2.0

[Anonymous]

OK now we've officially jumped the shark.

[Anonymous]

Odd take considering this is a completely liberal program and approach with no conservative backing

The analogy has nothing to do with political ideology but everything to do with pervasive evasion and deception and an inability to answer a straightforward question truthfully and directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is familiar to the Romnesque disaster in progress.

Romney (and the Republican party) and MCPS leadership are peas in a pod: Etch-a-sketch, flip-flop, power point smoke and mirrors designed to avoid responding directly to questions from parents, children and the electorate. This has gone on for at least 2 years in regard curriculum 2.0.

I laugh when I hear the various MCPS principals, teachers and MCPS leadership attempt to transmit the "talking points from downtown" about curriculum 2.0. Every parent gets a different take and message depending on which MCPS principal, elementary school teacher of MCPS bureaucrat you talk with. Things are rotten in the State of Denmark. I smell a rat.

For the last 2 years we have heard a lot of different messages from assorted MCPS messengers:

All children will get math education appropriate for their level of mastery. We will differentiate math instruction in all classes. Children will not have to repeat math work already mastered. No child will accelerate or advance in math if appropriate. Children will be allowed to advance or accelerate. We still approve of kids taking geometry in 8 th grade. We don't approve of children taking algebra in elementary school. The teachers are learning the system. We have no metrics to assess how kids in curriculum 2.0. We do have metrics to assess our children in curriculum 2.0. We are not targeting the GT crowd. We are not targeting the aboe average students in the curriculum. Which 47% is MCPS teaching to? Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop ....blah, blah blah...social engineering...close the achievement gap with lying statistics ...

Does this all sound familiar in light of the current election climate.

MCPS flip-flopping, etch-a-sketch, power point lies.

Some one has already stated this is a disaster in the making.

On the contrary, the disaster is already here. Just look at the mixed messages and the incompetent roll out and execution.

Yeap, agreed. They are good at nice talking without saying anything substantial. Whenever I hear the word "stakeholder", I just want to run away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a different perspective, my DH teaches at the University level in a field that requires a strong understanding of math. He has noticed over the last several years that his students are woefully unprepared for college level math. They have no deeper understanding of concepts, can't figure out the basics and only have a very surface level comprehension of just about everything. While some memorization is actually important in the math field (ie knowing your multiplication tables etc) he is thrilled that they are slowing down the acceleration of students and getting back to where kids have to know how they got the answer, different ways to solve and look at math. He feels this is a much better approach to math than what has been in place. I'm sure other's that see the end result of the previous push in math will agree with him. There is even remedial college math courses going into the curriculum to cover what the students didn't get from K-12 but need in college. So I suggest people take a bigger picture approach. I also can see the need for adapting how the elementary is taught even under 2.0, our school seems to be vested in making adjustments if they don't feel like its working.

I don't doubt that this is what your DH is seeing. But, I'm not sure that the acceleration per se has been the problem. In our experience, the problem is how exactly these math concepts are being taught. I am seeing MCPS teachers who have a very shallow understanding of math, teaching math! I am seeing MCPS teachers teach how to solve problems by sharing memory devices, encouraging kids to use specific techniques for specific kinds of problems (essentially math by problem format copying), etc., and worse -- problem sets with multiple wrong answers, entire techniques taught to kids where the technique actually provides the wrong answer, etc.!

My older child was accelerated by 2 years in math. The problems DC1 had in math class were entirely due to poor teaching (as separate from the "curriculum" in terms of what skills were taught when). The problem was how the teachers teach each math skill. DC1 was taught to use a rhyme and draw an arrow to complete scientific notation problems. I finally taught DC1 the underlying math and calculations (which rely on the most basic understanding of basic fractions, decimals and exponents). After the explanation, you could see the light bulb go off. I have never, ever seen DC1 draw directional arrows again to do scientific notation problems. She understands the conceptual basis.

DC2 is has a much better natural understanding of math concepts; however, because DC2 is in the first year of the curriculum wave, he will never receive the acceleration opportunity. He will now likely not reach scientific notation until much later than DC1, but I would be willing to bet that when he does, the teachers will still be using a rhyme and arrows to teach kids which way to move the decimal in scientific notation. In fact, just this morning DC2 informed me, "Teacher So and So told me in class that zero was neither even nor odd, but I don't understand, why isn't zero even? It seems like it should be?" Hmmmm. It seems like it should be an even number, because it is even number!

The problem was never acceleration. It was always the teaching method.

[Anonymous]

Uh... how could there possibly be proof?!?! Exactly, there is no proof either way therefore students newly transitioned into the program need to be evaluated on all areas of the grade they are currently in. Then and only then can adjustments be made if appropriate.

Truly, you have mastered the art of doublespeak. They need to be tested to prove they don't have to repeat material, yet there is no available test, so they all have to go back to the same level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I truly despise it when anonymous posters presume that we parents of math-accelerated GT kids fight for what our children need in school. There is no acceptable reason any child should come home saying they hate math because it is boring. I've heard it over and over, from my child, from friends' children.

I have no problem with a curriculum change that brings more depth and understanding. I DO have a problem with a system that insists all children are at the same level because of their age. Math is no different than reading. Should my child who taught himself to read at age 4 sit in a classroom waiting for kids to catch up? If every piece of math work that my child does is used as an example to the others in the class for instruction, doesn't that signal that the child needs to move on to harder concepts?

There's absolutely no reason that MCPS shouldn't continue to re-group children to homogenous math classrooms based on what they are ready to learn. It's more efficient for teachers and children get more time learning what they are ready to learn. What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

As Dr. Starr has said, accelerated children are not the bulk of the children that we serve in our school system.

Do I take pride in my child moving to a different classroom? I never thought of it that way. I do EXPECT my child to be taught at school, not to be the teacher.

So, does that mean I have to sue the public schools to provide an education for my child or pay for private school to do that? Isn't that, essentially, the approach of special ed kids at the other end of the spectrum?

I really like your comments and agree. An education shouldn't be a luxury, and if we don't address the needs of accelerated students, we will lose them and their potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a different perspective, my DH teaches at the University level in a field that requires a strong understanding of math. He has noticed over the last several years that his students are woefully unprepared for college level math. They have no deeper understanding of concepts, can't figure out the basics and only have a very surface level comprehension of just about everything. While some memorization is actually important in the math field (ie knowing your multiplication tables etc) he is thrilled that they are slowing down the acceleration of students and getting back to where kids have to know how they got the answer, different ways to solve and look at math. He feels this is a much better approach to math than what has been in place. I'm sure other's that see the end result of the previous push in math will agree with him. There is even remedial college math courses going into the curriculum to cover what the students didn't get from K-12 but need in college. So I suggest people take a bigger picture approach. I also can see the need for adapting how the elementary is taught even under 2.0, our school seems to be vested in making adjustments if they don't feel like its working.

I don't doubt that this is what your DH is seeing. But, I'm not sure that the acceleration per se has been the problem. In our experience, the problem is how exactly these math concepts are being taught. I am seeing MCPS teachers who have a very shallow understanding of math, teaching math! I am seeing MCPS teachers teach how to solve problems by sharing memory devices, encouraging kids to use specific techniques for specific kinds of problems (essentially math by problem format copying), etc., and worse -- problem sets with multiple wrong answers, entire techniques taught to kids where the technique actually provides the wrong answer, etc.!

My older child was accelerated by 2 years in math. The problems DC1 had in math class were entirely due to poor teaching (as separate from the "curriculum" in terms of what skills were taught when). The problem was how the teachers teach each math skill. DC1 was taught to use a rhyme and draw an arrow to complete scientific notation problems. I finally taught DC1 the underlying math and calculations (which rely on the most basic understanding of basic fractions, decimals and exponents). After the explanation, you could see the light bulb go off. I have never, ever seen DC1 draw directional arrows again to do scientific notation problems. She understands the conceptual basis.

DC2 is has a much better natural understanding of math concepts; however, because DC2 is in the first year of the curriculum wave, he will never receive the acceleration opportunity. He will now likely not reach scientific notation until much later than DC1, but I would be willing to bet that when he does, the teachers will still be using a rhyme and arrows to teach kids which way to move the decimal in scientific notation. In fact, just this morning DC2 informed me, "Teacher So and So told me in class that zero was neither even nor odd, but I don't understand, why isn't zero even? It seems like it should be?" Hmmmm. It seems like it should be an even number, because it is even number!

The problem was never acceleration. It was always the teaching method.

I don't think anyone here is against acceleration just against acceleration fours own sake or when it's not truly needed. My argument is that there is nothing in 2.0 that says you cannot accelerate. If that's the case I'll turn coat but for now it's too early

[Anonymous]

Truly, you have mastered the art of doublespeak. They need to be tested to prove they don't have to repeat material, yet there is no available test, so they all have to go back to the same level.

aka Romney and Starr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Uh... how could there possibly be proof?!?! Exactly, there is no proof either way therefore students newly transitioned into the program need to be evaluated on all areas of the grade they are currently in. Then and only then can adjustments be made if appropriate.

Truly, you have mastered the art of doublespeak. They need to be tested to prove they don't have to repeat material, yet there is no available test, so they all have to go back to the same level.

Not quite, they have to be EVALUATED not tested. I don't believe a test exists out there to determine conceptual ability for younger children only ability to generated the correct result.

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone here is against acceleration just against acceleration fours own sake or when it's not truly needed. My argument is that there is nothing in 2.0 that says you cannot accelerate. If that's the case I'll turn coat but for now it's too early

Do you mean to say you are against access of advanced subject material for capable math students in Grade K, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5? The advanced subject material may be found in elementary schools, and is taught, but access for capable and willing students is prohibited if this is not provided in the current grade level work. And for many it doesn't exist in their current grade level.

[Anonymous]

This is public school, for approximately 70,000 elementary school students in the county. The math curriculum was not working for the district, and they had to comply with the new national core standards, so this is what they have come up with. It's hard not to hear all these complaints as sort of entitled.

In this school system, 62.8% of all students complete Algebra I by 8th grade. Here is the ethnic breakdown: 82% Asian students complete Algebra I by 8th grade, 79% white, 44% black, 43% Latino. When you complete Algebra I by 8th grade, you are able to get to Calculus by senior year. How is this a disaster?

What grade do all of these parents want their student to do Calculus in -- 10th? So that means they are taking, what, multivariable calculus in 11th, and then by senior year they all have to bus to College Park to take classes for math majors at U.Md.?

[Anonymous]

From a different perspective, my DH teaches at the University level in a field that requires a strong understanding of math. He has noticed over the last several years that his students are woefully unprepared for college level math. They have no deeper understanding of concepts, can't figure out the basics and only have a very surface level comprehension of just about everything. While some memorization is actually important in the math field (ie knowing your multiplication tables etc) he is thrilled that they are slowing down the acceleration of students and getting back to where kids have to know how they got the answer, different ways to solve and look at math. He feels this is a much better approach to math than what has been in place. I'm sure other's that see the end result of the previous push in math will agree with him. There is even remedial college math courses going into the curriculum to cover what the students didn't get from K-12 but need in college. So I suggest people take a bigger picture approach. I also can see the need for adapting how the elementary is taught even under 2.0, our school seems to be vested in making adjustments if they don't feel like its working.

Your husband's observation has everything to do with incompetent teaching of mathematics at the elementary school level, the widespread encouragement of the use of calculators in early math education, and the mathophobia ingrained in our children at an early age. It has much less to do with limiting access to advanced math concepts for capable elementary and middle school kids based on age, grade, height, weight or SES.

[Anonymous]

This is public school, for approximately 70,000 elementary school students in the county. The math curriculum was not working for the district, and they had to comply with the new national core standards, so this is what they have come up with. It's hard not to hear all these complaints as sort of entitled.
In this school system, 62.8% of all students complete Algebra I by 8th grade. Here is the ethnic breakdown: 82% Asian students complete Algebra I by 8th grade, 79% white, 44% black, 43% Latino. When you complete Algebra I by 8th grade, you are able to get to Calculus by senior year. How is this a disaster?

What grade do all of these parents want their student to do Calculus in -- 10th? So that means they are taking, what, multivariable calculus in 11th, and then by senior year they all have to bus to College Park to take classes for math majors at U.Md.?

No child in public school should sit in a 50 min classroom counting blocks when he or she can go next door for 50 min and get appropriate and commensurate instruction in math for his or her level of mastery. This is not entitlement. This is common sense.

Your logical engine is off the tracks. As a parent I care about today in Grade 1, 2 and 3 for my children ... not where they are in the 10th grade some time in thefuture. I can't forsee that far but I damn well know what they are doing in school in math now and it is wholly inadequate for some children. Even the teachers with their doublespeak somehow know this too.

[Anonymous]

Not quite, they have to be EVALUATED not tested. I don't believe a test exists out there to determine conceptual ability for younger children only ability to generated the correct result.

Why does it take MCPS 2 years (... and counting) to evaluate some children in curriculum 2.0 math?
There are some kids in K and 1 (already mastered addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and place value) now in grade 2 and 3 (and still working on grade level with place value)?

When will the evaluation begin and end?

There are children in MCPS at this level and not far behind condemned to help MCPS artificially reduce the achievement gap!

[Anonymous]

Out of curiosity, PP, what is third grade place value work? I mean what does it look like? Is it decimal place value? I have seen place value work every year so far, and it supposedly builds on each year.