Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 18:12     Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:All the curricula in the world will not substitute for poor teaching from teachers that do not understand mathematics! Elementary school mathematical concepts, critical thinking and problem solving about math, have existed for centuries. There are no new curricula to develop that do not already exist. Perhaps MCPS should learn from curricula and teachers from 50 years ago before calulators and slide rules. There is no new wheel to reinvent.

Curriculum 2.0 disaster is simply smoke and mirrors.



Last reference provided. I could dig through 9 pages to find you others, but that'll have to later.

Let me reiterate, I believe in the ability of our MCPS elementary school teachers to teach elementary school math, under 2.0 or any other curriculum.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 18:06     Subject: Re:2.0
I agree, but there is someone on this thread who thinks that no elementary school teacher is qualified to teach math. I never said the "right materials" could be generated by the teachers themselves.

Prealgebra isn't rocket science. I know this. I have worked as a rocket scientist, and I am married to an MCPS teacher. I see what he teaches to fourth graders under the old curriculum. There is absolutely nothing special about the old curriculum that makes it better at teaching math than 2.0. I am not saying 2.0 is the best curriculum ever, but I am saying that people who are trained to teach kids developed this curriculum in view of standards they are now required to meet. You should give the curriculum a chance.

What is frustrating me about this thread is that there are such sweeping generalization about how all MCPS elementary school teachers are unqualified to teach math and how horrible 2.0 is. I just don't get how you can have such disdain for people who are dedicated to teaching your kids. If you do, then you have a right to do something about it, including moving to Virginia where Common Core is not mandated or putting your kids in private if you hate MCPS so much. The people who show up everyday to teach your kids certainly don't do it for the money, even those that teach in private school.


Oh really? Why did you read this? Reference please or stop spreading lies.


Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:58     Subject: Re:2.0
An honest appraisal of the quality of public school education in math in elementary school is not showing disdain. It may not be the sugar coat you like to taste but get real and face the facts. If you do not understand the problem how can you fix it. Math education at the elementary school level in MCPS has been poor. I cannot say it any other way. Sorry you have an opposite opinion.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:56     Subject: Re:2.0
No.

Teacher must understand the subject well to teach it. If a teacher does not understand deeply the concepts underlying prealgebra they will fail at teaching elementary school students math-- no matter how many degrees, letters, or teaching certificates trail the last name.

If a child has demonstrated mastery of basic prealgebraic concepts why force the child to sit in a classroom for years years learning addition and subtraction. If the pubic school has classrooms with instruction in higher mathematics (perhaps MCPS doesn't have any such classes) why prevent the child from taking these options for math instruction.

The objective is to provide an education and instruction of sufficient challenge and stimulation for the child (not much differnet from reading ...picture books alone vs text and prose). Sitting in a classroom of peers who are just learning to add and subtract single digits is not sufficient stimulation or challenge for a child with mastery of basic order of operations and prealgebraic concepts. It may certainly be sufficient challenge for his or her peers just beginning to learn these concepts.

I think these are easy concepts to grasp by reeasonable folk.








I agree. Now tell me the basis of your generalization that the teachers in your local MCPS don't deeply understand pre-algebra.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:54     Subject: Re:2.0
Well, when I was a kid those kids went to CTY in the summer for more enrichment. I was one of them. It never occurred to me or my parents to ask my school to create a whole curriculum for the couple of us in our school with those needs.


Well CTY will tak you in camp if you have the money and can pay!

I wouldn't advise MCPS to adopt this model. But if MCPS claims to provide instruction in mathematics at K through 12 grade levels I would hope they could find a way to ensure children can find an instructional math level commensurate with their demonstrated ability. These educational bureacrats get paid big bucks for critical thinking and problem solving. So far, they have demonstrated very little of this. Perhaps the entire cabal should sign up for curriculum 2.0 if they believe the hype.


Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:50     Subject: Re:2.0
typo - I never said the "right materials" could not be generated by the teachers themselves.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:50     Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:
...Finally, while there may be some teachers that aren't terribly good in math teaching math in elementary school, that was never the basis of the problem in math. The basis of the problem in math was the speed at which concepts were taught with a hope and a prayer that enough kids grasped the concept, and then moving on to the next concept. Really, elementary school math, even if it is algebra, is not that hard for a teacher given the right materials.


Somehow you think an adult teacher needs the right materials in order to successfully teach elementary school mathematics. If so, I feel sorry for the teacher wannabe. The stellar teachers I had developed their own materials despite the curriculum -- and students learned a hell of alot more than was in the "right mateials".

Good teachers who understand prealgebra do not really need "right materials" to teach the subject well.

That's my experience as student and teacher.





I agree, but there is someone on this thread who thinks that no elementary school teacher is qualified to teach math. I never said the "right materials" could be generated by the teachers themselves.

Prealgebra isn't rocket science. I know this. I have worked as a rocket scientist, and I am married to an MCPS teacher. I see what he teaches to fourth graders under the old curriculum. There is absolutely nothing special about the old curriculum that makes it better at teaching math than 2.0. I am not saying 2.0 is the best curriculum ever, but I am saying that people who are trained to teach kids developed this curriculum in view of standards they are now required to meet. You should give the curriculum a chance.

What is frustrating me about this thread is that there are such sweeping generalization about how all MCPS elementary school teachers are unqualified to teach math and how horrible 2.0 is. I just don't get how you can have such disdain for people who are dedicated to teaching your kids. If you do, then you have a right to do something about it, including moving to Virginia where Common Core is not mandated or putting your kids in private if you hate MCPS so much. The people who show up everyday to teach your kids certainly don't do it for the money, even those that teach in private school.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:47     Subject: Re:2.0
You make such sweeping generalizations.

What qualification would a teacher need to have to be acceptable to you to be a good math teacher?

Do think that private school teachers, who generally have a BA, but are not certified teachers, are better at teaching math under any curriculum?

Just how does acceleration help cure what you see as the real problem?

What is the objective here? To have kids understand math to underlie the study of science or engineering or to have them taking calculus in 10th grade?


No.

Teacher must understand the subject well to teach it. If a teacher does not understand deeply the concepts underlying prealgebra they will fail at teaching elementary school students math-- no matter how many degrees, letters, or teaching certificates trail the last name.

If a child has demonstrated mastery of basic prealgebraic concepts why force the child to sit in a classroom for years years learning addition and subtraction. If the pubic school has classrooms with instruction in higher mathematics (perhaps MCPS doesn't have any such classes) why prevent the child from taking these options for math instruction.

The objective is to provide an education and instruction of sufficient challenge and stimulation for the child (not much differnet from reading ...picture books alone vs text and prose). Sitting in a classroom of peers who are just learning to add and subtract single digits is not sufficient stimulation or challenge for a child with mastery of basic order of operations and prealgebraic concepts. It may certainly be sufficient challenge for his or her peers just beginning to learn these concepts.

I think these are easy concepts to grasp by reeasonable folk.






Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:29     Subject: Re:2.0
My bad, I messed up the quotes. Here's what it was supposed to read:



Well, when I was a kid those kids went to CTY in the summer for more enrichment. I was one of them. It never occurred to me or my parents to ask my school to create a whole curriculum for the couple of us in our school with those needs.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:28     Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:All the curricula in the world will not substitute for poor teaching from teachers that do not understand mathematics! Elementary school mathematical concepts, critical thinking and problem solving about math, have existed for centuries. There are no new curricula to develop that do not already exist. Perhaps MCPS should learn from curricula and teachers from 50 years ago before calulators and slide rules. There is no new wheel to reinvent.

Curriculum 2.0 disaster is simply smoke and mirrors.



You make such sweeping generalizations.

What qualification would a teacher need to have to be acceptable to you to be a good math teacher?

Do think that private school teachers, who generally have a BA, but are not certified teachers, are better at teaching math under any curriculum?

Just how does acceleration help cure what you see as the real problem?

What is the objective here? To have kids understand math to underlie the study of science or engineering or to have them taking calculus in 10th grade?

Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:28     Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for bringing some sanity to the discussion!


Are you two kidding? How is it "entitlement" for parents to complain about something that isn't working for their kids. Do you also think it is entitlement for a SN kid's parents to expect an appropriate education for him? This isn't about racing to calculus -- it is about making sure that kids who enjoy math and are good at it have the opportunity to be challenged and to learn at their pace. Frankly, it seems entitled on your part(s) to think that these smart kids should sit down and shut up so that, what, your kid doesn't "feel bad" about being slower in math?


Well, when I was a kid those kids went to CTY in the summer for more enrichment. I was one of them. It never occurred to me or my parents to ask my school to create a whole curriculum for the couple of us in our school with those needs.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:25     Subject: Re:2.0
A knowledgeable teacher of the world's literature, language, arts, and writing does not need the "right materials" or curriculum 2.0 to teach elementary school kids how to think, read and write.
Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:23     Subject: Re:2.0
...Finally, while there may be some teachers that aren't terribly good in math teaching math in elementary school, that was never the basis of the problem in math. The basis of the problem in math was the speed at which concepts were taught with a hope and a prayer that enough kids grasped the concept, and then moving on to the next concept. Really, elementary school math, even if it is algebra, is not that hard for a teacher given the right materials.


Somehow you think an adult teacher needs the right materials in order to successfully teach elementary school mathematics. If so, I feel sorry for the teacher wannabe. The stellar teachers I had developed their own materials despite the curriculum -- and students learned a hell of alot more than was in the "right mateials".

Good teachers who understand prealgebra do not really need "right materials" to teach the subject well.

That's my experience as student and teacher.



Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 17:16     Subject: Re:2.0
All the curricula in the world will not substitute for poor teaching from teachers that do not understand mathematics! Elementary school mathematical concepts, critical thinking and problem solving about math, have existed for centuries. There are no new curricula to develop that do not already exist. Perhaps MCPS should learn from curricula and teachers from 50 years ago before calulators and slide rules. There is no new wheel to reinvent.

Curriculum 2.0 disaster is simply smoke and mirrors.

Anonymous
Post 09/20/2012 16:29     Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are you claiming problem solving and critical thinking is somehow new in this decade? Nonsense, math is about problem solving and criticial thinking. As this applies to elementary school math there have been no changes or new paradigms for 101 years. What has changed (and for the worse) is the competence of elementary school math teachers and the increasing aversion and phobia our students have for the subject. And administrators and educators that limit access of students to math concepts based solely on an arbitrary grade level or age are incompetent. They should not be teaching children (with limitless academic potential) rather geriatric subjects with dwindling and extinguishing fire.


Actually, what is changing is that 2.0 is making sure Snowflake is actually engaging in critical thinking rather than spitting out an answer because she knows how to compute according to an algorithm. The problem with the old standards is that the system only cared that Snowflake could get to an answer, but not understand the "why" of how that answer is the right answer. In higher math at the real college level that underlies engineering and science, the student is served much better if she understands "why" numbers work the way they do, rather than just acting like a human calculator. The problem is that Snowflake's older brother hit differential equations in college and couldn't do it because he could only spit out answers via an algorithm he memorized. There's been at least a decade and a half at the current curriculum that has demonstrated this. (see earlier post by spouse of university professor).

BTW, I am the parent of the average second grader that posted above about Common Core.

FYI, there is not a replacement for the MSA yet, but there are formative assessments for the end of each unit that has been rolled out in 2.0. Snowflake has the opportunity to show how much she has mastered.



Why is is so hard for you to acknowledge that there are kids in MCPS who have mastered the work (both the how and the why)? Is your position that we simply not care about these kids? Rather, we should just put them in a room with kids that struggle in math, have them be bored by repeating simple concepts and, potentially lose interest in math. Is this the way a sensible educational organization treats its excellent students?

So I ask you: what do you do with the kids who really "get" the material? If you choose to answer, please do not focus your response on the red herring of what happens to the "snowflakes" (as you call them) who really haven't mastered the work. Please focus on the ones who have done so.


PP here. I picked up Snowflake from an earlier poster. I won't use that here.

I think you and I have different ideas of what it means "to get the material." Previously, the material was an algorithm. How to add, subtract, multiply and divide, for example. But, just because your child can add 6 digit numbers in their head and maybe even do long division and some form of algebra does not mean they understand fundamental concepts. For example, do they understand base 10 and how that translates to working in base 2? My second grader is doing work that translates into working in base 2 when she gets there. I doubt that prior to 2.0 we would have seen that. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. As I understand from talking to parents and teachers, the curriculum prior to 2.0 was to teach a concept and move to the next with no depth.

What 2.0 is supposed to do in math, and I will agree the jury is still out as to whether it accomplishes this, is SLOW DOWN THE CURRICULUM in math to allow teachers to spend more time on each fundamental concept. This may result in kids not being accelerated as fast. I am seeing my child is being taught fewer topics, but to a greater depth. I actually don't think this is a bad thing. She'll still make it to calculus in time to have a science career if she wants.

I concede that some kids within a fundamental concept may master it before the rest of the kids in that small teaching group. As I have been told by my principal, they will work with those kids to move to the next concept. I sure hope this happens, but I will wait until I see my child's first report card before I jump all over anyone.

Also, the county has published a curriculum pamphlet for each grade through grade 3. I was given one at the grading meeting. I was also given a blank 2nd grade report card so I could see what was going to be covered and measured. If you don't have this, it's probably on the MoCo website.

Finally, while there may be some teachers that aren't terribly good in math teaching math in elementary school, that was never the basis of the problem in math. The basis of the problem in math was the speed at which concepts were taught with a hope and a prayer that enough kids grasped the concept, and then moving on to the next concept. Really, elementary school math, even if it is algebra, is not that hard for a teacher given the right materials.