The goal of curriculum 2.0 is to slow down the tremendous progress of new immigrants currently running circles around the traditional locals and closing that gap. Purely politically motivated. There is absolutely no educational motive -- only a smoke screen. As a parent I have reviewed the assignments of my elementary school kids over the last 4 - 5 years and can attest there is no difference between the old and the new except for eliminating math pathways to close the gap between the advanced and all the rest.

This strategy will also backfire.

Ha, not Mars, though we have just started in the system with a kindergartner so it's possible we just don't know enough about how it used to be to make these comparisons. I for one just looked through the 154-page detailed Curriculum 2.0 pdf on the MCPS website, and nowhere did it say that the new curriculum is about holding back math prodigies. To look at how the schools and the district are describing the curriculum and then to look here on DCUM at what people say it's all about, it's hard to see that they are even talking about the same thing. Can someone please translate?

Rather than read the glossy insert about curriculum 2.0 spend time reviewing the in class and out of class work your children have done since K. If you have done this for the last 2 years, and you clearly have not, you'll understand what I mean. The goal of curriculum 2.0 is to close the gap between the highly performing math students and all the rest. There has been zero change in the content of the curriculum taught to my children -- the only measurable and demonstrable change is some students are blocked and prohibited from advancing after mastery. That's it. If you can provide other data, metrics or information from Mars, we are all ears and eyes.

The goal of curriculum 2.0 is to slow down the tremendous progress of new immigrants currently running circles around the traditional locals and closing that gap. Purely politically motivated. There is absolutely no educational motive -- only a smoke screen. As a parent I have reviewed the assignments of my elementary school kids over the last 4 - 5 years and can attest there is no difference between the old and the new except for eliminating math pathways to close the gap between the advanced and all the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only place I've heard people upset about it is on here.

You must be living on Mars then.

Ha, not Mars, though we have just started in the system with a kindergartner so it's possible we just don't know enough about how it used to be to make these comparisons. I for one just looked through the 154-page detailed Curriculum 2.0 pdf on the MCPS website, and nowhere did it say that the new curriculum is about holding back math prodigies. To look at how the schools and the district are describing the curriculum and then to look here on DCUM at what people say it's all about, it's hard to see that they are even talking about the same thing. Can someone please translate?

I for one am really relieved that my kids just missed it.

Anonymous wrote:The only place I've heard people upset about it is on here.

You must be living on Mars then.

The only place I've heard people upset about it is on here.

Isn't this where everyone is?

In math kids could accelerate once they mastered a concept. In curriculum 2.0, there is no acceleration and kids who already know it don't have options. They will give them extra challenge work but sadly its the same thing the rest of the class is doing so they are just doing more rounds of repetition. 1st grade is only addition and subtraction no farther than double digits, basic time (hours and 30 minute mark), and basic shape identification. Our teacher actually suggested that we start supplementing at home to let our child do more in math.

The MCPS-Starr lip service is a farce.

The only place I've heard people upset about it is on here.

The only difference between curriculum 2.0 and the old curriculum we have seen in the past year (2 kids in elementary and one missed it while the other is stuck in it) is simply some deserving students are not allowed to accelerate in mathematics. Same teachers, same students, same teaching. Did someone say the curriculum has changed?

In math kids could accelerate once they mastered a concept. In curriculum 2.0, there is no acceleration and kids who already know it don't have options. They will give them extra challenge work but sadly its the same thing the rest of the class is doing so they are just doing more rounds of repetition. 1st grade is only addition and subtraction no farther than double digits, basic time (hours and 30 minute mark), and basic shape identification. Our teacher actually suggested that we start supplementing at home to let our child do more in math.

Whats the difference between 2.0 and the previous curriculum?

I'm the OP. I'm generally in the indifferent category. I don't see evidence that using a glue stick to paste something on a piece of paper is integrating art into the curriculum but the kids still at least have art once a week so this isn't a big deal. I can easily add in after school activities that involve social studies, science, art, and PE but I'm not thrilled about now needing to do math too. I'm more bothered by false marketing and the lack of math acceleration.

My older kids aren't in it and my youngest will start it next year. But, I know lots of people with kids in it. Only one dislikes it and that is due to the lack of math and reading acceleration. Everyone else either likes it or is indifferent. But really, it doesn't much matter if you like it or not. It's here to stay and your only options are to leave it, be miserable about it or embrace it.

Our ES sent home a newsletter talking about how many parents love 2.0. I haven't met anyone who likes it and most of the parents that we've met are angry about it. The parents who have younger kids in 2.0 and older kids who didn't have it seem very upset. I'm curious does anyone on this board like it?