If you could share any links/references, I will be very grateful.

US schools produce less science/technology collage graduates nowadays. Moreover, many top tier universities enroll a large number of foreign students. In many universities, graduate students in math/physics/chemistry departments are majorly from abroad.

Again, Curriculum 2.0 math is trying to do exactly the opposite of the experience from the Industrial Revolution.

I hope that you care about this country while trying to discredit my background of understanding.

Anonymous wrote:I recognize that to a non-educator, differentiation isn't exactly an easy concept to grasp. And sadly, based on your post, you probably won't even be able to understand the basics.

But today, Google just may be your friend.

Anonymous wrote:We are a small group of parents on the order of <100. Most of us signed the petitions in another thread.

Our concerns are
1) How can 1 teacher take care of kids at different levels in 1 classroom? We think that it will be very counterproductive.
2) How can MC come up a one-size-fits-all design for the whole nation? The kids in MC is well above average from many aspects.
3) How the budget looks like? Does the new Curriculum 2.0 save money?

Before further criticizing BoE and Dr. Starr, we would really love to see some detail. Can anyone help?

Dear,

We want to give curriculum 2.0 a chance. However, it does not mean that we think that every piece of curriculum 2.0 is perfect.

We are trying to help constructively.

Anonymous wrote:In my elementary school - we were grouped by ability in one classroom and it seemed to work well. There were never kids accelerated out of the classroom. This was NY where the education system is well regarded. It can be done. I understand there will always be a few students who are so far advanced that this will not work, but for the majority it should work. I'm willing to give 2.0 a chance.

I recognize that to a non-educator, differentiation isn't exactly an easy concept to grasp. And sadly, based on your post, you probably won't even be able to understand the basics.

But today, Google just may be your friend.

Anonymous wrote:We are a small group of parents on the order of <100. Most of us signed the petitions in another thread.

Our concerns are
1) How can 1 teacher take care of kids at different levels in 1 classroom? We think that it will be very counterproductive.
2) How can MC come up a one-size-fits-all design for the whole nation? The kids in MC is well above average from many aspects.
3) How the budget looks like? Does the new Curriculum 2.0 save money?

Before further criticizing BoE and Dr. Starr, we would really love to see some detail. Can anyone help?

uh . . . yeah

Thanks for the explanation, genius.

Anonymous wrote:To 11:56,

I would like to translate conversations into a math problem.

Let us assume that in a school, the number of students, the number of "ahead" kids, the number of "behind" kids are letter-coded as N, Na, and, Nb.

In addition, for a grade n, we have N(n), Na(n), and Nb(n).

Now, the number of student attending to the grade 2 class is Na(1) + N(2) + Nb(3) - Na(2) - Nb (2).

If we further simplify our model, say, all the grades are similar in total number of students, "ahead" students, and "behind" students, e.g., for all n,
N(n) = N
Na(n) = Na
Nb(n) = Nb

With the simplified model, the number of student attending to the grade 2 class is Na(1) + N(2) + Nb(3) - Na(2) - Nb (2) = Na + N + Nb - Na - Nb = N.

This is saying allowing kids to go to "ahead" or "behind" grade classes will not increase the work load of teachers and other resources if load/resource depends on number of students.

Moreover, kids will get better education.
- "ahead" kids will not be bored.
- "behind" kids will not be intimidated.

In the system, there is no additional resource giving to "ahead" kids. Are you happy now?

In my elementary school - we were grouped by ability in one classroom and it seemed to work well. There were never kids accelerated out of the classroom. This was NY where the education system is well regarded. It can be done. I understand there will always be a few students who are so far advanced that this will not work, but for the majority it should work. I'm willing to give 2.0 a chance.

Been there. FAQ and framework stuff are quite vague.

Anonymous wrote:Go to to the MCPS website.

Go to to the MCPS website.

Very good question.

Load for teaching M levels of kids is considerably higher than teaching 1 level kids. Here, M > 1.

If the materials are independent, a teacher needs M time of effort, in terms either preparation time or book reading or reference checking or teaching time management, etc.

To model this mathematically, we can have a class of N students and they are separated into M groups. In a math class of L minutes, a teacher must break L minutes into at least M pieces in order to address the need of his/her students. Is it easy? I have to say, oh my god.

In fact, it is not at all straightforward to allocate class hours for teaching even for a small number of groups. Please let me elaborate. Let me assume L = 50, M = 3, and N = 20.

Case 1:
If the number of kids in the 3 groups are roughly equal, a teacher can roughly divide 50 minutes equally.

Case 2:
If group 1 and group 2 have 5 students each, the group 3 has 10 students, how to manage 50 minutes?

Case 3:
Let group 1 and group 2 have 5 students each, the group 3 has 10 students. Moreover, group 1 is "ahead" students, group 3 is "behind" students, how to manage 50 minutes? The materials are of different complexity.

Case 4:
Let group 1 and group 2 have 5 students each, the group 3 has 10 students. Moreover, group 1 is "ahead" students, group 2 is "behind" students, how to manage 50 minutes? The materials are of different complexity.

Finally, I have to say that it is addressed in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" that "Division of labour has caused a greater increase in production than any other factor". It seems to me that Curriculum 2.0 is trying to do the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is saying allowing kids to go to "ahead" or "behind" grade classes will not increase the work load of teachers and other resources if load/resource depends on number of students.

Does the load/resource depend on just the number of kids or does it also depend heavily on the number of different types of lesson plans they need to do? I.e. if a class has 5 different groups of children with roughly similar levels of understanding of the material wouldn't the teacher have to come up with 5 different sets of lesson plans to successfully challenge these different groups?

Anonymous wrote:
This is saying allowing kids to go to "ahead" or "behind" grade classes will not increase the work load of teachers and other resources if load/resource depends on number of students.

Does the load/resource depend on just the number of kids or does it also depend heavily on the number of different types of lesson plans they need to do? I.e. if a class has 5 different groups of children with roughly similar levels of understanding of the material wouldn't the teacher have to come up with 5 different sets of lesson plans to successfully challenge these different groups?

To 11:56,

I would like to translate conversations into a math problem.

Let us assume that in a school, the number of students, the number of "ahead" kids, the number of "behind" kids are letter-coded as N, Na, and, Nb.

In addition, for a grade n, we have N(n), Na(n), and Nb(n).

Now, the number of student attending to the grade 2 class is Na(1) + N(2) + Nb(3) - Na(2) - Nb (2).

If we further simplify our model, say, all the grades are similar in total number of students, "ahead" students, and "behind" students, e.g., for all n,
N(n) = N
Na(n) = Na
Nb(n) = Nb

With the simplified model, the number of student attending to the grade 2 class is Na(1) + N(2) + Nb(3) - Na(2) - Nb (2) = Na + N + Nb - Na - Nb = N.

This is saying allowing kids to go to "ahead" or "behind" grade classes will not increase the work load of teachers and other resources if load/resource depends on number of students.

Moreover, kids will get better education.
- "ahead" kids will not be bored.
- "behind" kids will not be intimidated.

In the system, there is no additional resource giving to "ahead" kids. Are you happy now?

The world consists of different people, tall/short, fast/slow. Giving all people a chance and free the mind of kids will benefit this country greatly.

Anonymous wrote:so the anti- 2.0 wack jobs want others to do their research? Sounds like they need to go back to school and learn from the 2.0 and learn how to do research.

Let me guess, you think your kid is one of the kids at the higher level and the dumb kids are dragging your smart kid down? New flash, that dumb kid will probably do better in the long run that your smart kid.

To 11:43,

Kids in MC were well educated historically in comparison with others in the nation. This is a fact.

People sensed that Curriculum 2.0 tries to make kids in MC as "good" as other kids in the nation.

so the anti- 2.0 wack jobs want others to do their research? Sounds like they need to go back to school and learn from the 2.0 and learn how to do research.

Let me guess, you think your kid is one of the kids at the higher level and the dumb kids are dragging your smart kid down? New flash, that dumb kid will probably do better in the long run that your smart kid.

My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

We are a small group of parents on the order of <100. Most of us signed the petitions in another thread.

Our concerns are
1) How can 1 teacher take care of kids at different levels in 1 classroom? We think that it will be very counterproductive.
2) How can MC come up a one-size-fits-all design for the whole nation? The kids in MC is well above average from many aspects.
3) How the budget looks like? Does the new Curriculum 2.0 save money?

Before further criticizing BoE and Dr. Starr, we would really love to see some detail. Can anyone help?