Curriculum 2.0, is it too easy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

+1

This is exactly how it is in our house -- one child who is perfectly bright, normal kid who will do fine with 2.0. The other an academic outlier who is starting to hate school because "it's so boring." Why is it so hard or terrible to group such kids together and give them the advanced material they crave and can handle? If you had 2 kids taking piano lessons together and one was just learning to play "Mary had a Little Lamb" and the other could already play "Moonlight Sonata," do you tell the advanced player she can only practice the beginner pieces? Not a perfect comparison but this is what I see so far in the math class especially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

+1

My kid got bored and tuned out. Then came the magnet that just urned it around. Thank you teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS really does not allow grade skipping without a serious fight, as I understand it. and no it really isn't appropriate in the large majority of cases even if allowed. The entire "redshirting" phenomenon precipitated by Malcolm Gladwell and others' findings that kids born around Sept who start school at older ages (rather than starting the year before) do better suggests putting younger kids with older kids may have social and physical disadvantages later on. I personally think gaming that and intentionally holding kids back is nuts, but I do think it's useful when considering skipping or grade promotion. Ask any of your "smart" friends who skipped grades how they liked being the smallest, youngest kid in their grade. Without exception I've not heard a single positive experience from our generation where this was more common. If you have, and I know it seems unthinkable, a highly intellectually able kid who is also highly athletically able, they will be at a serious disadvantage come high school. I hear rumors the big privates suggest, almost mandate redshirting for this reason. I actually want my child to be a well-rounded person, but one who can maximize his potential, yes starting now. He's no savant or Einstein. He's a regular kid who is good at school, and especially math. It shouldn't be that hard to just give him more challenging work, especially when kids do so much busy work at Math Zones or cutting and pasting.

At the start of the year, my kid's principal suggested he might take 3rd grade math as he is very advanced and in 2nd. But 3rd grade math is scheduled when 2nd grade language arts is scheduled. So skipping grades on selective subjects isn't really possible in our ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Okay I see. I didn't know whether or not MCPS would allow kids to skip grades or not. I guess I should've figured that they didn't as no one has brought it up before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

A girl who was in K last year at my son's MoCo public school last year skipped to 2nd grade this year, so it does happen. I don't know if the mom fought for this or not, but she doesn't seem like the type that would.


MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Okay I see. I didn't know whether or not MCPS would allow kids to skip grades or not. I guess I should've figured that they didn't as no one has brought it up before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Okay I see. I didn't know whether or not MCPS would allow kids to skip grades or not. I guess I should've figured that they didn't as no one has brought it up before.

Sorry, my response got buried...
A girl who was in K last year at my son's MoCo public school last year skipped to 2nd grade this year, so it does happen. I don't know if the mom fought for this or not, but she doesn't seem like the type that would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

Perhaps. Although my kid was unchallenged, and in fact an object of curiosity among other students because of her smarts (the kids would come up to me when I volunteered and asked why DD was so smart numerous times, they told the teacher in the beginning of the year, just to warn her, that DD was smart) I would not want her to grade skip. She is a 10 year old and putting her with 11 year olds may bring to light maturity issues and the like. What I wanted was for her to find both intellectual and social peers in once place, kids she had things in common with developmentally and intellectually and socially. This was one of my biggest goals with applying to the HGC program (that and more challenge, of course). She was accepted, and finally this year has real friends and has met kids she can understand. Yes! It's not all about challenge and grades.

[Anonymous]

Where is the community response? In 2008 Maryland was voted one of the top five state school systems in the nation, along with Virginia. Montgomery County Public Schools have been rolling out the new Curriculum 2.0 and as we have heard over and over, "the goal is proficiency." Another name for proficiency is competence. Compare that with other schools systems whose goals include excellence (which we have always been told to strive for). Our teachers are working harder than ever, with less support in the class room. And now so many decisions have been made that include no more honors, no more recognition for acceleration or advanced abilities, no more rewards or reasons for our kids to strive....the goal is proficiency. While the completely different curriculum may end up being a challenge for some, there is no concrete plan to address the needs and abilities of students who learn quickly and at an accelerated pace and who would benefit from regular advanced instruction. If a student demonstrates proficiency on a topic, where is the commitment of our school system to provide for those children beyond the common core? who would benefit from more in-depth critical thinking ? The Montgomery County Public Schools website answers this question by saying the curriculum itself is enriched and advanced. This is a non-answer. There may be many reasons that are given for the new curriculum. But advanced and accelerated learners are by definition being ignored. It is not the fault of our teachers. With the new curriculum they are not given the tools they need to both serve and move the majority towards proficiency and address the needs of advanced students. We demand more from Montgomery County. If we as parents do not take action, I wonder if in 2013 we will still be considered one of the top five state school systems in the nation. I doubt it. Maybe we will move back to Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the community response? In 2008 Maryland was voted one of the top five state school systems in the nation, along with Virginia. Montgomery County Public Schools have been rolling out the new Curriculum 2.0 and as we have heard over and over, "the goal is proficiency." Another name for proficiency is competence. Compare that with other schools systems whose goals include excellence (which we have always been told to strive for). Our teachers are working harder than ever, with less support in the class room. And now so many decisions have been made that include no more honors, no more recognition for acceleration or advanced abilities, no more rewards or reasons for our kids to strive....the goal is proficiency. While the completely different curriculum may end up being a challenge for some, there is no concrete plan to address the needs and abilities of students who learn quickly and at an accelerated pace and who would benefit from regular advanced instruction. If a student demonstrates proficiency on a topic, where is the commitment of our school system to provide for those children beyond the common core? who would benefit from more in-depth critical thinking ? The Montgomery County Public Schools website answers this question by saying the curriculum itself is enriched and advanced. This is a non-answer. There may be many reasons that are given for the new curriculum. But advanced and accelerated learners are by definition being ignored. It is not the fault of our teachers. With the new curriculum they are not given the tools they need to both serve and move the majority towards proficiency and address the needs of advanced students. We demand more from Montgomery County. If we as parents do not take action, I wonder if in 2013 we will still be considered one of the top five state school systems in the nation. I doubt it. Maybe we will move back to Fairfax County.

Did you see this thread on the VA forum? Seems parents in Fairfax aren't happy either

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/265262.page

[Anonymous]

Check out the petition on change.org to change the current curriculum 2.0 to better accommodate differentiated student levels in particular math....Search "No Time To Waste " on change .org...We really need signatures to make improvements happen...Don t just complain....Take action! Thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2.0 goal chart says it all: All kids are aiming for proficient. Proficient = meeting state standards that align with 47 other states. MCPS before Starr used to aim higher for our kids. A good chunk of our kids aimed for and reached above state standards. These kids are now left to "independently" learn while the teacher focuses and catching up the rest of the class. They are no longer receiving above state standards instruction.

Plans for implementing 2.0 were in progress before Starr took over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out the petition on change.org to change the current curriculum 2.0 to better accommodate differentiated student levels in particular math....Search "No Time To Waste " on change .org...We really need signatures to make improvements happen...Don t just complain....Take action! Thanks

Why the anonymity behind the petition? The GTA email list shows just one parent behind the push for math based segregation. Before signing the petition ask:

why math only?
what is the hidden agenda?
why anonymous posting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the petition on change.org to change the current curriculum 2.0 to better accommodate differentiated student levels in particular math....Search "No Time To Waste " on change .org...We really need signatures to make improvements happen...Don t just complain....Take action! Thanks

Why the anonymity behind the petition? The GTA email list shows just one parent behind the push for math based segregation. Before signing the petition ask:

why math only?
what is the hidden agenda?
why anonymous posting?

The BOE is going to be the same with the exception of Smondrowski. Those who brought C 2.0 are back in power. Be careful of signing petitions floated by anonymous parties.