Literally every single MCPS kid I know has a tutor. Do YOU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuine, no-agenda question here. I'm a parent to a Kindergartener, so this is all new to me, but I've looked at the curriculum guide on the MCPS website and have a question. Some of the concepts listed are obvious (counting, I got that), but some are clearly in edu-speak. For instance, this is just a small one:
Number and Operations in Base Ten: Compose and decompose
numbers (11–19): ten ones and some further ones.

I'm not a dumb person (I can tell you my degrees if you need) but I don't honestly know how to help my kid learn that. "Compose numbers"? What does that mean? Write the numbers? Ok, I can do that. "Decompose numbers"? Huh? In normal person speak, "decompose" means to separate into pieces. So, does this mean the concept that you can make 9 out of 3 3's, or a 5 and a 4 -- that sort of thing?
I realize that may seem obvious, but it isn't. And clearly it only gets less obvious as they move up in grades. I was a person who had to read the textbook when I got home to reinforce the lesson.
My question is: is there any resource that will help me translate these "curriculum guides" into something that's actually instructive?
Other than asking the teacher? Because I don't really want to be the pain in the ass parent that's emailing the teacher every week.

Composing is making one ten out of ten ones, and decomposing is making ten ones out of one ten. I'm pretty sure. Or maybe it's the other way around? In any case, it doesn't really matter -- the point is that one ten = ten ones. So, for example, you can make 15 with one ten and five ones, or with 15 ones.

Asking the teacher is a good start. Does your school have a curriculum night? If so, that would also be a good place to ask questions; if not, maybe ask the principal to have a curriculum night. In the meantime, Google! For your question, for example, I might Google composing numbers kindergarten. Or you might even ask DCUM, if you don't mind wading through lots of MCPSawfuldumbedown2.0lousyillegals posts....

Thanks! It just seems like this is a really inefficient way of communicating with parents. Are we really going to have to translate every concept into normal person language? There's a fortune to be made if someone creates textbooks that follow the 2.0 curriculum. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can stroke your sarcastic cognitive dissonance all you want, but I never said there's nothing to learn in MCPS. I did have textbooks growing up (in the U.S.), even before 8th grade. And my parents certainly did help me with math. I never liked or "got" division at first. My parents had to help with that. Math didn't click for me until Algebra. And I'm definitely not a "special needs" case. Ended up doing extremely well. But I needed to have the opportunity to look at things on my own at home and understand them on my own terms.
Why so invested in the idea that people shouldn't have textbooks? Do you honestly not believe that some significant portion of the population would benefit?

Honestly? In a perfect world, we'd all have textbooks, I guess. But I've seen an awful lot of lousy textbooks -- including math textbooks. And textbooks cost money that I think the school district could better spend on other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks! It just seems like this is a really inefficient way of communicating with parents. Are we really going to have to translate every concept into normal person language? There's a fortune to be made if someone creates textbooks that follow the 2.0 curriculum. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

PP here. Also, do your teachers send home monthly newsletters? That's another good source of information.

I haven't looked lately, but I think that "composing/decomposing" is really the only major renaming of elementary-school math terms. It was "borrowing/carrying" when I was in elementary school, and I really think that "composing/decomposing" is an improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can stroke your sarcastic cognitive dissonance all you want, but I never said there's nothing to learn in MCPS. I did have textbooks growing up (in the U.S.), even before 8th grade. And my parents certainly did help me with math. I never liked or "got" division at first. My parents had to help with that. Math didn't click for me until Algebra. And I'm definitely not a "special needs" case. Ended up doing extremely well. But I needed to have the opportunity to look at things on my own at home and understand them on my own terms.
Why so invested in the idea that people shouldn't have textbooks? Do you honestly not believe that some significant portion of the population would benefit?

Honestly? In a perfect world, we'd all have textbooks, I guess. But I've seen an awful lot of lousy textbooks -- including math textbooks. And textbooks cost money that I think the school district could better spend on other things.

That sounds like a pretty big assumption that having a decent textbook wouldn't be worth the expense. So few of us are auditory learners that it seems like having textbooks for all of us visual types might avoid later costs in having to deal with kids who fall behind because they didn't have that other resource. Of course, maybe in MCPS, the high SES kids are all getting tutors that make up for that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks! It just seems like this is a really inefficient way of communicating with parents. Are we really going to have to translate every concept into normal person language? There's a fortune to be made if someone creates textbooks that follow the 2.0 curriculum. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

PP here. Also, do your teachers send home monthly newsletters? That's another good source of information.

I haven't looked lately, but I think that "composing/decomposing" is really the only major renaming of elementary-school math terms. It was "borrowing/carrying" when I was in elementary school, and I really think that "composing/decomposing" is an improvement.

Wait, what you just said was composing/decomposing isn't the same as "borrowing/carrying", though.
OMG, I am going to go nuts without a textbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That sounds like a pretty big assumption that having a decent textbook wouldn't be worth the expense. So few of us are auditory learners that it seems like having textbooks for all of us visual types might avoid later costs in having to deal with kids who fall behind because they didn't have that other resource. Of course, maybe in MCPS, the high SES kids are all getting tutors that make up for that problem.

You are assuming that the teacher stands in front of the classroom and tells the children what to do. Have you been in your child's classroom? Is this what happens there? It is not what happens in my child's classroom. There is plenty of stuff going on for visual learners.

[Anonymous]

My kids were pre 2.0. We had text books..which were never used. I prefer to Google till I find the right or helpful info...though I rarely have to help. Homework should be practice of learned concepts. Tell you kids to ask questions in class. That is what the teacher is there for.

[Anonymous]

lol..my kids r in private, and they have tutors. All their friends who r A students, have tutors, the kids we meet at club games that go to big 3 schools,etc., they all have tutuors. Teachers aren't teaching!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks! It just seems like this is a really inefficient way of communicating with parents. Are we really going to have to translate every concept into normal person language? There's a fortune to be made if someone creates textbooks that follow the 2.0 curriculum. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

PP here. Also, do your teachers send home monthly newsletters? That's another good source of information.

I haven't looked lately, but I think that "composing/decomposing" is really the only major renaming of elementary-school math terms. It was "borrowing/carrying" when I was in elementary school, and I really think that "composing/decomposing" is an improvement.

Wait, what you just said was composing/decomposing isn't the same as "borrowing/carrying", though.
OMG, I am going to go nuts without a textbook.

It really is the same as borrowing/carrying, except that I learned borrowing and carrying as "first you do this, then you do that", and if you'd asked elementary-school me to explain how come I could do this and that, I would have been completely unable to answer the question. The reason you're allowed to "carry the one" when you do 15 + 16 is because you're composing the eleven ones you get from 5 + 6 into one ten and one one. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That sounds like a pretty big assumption that having a decent textbook wouldn't be worth the expense. So few of us are auditory learners that it seems like having textbooks for all of us visual types might avoid later costs in having to deal with kids who fall behind because they didn't have that other resource. Of course, maybe in MCPS, the high SES kids are all getting tutors that make up for that problem.

You are assuming that the teacher stands in front of the classroom and tells the children what to do. Have you been in your child's classroom? Is this what happens there? It is not what happens in my child's classroom. There is plenty of stuff going on for visual learners.

I have volunteered in my kid's classroom, and no, the teacher doesn't stand in front of the classroom. She mostly stands over individual groups and tells them. You're right that it's not so much a visual/auditory issue (though being an auditory learner would solve the problem), but it's the matter of being able to review on your own. I know for me (and again, I was VERY successful student), I didn't really grasp a concept until I reviewed it at home. Telling a kid like that to ask questions in class isn't helpful. First of all, there isn't really time. Secondly, we all know there are good and bad teachers. Or just bad fits between mediocre teachers and certain students. Having a textbook allows kids/parents a way of navigating that problem (without pricey tutors).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks! It just seems like this is a really inefficient way of communicating with parents. Are we really going to have to translate every concept into normal person language? There's a fortune to be made if someone creates textbooks that follow the 2.0 curriculum. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

PP here. Also, do your teachers send home monthly newsletters? That's another good source of information.

I haven't looked lately, but I think that "composing/decomposing" is really the only major renaming of elementary-school math terms. It was "borrowing/carrying" when I was in elementary school, and I really think that "composing/decomposing" is an improvement.

Wait, what you just said was composing/decomposing isn't the same as "borrowing/carrying", though.
OMG, I am going to go nuts without a textbook.

It really is the same as borrowing/carrying, except that I learned borrowing and carrying as "first you do this, then you do that", and if you'd asked elementary-school me to explain how come I could do this and that, I would have been completely unable to answer the question. The reason you're allowed to "carry the one" when you do 15 + 16 is because you're composing the eleven ones you get from 5 + 6 into one ten and one one. Does that make sense?

Ok, I get that. I'm just wondering why there isn't some resource that we can have that tells us things like that. It's entirely on us to figure it out. And hope that whatever resource we dig up is actually right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids were pre 2.0. We had text books..which were never used. I prefer to Google till I find the right or helpful info...though I rarely have to help. Homework should be practice of learned concepts. Tell you kids to ask questions in class. That is what the teacher is there for.

That's great if your kid isn't shy, distracted, and you have a great teacher who isn't distracted by more struggling students. Not exactly a great thing to rely on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids were pre 2.0. We had text books..which were never used. I prefer to Google till I find the right or helpful info...though I rarely have to help. Homework should be practice of learned concepts. Tell you kids to ask questions in class. That is what the teacher is there for.

That's great if your kid isn't shy, distracted, and you have a great teacher who isn't distracted by more struggling students. Not exactly a great thing to rely on.

One reason the text books were never used is because they were not very good. In my experience. (Not the PP.) They sure weighed a lot, though.

[Anonymous]

No tutors here. One of my children is now in college, with two more in high school. None of their friends have had tutors, either. Maybe that's popular in certain parts of the county, but not upcounty, where I live. Everyone does not do SAT tutoring, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone I know (myself included) has a tutor for their elementary MCPS student. Why? Because the curriculum is failing to teach fundamental basics (like basic facts, handwriting, and spelling) and because the topics they DO teach are like a foreign language to me. I'm a doctor and my husband is a mathematician. Sure, we can learn any math strategy and teach it to our kid but there's no guide, no textbook, no common vocabulary... I read my son's assignment and it says to solve using only the blah-blah-blah algorithm. When DS completes his HW and asks me to look it over, I don't know if he used the correct algorithm! Ask your tutor, I always say. (She's an MCPS teacher who tutors on the side; an insider!)
My reasoning (for now) is that paying a tutor $80/hr is a lot less expensive than private school. And then my kid gets help reinforcing the algorithms that leave me scratching my head AND he gets a little enrichment (or what they used to call "basics"). Friends and neighbors are all in the same boat. Isn't the school system failing our children if we ALL require tutors?

Do you have a tutor? If you don't, do you wish you did?

REALLY??? Literally NO ONE that I know has a tutor for their elementary school student. Not one. But I only have a 3rd and 1st grader. Maybe it changes in 4th grade? But my 3rd grader was not greatly challenged this year, so I can't imagine he would need a tutor next year.