Anonymous wrote:MCPS piloted a Singapore Math program back in 2002. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2002/SingMathExecSummaryYear1.pdf

It is clear that MCPS does not learn from its own studies.

Apprarently only college garden used this for more than a few years. The other schools deemed it too difficult to teach.

Based on anecdotal evidence from the moms and teachers I know, all schools group by ability within the class...but very few group by ability for the entire class. To clarify: the majority of schools are no longer grouping kids by ability for math and then having one teacher teach the low kids, one teach the average, and one teach the high (like they used to prior to 2.0). Thus, most of our kids get a solid fifteen minutes of small group instruction per day....way to go, mcps!

MCPS piloted a Singapore Math program back in 2002. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2002/SingMathExecSummaryYear1.pdf

It is clear that MCPS does not learn from its own studies.

All these improvements are starting to show results.
American students are starting to pull ahead of their Chinese peers:



http://tinyurl.com/bwtklrf

Anonymous wrote:I'm 15:46. I work for the county and Singapore math materials were just purchased for every single ES in MoCo.

9:26 is right about what math under 2.0 is supposed to look like--differentiated instruction within the classroom. Next year, students who demonstrate they can handle the level and pacing of the work will have the opportunity for the 4/5 compacted pathway.

P.P here who questioned the use of Singapore math. Thanks for this information. Supplementing with Singapore sounds great! Best news I have heard about c2.0.

I'm 15:46. I work for the county and Singapore math materials were just purchased for every single ES in MoCo.

9:26 is right about what math under 2.0 is supposed to look like--differentiated instruction within the classroom. Next year, students who demonstrate they can handle the level and pacing of the work will have the opportunity for the 4/5 compacted pathway.

What 9:26 said sounds more like what 2.0 is. 15:46 and singapore math sounds too good to be true.

Chevy Chase Elementary is providing math groupings within the classroom. Each classroom is composed of heterogeneously skilled kids. Each group gets different homework with enrichment or "challenge" problems. I think there are 2-3 groups max.

Principal de-accelerated all kids who were one or more grade levels above in math and put them all on grade level. Principal has been asked in public many times by parents of bored kids to return to acceleration, but she absolutely refuses. I have been to a couple of tense parent meetings. She divides and conquers by refusing to discuss the issue publicly and saying that each parent has to come to her privately to discuss individual situations. Thus, there is no clear understanding of what the standards for acceleration are or could be.

Many parents are unhappy with the C2.0 math. No news yet about the possible 4/5/6 compacted pathway and how many kids will be let onto that. Because it is a well-off neighborhood, there is more talk about moving to private school or engaging private tutors to keep bored kids moving.

Please name your schools!

I don't think any of the schools are accelerating, but our school is providing differentiation and enrichment for those who need it. For third grade, some students are pulled out a couple of times a week to work with a specialist for both math and reading.

Anonymous wrote:Good to see you are qualified to assess your son's reading comprehension.

The county does use Singapore math as part of the 2.0 enrichment and acceleration.

You know reading comprehension is not rocket science. You would hope that a typical educated parent can assess that.

Where does it say that the county use Singapore Math as part of the 2.0 enrichment and acceleration. That is news to me. Do you have some insider information? Or simply that your DC's school use it. That could be school specific.

Good to see you are qualified to assess your son's reading comprehension.

The county does use Singapore math as part of the 2.0 enrichment and acceleration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade as parents we are seeing kids only get a few extra problems marked as enrichment on a few worksheets. There is also lots of repetition.

This is all I see at our school. 3rd grader.

Same at our school. My child was accelerated for 1st grade for math, repeated the same info. in 2nd and 3rd grade. He now does independent work outside of school with the Singapore Math program because it is a far better program than the county is using. For reading, he just chooses good literature from the library and reads 30 minutes per day. We often verbally discuss the books he is reading so I can assess his ability to comprehend the material. I assume he works on writing enough at school for now.

Get what you can from the county and supplement what you feel your child isn't receiving. If you can afford to do so, put your kid in private school.

Anonymous wrote:

In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade as parents we are seeing kids only get a few extra problems marked as enrichment on a few worksheets. There is also lots of repetition.

This is all I see at our school. 3rd grader.

Our school has math groups, the same way it has reading groups. They are within the class though, no changing classes. I know some third grade parents complained, and now one of the third grade teachers does do extra work with the kids who did third grade math last year. Maybe those kids change class. DS is in first grade, so I don't know for sure how the third grade deal works. We are in Silver Spring. I won't name the school in case the principal has gone rogue. I don't want to get her in trouble.

I am hearing mixed messages on how different schools are dealing with math acceleration and grouping. Several parents at our school want to approach our principal who is not the most approachable principal. I was hoping that if others had some good examples and wouldn't mind sharing their schools this could help us address this constructively.

In 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade as parents we are seeing kids only get a few extra problems marked as enrichment on a few worksheets. There is also lots of repetition. Its sporadic and seems to be more time driven. A few kids are instructed if they finish early to go back and work on their reading or writing assignments rather than do enrichment. The enrichment problems and materials don't look deeper than the original ones. The teachers have said that this is all they have and a few have agreed off the record that it isn't much. We generally like all the teachers and don't think they are the problem here. When parents have brought this up to our principal that there is no regular grouping and everyone is doing the same work the principal just brushes everyone off and says "Its deeper. " She has also said that changing the curriculum isn't up to her and its just better so we should go away. (Clearly not in these words but the message is pretty clear.)

We've seen statements on-line that the board of education and even Starr have said that 2.0 doesn't mean acceleration is gone and that acceleration and grouping is at the discretion of the principal. Are they just lying or do we have a problem with our principal? If its a local issue, how are other schools dealing with this?