There is zero math acceleration in my child's elem. school under 2.0.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Curriculum 2.0 changed several things. It stopped acceleration and children are only allowed to learn what is now in each grade level's section. If a child already knows it they *may* get enrichment work which is just more busy work.

Curriculum 2.0 is not only math. And it has not stopped acceleration in math. And do you know of any cases where a teacher said to a child, "No, you are not allowed to learn this"?

I honestly think the problem is not 2.0, but with change in general and the haphazard way it seems to be rolling out.

I personally have no problem with 2.0 and agree with this. Add in the face that not all teachers were trained properly in how to teach it. Don't criticize c2.0 - criticize the fact that not all schools/teachers have been trained to satisfactorily teach it. Would that be considered a principal problem?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Curriculum 2.0 changed several things. It stopped acceleration and children are only allowed to learn what is now in each grade level's section. If a child already knows it they *may* get enrichment work which is just more busy work.

Curriculum 2.0 is not only math. And it has not stopped acceleration in math. And do you know of any cases where a teacher said to a child, "No, you are not allowed to learn this"?

I honestly think the problem is not 2.0, but with change in general and the haphazard way it seems to be rolling out.

Anonymous wrote:

Curriculum 2.0 changed several things. It stopped acceleration and children are only allowed to learn what is now in each grade level's section. If a child already knows it they *may* get enrichment work which is just more busy work.

Curriculum 2.0 is not only math. And it has not stopped acceleration in math. And do you know of any cases where a teacher said to a child, "No, you are not allowed to learn this"?

Does 2.0 extend to middle school?

This article about Common Core was in the Post today -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/turmoil-swirling-around-common-core-education-standards/2013/04/29/7e2b0ec4-b0fd-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html?hpid=z3

MCPS used to allow kids to accelerate. If a student proved competency on a set of skills they were allowed to move on. This was handled by providing different levels of math classes. A 3rd grader could be in 5th grade math if they could do the work.

Curriculum 2.0 changed several things. It stopped acceleration and children are only allowed to learn what is now in each grade level's section. If a child already knows it they *may* get enrichment work which is just more busy work. MCPS claims that it is deeper but its not. 2.0 also includes much more repetition. We've seen this with our youngest child. They introduce and reintroduce the same things year after year adding only a little more. The degree of repetition is terrible. Grading varies by school. Our principal regularly uses math as example where no student can get an ES. She's made this statement publicly at several parent events.

My older child received a far better education than my younger has had which makes me pretty upset about this change.

Its interesting that at our school they have not changed reading groups. Kid's are still allowed to read at the highest level that they can achieve and break up into groups. There is a significant reduction in homework and we see very little writing work come home compared to what our older child experienced. My kid has had a very easy year but her writing has not improved much in my opinion despite her higher reading/writing level.

You know, I was just thinking about this.

My first-grader brought home The Mouse and the Motorcycle for her reading group work. My pre-2.0 child, in first grade, at the same school, mostly had leveled readers. Extremely boring leveled readers.

And I recently had three friends tell me (one in a university-town school district in the Midwest, one in a Marin County school district in California, and one in a small-town school district in the mountain west) that Algebra I in 8th grade is the accelerated track, where they are. At MCPS, under 2.0, Algebra I in 8th grade is the on-grade-level track. That is, our grade level is a year ahead of their grade level.

"There will be no more advanced math, english or any subject" indeed.

Curriculum 2.0 is a idea thought up by one of the worlds biggest idiots. They say that math will be more advanced but in middle school most kids are already in advanced math so math is less advanced. One of my teachers told me what Curriculum 2.0 was and I joked when is 2.1 comming out. When my dad sid tht the superintendant thought it was a good idea I laughed my head off. There will be no more advanced math, english or any subject.v

My sister teaches for MCPS and she said that at her school (she's not sure if it's county-wide) they will only have on grade level math (for those on level and below) AND an above level group but only for those working 2 grades ahead (so, if it's for a 4th grade class, then only the super-smarties doing 6th grade math will have a separate class and everyone else will be on level). I also heard that schools are doing away with separate reading instruction outside the classroom. For example, last year my kid's school had 4 2nd grades --- and they separated the kids for reading by level. This year I've heard they will keep all the kids in their regular classroom for reading (so I'm not sure how a teacher can work will all the students at various levels).

Anonymous wrote:20:54 Is absolutely correct. The days of everyone pushed to above grade level math courses are over - at least in elementary school. I'm just curious how MCPS is going to back out of the old mantra. It will hard to convince parents that their children will not longer be in above grade level courses.

What will not change, no matter what curriculum is used, is that there will be a continuum of abilities in mathematics. My question is how does the 2.0 Curriculum address this continuum of abilities? If MCPS thinks they can reach all students with a one size fits all approach they are dreaming.

20:54 Is absolutely correct. The days of everyone pushed to above grade level math courses are over - at least in elementary school. I'm just curious how MCPS is going to back out of the old mantra. It will hard to convince parents that their children will not longer be in above grade level courses.

16:03 is incorrect re: math under Curriculum 2.0.

The updated math curriculum reflects the Common Core State Standards, which were adopted by Maryland and 47 other states last year. The CCSS focus much more deeply on number sense in the elementary grades and allow for more depth and less breadth in the content. The CCSS have also made the ON-LEVEL curriculum more rigorous. MCPS is moving away from the practice of having multiple classes worth of students working one or more grade levels ahead.

advanced means throw more kids in higher than grade level math and put out press releases saying our kids are so smart becuase they take higher level math than their peers. what they fail to say is the result of that.......

what % get A's B's C's D's etc-oh what is that? they won't say

I received a packet from MCPS today with a letter talking about the new and improved Curriculum 2.0. It sounds good (except I'm still questioning the part about how all math will now be advanced) but what does it really mean? Can someone with more knowledge of curriculum 2.0 care to elaborate on it?