculum was objectively bad. This is not just whining from a few privileged malcontents.

Incidentally, in line with OP’s historical observations on GT education in MCPS, 15 years ago when my DC was in an HGC, the teacher, who sent her own daughter to a private school, used that private school’s grammar curriculum to teach her MCPS GT class.

Amen.

Who's "proven best practices"?

I posted at 02/09/2022 11:46 (the poster who said MCPS should use a curriculum based on “proven best practices”). I think anybody’s “proven best practices” would be a huge step forward. While I certainly have my opinions on what the best practices are, but curriculum is a subject of much debate, and I know many would disagree with my opinions. I don’t expect MCPS to agree with my curriculum preferences, but I do expect them to evaluate the effectiveness of different curricula in the districts they’ve been used and pick one that has proven effective somewhere (anywhere, but preferably in multiple places), much like other school districts did when they decided against purchasing the MCPS curriculum.