Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/
But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model
OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP
There is no argument to make, and as I said, it doesn’t compare to the proposed regional model at all.
One is not like the other.
They are like each other in that they are both BS, masquerading as "equity" and "in-depth rigor."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/
But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model
OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP
There is no argument to make, and as I said, it doesn’t compare to the proposed regional model at all.
One is not like the other.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/
But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model
OP obviously meant C 2.0. If you disagree, make your arguments. -NP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/
But that wasn't MCPS 2.0, that was Curriculum 2.0 or C2.0.
And it doesn't compare to the proposed regional model
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.
Not really, all kids will go to their home schools except for a select few. Your school doesn't have advanced classes and you don't get into another school or cannot make it work, same as now, too bad.
Well, “same as now” except in the DCC and NEC, where over 40% of students use the consortium choice process to pick a school other than their home school. MCPS doesn’t care to admit that they’re reducing flexibility, access, and opportunity for those students.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
A homegrown curriculum MCPS rolled out in the early 2010s, that was deeply flawed.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2018/03/26/mcps-launches-effort-to-find-new-curriculum-after-report-finds-flaws-in-existing-materials/
Anonymous wrote:What's MCPS 2.0?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.
Not really, all kids will go to their home schools except for a select few. Your school doesn't have advanced classes and you don't get into another school or cannot make it work, same as now, too bad.
Anonymous wrote:I have stated this before. We moved here when 2.0 started. I was willing to give it a shot. What a mess. Mcps cannot manage these large scaled programs. Regional model will be a mess. 100% agree op.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That was not 2.0 and very different.
Same idea “raising the low bar/ squashing the ceiling”
Anonymous wrote:That was not 2.0 and very different.