Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. Posted the question because I, like a previous poster, think the math change is extremely flawed. I've simply heard boredom from the kids I know versus excitement. And this is from kids who were previously excited about math. That's concerning to me.

I would encourage people to go to the Curriculum 2.0 presentation. I went this past spring and all I can say is what a difference six months can make. The Parent Academy Curriculum 2.0 I just went to was much better. I felt confident they were headed in the right direction. I think the big questions left for me is one of implementation and parent accountability. It's always left sort of fuzzy how much hands on project based work kids will get to do. Or say in math what manipulatives kids will get to use themselves to help with the conceptual understanding. Also there is the fallback of diffentiation but clearly even before 2.0 not everyone was able to do that well so it's not clear how this time is different.

With accountability to the parents, part of it is that we don't see the assessment in 2.0 terms. If we only see a sheet with 7 < 17 and double digit addition we know our child can do, it is hard to see how they are growing. Instead of "show me the money" I want to say "show me the assessment". If there is an open ended question to engage understanding and my child answered in a way that you believe shows basic understanding but not fluency, please share with me so I can understand. Show me what mastery conceptual understanding looks like, then let me know the plan to get there and if I can help. Acknowledge where are the areas they may have mastered and that are indeed review and again what is the plan. I think with math there has been so much that hasn't gone right over the years where parents had to get outside tutors for math fluency because it was too much emphasis on conceptual, or it spiraled too much, or kid over accelerated that there is already not a lot of trust and lots of anxiety. Throw in all the parents with math backgrounds and the fact math
is probably the subject that has changed the most in how it was taught to us and all these studies on how math is the golden key to all these jobs in the future ... I can understand the tension. It's a shame there is no detailed interim assessment for math, especially for people that no longer have the accelerated options and are under the 2.0 curriculum.

Speaking from a perspective of college instructor who sees kids that don't know the beginning about math I am hoping that rather than rushing through math concepts there is more time devoted to really learning and understanding what is behind the math. Math is more than just formulas and equations. Math, science and art are very much intertwined. Having children see and realize this is so much more importanted that getting a basic overview. Kids that can see beyond the structure of math - see how it is in all around us will be better at science and math in the long run. Just the other day my school ages kids were excited to note that me making them Halloween costumes required math. Imagine that - art requires math. So while the new curriculum is too fresh to know how it will work out over time, I do think this approach is better than the last. Perhaps you are only seeing what they are learning now and boredom but if they can get a bigger picture aspect to math it will be an advantage later on.

I'm the OP. Posted the question because I, like a previous poster, think the math change is extremely flawed. I've simply heard boredom from the kids I know versus excitement. And this is from kids who were previously excited about math. That's concerning to me.

Anonymous wrote:

I am pleased to see they are slowing down the Math curriculum - instead of rolling over math they are taking the time to go into more depth. I am also happy to see they are working on intergrating art, social science etc into reading and math.

I disagree. From what I have seen so far, they are not going deeper into math, they are simply doing more repetitions of the same worksheet activity/task. This is designed to address the lower end of the testing spectrum. Some kids can mimic a pattern but don't grasp the concept as quickly. Once they forget the steps that they memorized, they can't repeat it later. Slowing down the Math curriculum is not giving math centric kids who do grasp the concepts any deeper understanding, just more busy work.

The integration of art, science, and social studies is also flawed. This is a marketing program designed to respond to parents who were complaining about reduced art, science, social sciences and music to make time for more test prep and reduce the budget. Reading a story with a science background is language not science. Science involves observation, repeatable experiments, measurements, hypothesis, and analysis. They aren't doing this. The art integration is crafts not art. You are not learning about art just because your worksheet required you to cut something out and use glue stick.

There is definitely still stand alone science in Curriculum 2.0. If it's not happening at your child's school, I strongly suggest you speak with your principal, as the principal sets the master schedule and ultimately decides whether or not students get science and social studies every day. This curriculum is designed for individual science and social studies every day ALONG WITH science and social studies texts used in reading.

I am pleased to see they are slowing down the Math curriculum - instead of rolling over math they are taking the time to go into more depth. I am also happy to see they are working on intergrating art, social science etc into reading and math.

I disagree. From what I have seen so far, they are not going deeper into math, they are simply doing more repetitions of the same worksheet activity/task. This is designed to address the lower end of the testing spectrum. Some kids can mimic a pattern but don't grasp the concept as quickly. Once they forget the steps that they memorized, they can't repeat it later. Slowing down the Math curriculum is not giving math centric kids who do grasp the concepts any deeper understanding, just more busy work.

The integration of art, science, and social studies is also flawed. This is a marketing program designed to respond to parents who were complaining about reduced art, science, social sciences and music to make time for more test prep and reduce the budget. Reading a story with a science background is language not science. Science involves observation, repeatable experiments, measurements, hypothesis, and analysis. They aren't doing this. The art integration is crafts not art. You are not learning about art just because your worksheet required you to cut something out and use glue stick.

I am pleased to see they are slowing down the Math curriculum - instead of rolling over math they are taking the time to go into more depth. I am also happy to see they are working on intergrating art, social science etc into reading and math. I do think the teacher's are having to come up to speed pretty quickly on the changes and without a year or two of the same curriculum to practice what works and what doesn't our kids are guinea pigs to a new learning approach. So far I haven't noticed much change in what DS is actually learning but I'm adding that up to the first month of school is only just finished and now they will really start working on the core lessons.

What does everyone think about the strengths and weaknesses of the new MCPS curriculum so far?