Anonymous wrote:

I will say that I think that schools should concentrate more on writing and communications skills than math. In my day to day life, I have not needed to use much algebra, trig. or geometry, let alone calculus. I do, however, need to communicate with people as part of my job all day every day. I'm not saying children should not learn basic math and science. I'm suggesting that writing and communications skills are just as important.

Isn't this is what America is good for? The intersection of Wall Street and Hollywood is all about communication skills (persuasive). Look at where we are?

Anonymous wrote:Ask the guinea piglets wallowing in curriculum 2.0 their opinion about this challenging math curriculum. Then ask the parents of the piglets caught in this muddy pen, then the teachers dishing this slosh to the piglets before your believe the hype and hope on the glossy wrapper of curriculum 2.0.

Isn't this is what America is good for? The intersection of Wall Street and Hollywood is all about communication skills (persuasive). Look at where we are?

I will say that I think that schools should concentrate more on writing and communications skills than math. In my day to day life, I have not needed to use much algebra, trig. or geometry, let alone calculus. I do, however, need to communicate with people as part of my job all day every day. I'm not saying children should not learn basic math and science. I'm suggesting that writing and communications skills are just as important.

Anonymous wrote:

My child is in first grade, and is in the supposed "challenge" math group. But it just isn't very challenging. Repetitious, yes, challenging, no.

+1000 My child is also in first grade in a school that has implemented 2.0 for her grade. Its frustrating. She gets to do extra worksheets but they are not deeper in any meaningful way from the original ones. It is simply too much repetition. I truly believe that MCPS is just looking to do things as cheaply as possible and keep their scores up.

I'm not a fan of acceleration and do believe that it can leave any child with a lack of conceptual understanding. Some kids are great at recogonizing patterns and memorizing approaches quickly. These are the kids that can accelerate fast but lack the depth of understanding. However, these kids are not gaining any deeper understanding from doing 100 extra worksheets following the same darn pattern.

If I was queen of MCPS I would put money into developing an innovative curricular that combines math skills with reasoning and logic in ways beyond the basic worksheet and word problems. There are fantastic things that you can do with math and reasoning which involve building structures, solving puzzles, and getting kids to think outside the box while learning the concept at a deeper level.

Anonymous wrote:Here is a Curriculum 2.0 worksheet for a second grader:
What is 10 + 5? (Can't recall the exact digits, but something like this.)
How did you find the answer? (Supposedly, how did you find your answer part, means going "deeper" according to MCPS.)
But for a second grader who can do middle school math, it just means going deeper into frustration. I would personally get very frustrated if someone asked me to explain such a basic question in detail. I'm glad my child does not complain too much. We do our best to keep her motivated. Curriculum 2.0 is just a joke. But the real problem is no more homegenous grouping of students. Teachers supposedly can differentiate in the classroom. I don't know other schools, but in our school, there is only one level of education and that is teaching to the lowest level.

My child is in first grade, and is in the supposed "challenge" math group. But it just isn't very challenging. Repetitious, yes, challenging, no.

Anonymous wrote:I have been following the objection of some to Curriculum 2.0 and, frankly, I'm not sure how folks can object to the effectiveness of a curriculum that has yet to be implemented in all grades
.
After reading this article, http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Blogs/Education-Matters/July-August-2011/No-more-math-acceleration/, I don't understand the basis for the assumption that children will not be challenged in math. From the article,

The curriculum includes enrichment and accelerated material that goes beyond the new requirements. That means that “students who consistently demonstrate proficiency of a mathematics concept will be able to enrich their understanding of a grade-level topic or accelerate to a higher-level topic,”

I'd like to read a opinions of the curriculum from a parent with a child who has been using it.

The curriculum includes enrichment and accelerated material that goes beyond the new requirements. That means that “students who consistently demonstrate proficiency of a mathematics concept will be able to enrich their understanding of a grade-level topic or accelerate to a higher-level topic,”