Anonymous
09/02/2018 08:23
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s Common Core. MCPS tried to get out ahead of Common Core by issuing 2.0. So I guess that means you should be mad at the whole national educational community.
I’m not mad at all. My kids have gotten a great education over the past 7 years.
You do realize plenty of systems turned down common core and among those who didn’t, they could have bought a peer-reviewed evidence based curriculum? I think if your kids have been in MCPS consistently then you can’t know. I’ve done MCPS and another system for my kids, so I’ve seen the difference. 2.0 is awful.
This was a state by state decision, not a school system by school system decision. Maryland adopted the Common Core State Standards, as did most other states.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 08:21
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Anonymous wrote:The problems preceded 2.0. The curriculum department had been creating it's own (abysmal) curriculum prior to 2.0. Eric Lang may have been the head of the department, but the whole curriculum department seemed to be on board.
I think Weast was setting the tone. There was lots of talk about a 21st century education (technology for technology's sake), being one of the best school systems in the country (developing a special, proprietary curriculum and marketing it to the lesser, normal systems - who didn't want it, masking negative data), closing the achievement gap (avoiding ability grouping, masking negative data), and teaching higher order thinking (minimizing content).
I was on the reading curriculum committee at one time and the people in charge of the reading curriculum seemed more interested in implementing their preferred pedagogical approaches than in actually teaching the subject content. Judging from the assignments I saw in other subjects, I would say this was the prevailing attitude in the curriculum department.
My kids were prior to 2.0, but as I understand it, this is what changed:
2.0 added science and social studies selections into the reading curriculum to compensate for the weakness in teaching those subjects.
2.0 was developed online, supposedly making it easier for teachers to supplement the material, collaborate with each other, and customize the lessons for their students. I don't know how well it succeeded in these areas, but it made the curriculum completely inaccessible to parents. Prior to that, they had distributed it in binders to the teachers. Parents could access it, but only on site at the school library or the library in the central office. They restricted access because of concerns that a) tests might be compromised and b) the material might be pirated
2.0 marked the start of the partnership with Pearson. Pearson was going to market the curriculum. MCPS had tried to market previous versions themselves with little success.
I know that prior to 2.0, the curriculum revisions would sometimes reach teachers only days before they had to start teaching the revised curriculum. I would hope that 2.0 has provided them more stability, but I honestly don't know.
Information on the curriculum changes that occurred when 2.0 was implemented can be found here:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/faq.aspx
Good summary, thanks.
The "higher order thinking" comment is exactly how MCPS trashed their math teaching, too.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 08:17
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Yes MCPS wrote their own curriculum (2.0) when the state adopted the Common Core State Standards. There weren't packaged curriculums for the system to purchase. So they threw together this nonsense.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 08:08
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Anonymous wrote:It’s Common Core. MCPS tried to get out ahead of Common Core by issuing 2.0. So I guess that means you should be mad at the whole national educational community.
I’m not mad at all. My kids have gotten a great education over the past 7 years.
You do realize plenty of systems turned down common core and among those who didn’t, they could have bought a peer-reviewed evidence based curriculum? I think if your kids have been in MCPS consistently then you can’t know. I’ve done MCPS and another system for my kids, so I’ve seen the difference. 2.0 is awful.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 08:05
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
It’s Common Core. MCPS tried to get out ahead of Common Core by issuing 2.0. So I guess that means you should be mad at the whole national educational community.
I’m not mad at all. My kids have gotten a great education over the past 7 years.
I’m not mad at all. My kids have gotten a great education over the past 7 years.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 04:43
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
If I were to guess, some poor schlub who probably gave the parents on this board exactly what they thought they wanted. He didn't realize they'd complain no matter what he did. Anyway, 2.0 is okay but I hear C2.1 is the bomb!
Anonymous
09/02/2018 00:37
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Anonymous wrote:I like 2.0. What about it exactly do you dislike?
LOL
Thanks PP. I needed a laugh.
Anonymous
09/02/2018 00:22
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
I like 2.0. What about it exactly do you dislike?
Anonymous
08/31/2018 11:02
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
The problems preceded 2.0. The curriculum department had been creating it's own (abysmal) curriculum prior to 2.0. Eric Lang may have been the head of the department, but the whole curriculum department seemed to be on board.
I think Weast was setting the tone. There was lots of talk about a 21st century education (technology for technology's sake), being one of the best school systems in the country (developing a special, proprietary curriculum and marketing it to the lesser, normal systems - who didn't want it, masking negative data), closing the achievement gap (avoiding ability grouping, masking negative data), and teaching higher order thinking (minimizing content).
I was on the reading curriculum committee at one time and the people in charge of the reading curriculum seemed more interested in implementing their preferred pedagogical approaches than in actually teaching the subject content. Judging from the assignments I saw in other subjects, I would say this was the prevailing attitude in the curriculum department.
My kids were prior to 2.0, but as I understand it, this is what changed:
2.0 added science and social studies selections into the reading curriculum to compensate for the weakness in teaching those subjects.
2.0 was developed online, supposedly making it easier for teachers to supplement the material, collaborate with each other, and customize the lessons for their students. I don't know how well it succeeded in these areas, but it made the curriculum completely inaccessible to parents. Prior to that, they had distributed it in binders to the teachers. Parents could access it, but only on site at the school library or the library in the central office. They restricted access because of concerns that a) tests might be compromised and b) the material might be pirated
2.0 marked the start of the partnership with Pearson. Pearson was going to market the curriculum. MCPS had tried to market previous versions themselves with little success.
I know that prior to 2.0, the curriculum revisions would sometimes reach teachers only days before they had to start teaching the revised curriculum. I would hope that 2.0 has provided them more stability, but I honestly don't know.
Information on the curriculum changes that occurred when 2.0 was implemented can be found here:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/faq.aspx
I think Weast was setting the tone. There was lots of talk about a 21st century education (technology for technology's sake), being one of the best school systems in the country (developing a special, proprietary curriculum and marketing it to the lesser, normal systems - who didn't want it, masking negative data), closing the achievement gap (avoiding ability grouping, masking negative data), and teaching higher order thinking (minimizing content).
I was on the reading curriculum committee at one time and the people in charge of the reading curriculum seemed more interested in implementing their preferred pedagogical approaches than in actually teaching the subject content. Judging from the assignments I saw in other subjects, I would say this was the prevailing attitude in the curriculum department.
My kids were prior to 2.0, but as I understand it, this is what changed:
2.0 added science and social studies selections into the reading curriculum to compensate for the weakness in teaching those subjects.
2.0 was developed online, supposedly making it easier for teachers to supplement the material, collaborate with each other, and customize the lessons for their students. I don't know how well it succeeded in these areas, but it made the curriculum completely inaccessible to parents. Prior to that, they had distributed it in binders to the teachers. Parents could access it, but only on site at the school library or the library in the central office. They restricted access because of concerns that a) tests might be compromised and b) the material might be pirated
2.0 marked the start of the partnership with Pearson. Pearson was going to market the curriculum. MCPS had tried to market previous versions themselves with little success.
I know that prior to 2.0, the curriculum revisions would sometimes reach teachers only days before they had to start teaching the revised curriculum. I would hope that 2.0 has provided them more stability, but I honestly don't know.
Information on the curriculum changes that occurred when 2.0 was implemented can be found here:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/faq.aspx
Anonymous
08/31/2018 07:27
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
The problem is not 2.0. The problem is the idea that there can be a One Size Fits All answer that spawned 2.0.
The One Size Fits All idea pretty much comes from the decision that MCPS only has One problem.
That decision is related to there being too much power in MCPS at levels higher than the cluster superintendents.
The One Size Fits All idea pretty much comes from the decision that MCPS only has One problem.
That decision is related to there being too much power in MCPS at levels higher than the cluster superintendents.
Anonymous
08/31/2018 07:20
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
What is the point of this question? If you knew that there was one primary person whom you could blame for Curriculum 2.0, then what?
Anonymous
08/31/2018 07:13
Subject: Re:Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Jerry Weast
Anonymous
08/30/2018 23:32
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Lang for sure
Anonymous
08/30/2018 23:12
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
Erick Lang
Anonymous
08/30/2018 22:37
Subject: Who (in particulr) is to blame for the idea of 2.0?
There must be one person who should take most of the responsibility.
Who is it?
Who is it?