Thanks for the explanation. I did not know math and arithmetic were different. Can you now tell me the difference between math and geometry?

I'll do so by example:

Arithmetic: 2+2.

Math: Creating an equations to describe the movement of a body through space.

There is a reason that colleges have Math Departments and not Arithmetic Departments. Arithmetic will only get you so far.

And just in case you still don't get it: From dictionary.com

a·rith·me·tic?[n. uh-rith-muh-tik; adj. ar-ith-met-ik] noun
1. the method or process of computation with figures: the most elementary branch of mathematics.
2. Also called higher arithmetic, theoretical arithmetic. the theory of numbers; the study of the divisibility of whole numbers, the remainders after division, etc.

math·e·mat·ics?[math-uh-mat-iks] noun
1. ( used with a singular verb ) the systematic treatment of magnitude, relationships between figures and forms, and relations between quantities expressed symbolically.

Anonymous wrote:Read the question?

You were unresponsive to the PP question?


Where did you read about no MCPS elementary school teacher can teach math?


I haven't read this.

Its already been covered ad nauseum... The harsh reality is that there will be less acceleration under 2.0 than before so it just might be that your precious snowflake is not as advanced as you thought..

Having every other post as.. "my child hasn't been moved yet", "I've been waiting two years", "Acceleration doesn't exist" It just might be that despite what you THINK your child knows they do not know..

Anonymous wrote:

But I am not sure that all the parents bashing MCPS teachers and 2.0 on this thread understand the difference between arithmetic and math.

I am sorry I don't know. Please tell me the difference?

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.

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem here is not curriculum 2.0 or x, it is the poor quality of elementary school math teaching. Curriculum 2.0 will not address the fundamental problem here. When you have teachers with expertise in prealgebra who can teach then the bureaucrats need to get out of the way and not limit the access of able students tp advanced or accelerated math concepts. Simply get out of the way. It is clear these bureacrats are smiply impediments to learning and anti-intellectual types. They should return to coaching lacrosse and soccer.

But I am not sure that all the parents bashing MCPS teachers and 2.0 on this thread understand the difference between arithmetic and math.

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental problem here is not curriculum 2.0 or x, it is the poor quality of elementary school math teaching. Curriculum 2.0 will not address the fundamental problem here. When you have teachers with expertise in prealgebra who can teach then the bureaucrats need to get out of the way and not limit the access of able students tp advanced or accelerated math concepts. Simply get out of the way. It is clear these bureacrats are smiply impediments to learning and anti-intellectual types. They should return to coaching lacrosse and soccer.