I agree PP. I was one of the earlier pp's who was wrongly identified as "fake math phD," so I know there is some attempt here to suggest that we are all one poster. I know this is not the case.

Why is it so easy for you to accept that there are multiple persons against 2.0 but at the same time believing there is one person in support of it. The person calling you fake PHD is one person.

I haven't called one name or bullied anyone, I'm also a helicopter parent.

So you were wrongly identified as fake math PHD and I'm wrongly identified as the person calling you that.

Re-read what I wrote. I never suggested there was only one person trying to tie the anti-2.0 posters as being one poster. I said there is "some attempt" to do so -- I never said that attempt was made by one person. In addition, it is easy for me to accept that there are multiple anti-2.0 posters b/c I am one and I know I haven't written all the posts -- that one is just logic.

I'm reading the poster saying the bullies have come out and you flatly saying I agree. If you don't agree refrain from saying you do in the future or specify.

...makes a strong clinical case for classic paranoid schizophrenia.

It's way past time for another dose of Thorazine or another electroconvulsive treatment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree PP. I was one of the earlier pp's who was wrongly identified as "fake math phD," so I know there is some attempt here to suggest that we are all one poster. I know this is not the case.

Why is it so easy for you to accept that there are multiple persons against 2.0 but at the same time believing there is one person in support of it. The person calling you fake PHD is one person.

I haven't called one name or bullied anyone, I'm also a helicopter parent.

So you were wrongly identified as fake math PHD and I'm wrongly identified as the person calling you that.

Re-read what I wrote. I never suggested there was only one person trying to tie the anti-2.0 posters as being one poster. I said there is "some attempt" to do so -- I never said that attempt was made by one person. In addition, it is easy for me to accept that there are multiple anti-2.0 posters b/c I am one and I know I haven't written all the posts -- that one is just logic.

I'm reading the poster saying the bullies have come out and you flatly saying I agree. If you don't agree refrain from saying you do in the future or specify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree PP. I was one of the earlier pp's who was wrongly identified as "fake math phD," so I know there is some attempt here to suggest that we are all one poster. I know this is not the case.

Why is it so easy for you to accept that there are multiple persons against 2.0 but at the same time believing there is one person in support of it. The person calling you fake PHD is one person.

I haven't called one name or bullied anyone, I'm also a helicopter parent.

So you were wrongly identified as fake math PHD and I'm wrongly identified as the person calling you that.

Re-read what I wrote. I never suggested there was only one person trying to tie the anti-2.0 posters as being one poster. I said there is "some attempt" to do so -- I never said that attempt was made by one person. In addition, it is easy for me to accept that there are multiple anti-2.0 posters b/c I am one and I know I haven't written all the posts -- that one is just logic.

Anonymous wrote:I agree PP. I was one of the earlier pp's who was wrongly identified as "fake math phD," so I know there is some attempt here to suggest that we are all one poster. I know this is not the case.

Why is it so easy for you to accept that there are multiple persons against 2.0 but at the same time believing there is one person in support of it. The person calling you fake PHD is one person.

I haven't called one name or bullied anyone, I'm also a helicopter parent.

So you were wrongly identified as fake math PHD and I'm wrongly identified as the person calling you that.

I agree PP. I was one of the earlier pp's who was wrongly identified as "fake math phD," so I know there is some attempt here to suggest that we are all one poster. I know this is not the case.

I see the MCPS-defender bullies have come out in this thread. I suggest you ignore them. They like name calling using terms like 'Fake math Phd', 'moron' or 'helicopter parent'. They like to diminish widely held views by claiming it is all the same poster. They seldom make well-reasoned arguments. Most importantly, they just try to distract the discussion away from legit concerns.

As I have stated in other threads, I think the MCPS central office and BOE ignore and patronize parents. Although MCPS is not quite as pointed as these DCUM bullies, they are cut from the same cloth. I would love to see a message sent to MCPS by voting out apple ballot candidates (Barclay, Kauffman, and Evans). Aside from my particular issues, we just need a new open, transparent, and collaborative culture in MCPS. We need to bring parent and taxpayer views to the table.

I am sure these bullies will go after me now, which is fine. It just proves my point.

Anonymous wrote:Paranoia is a powerful potion. This poster has lost her argument and is losing her marbles once again. Beware, the graphic goblin will get you come Halloween night.

Fake math PhD---You've been called out. Give it a rest. Just don't clog every forum with your pathetic attempts to restore the only source of bragging rights for you---the Math Pathways. All the smoke and mirrors of your existence are being blown away.

Paranoia is a powerful potion. This poster has lost her argument and is losing her marbles once again. Beware, the graphic goblin will get you come Halloween night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Those kids might not be considered gifted, but testing/assesment won't changed the fact that 40% of the children have higher aptitude.
2.0 or not 2.0, it is impossile to create one-size fits all curriculum.
Previously, MCPS had a system in place to assess kids and create somewhat homogeneous groups. That system wasn't perfect, but it worked for most kids.
I am not willing to accept that 2.0 is suitable for all kids, and no advancement is nessesery.
I am not willing to accept BS from principals telling me that teachers can accomodated my kids needs within the class. It's impossile giving current class sizes (27 kids in my DS 1st grade class).
So, I'm not against 2.0 as a whole, but only against "one size fits all" aproach. And I won't stop complaing.

No one said no advancement is necessary.... Super just said as much in interview but your child obviously hasn't demonstrated the necessarys to do so. Complain all you want it will not transform your child to gifted

Are you really this obtuse? Don't you realize that MCPS is NOT PROVIDING any GUIDELINES to identify kids as needing advancement? Don't you realize that they DON'T WANT to advance ANY kids whether they need advancement or not?

Doesn't it bother you at all that you are buying - hook, line and sinker. You are buying the notion that "sure, sure we'll advance any kids who need it...as long as they demonstrate that they need it...but, we aren't really going to look for kids who need it, we don't have any method to judge whether they need it and, for good measure, we don't possess any process to get them advancement. If you are this gullible, I've got the proverbial bridge to sell you.

BTW, you continually refer to one poster, I'm quite sure there are a few of us that you believe are that one poster.

Fake math PhD----I think you have to accept the reality that the math acceleration based on fake understanding of grade level material is gone. No matter how many times you post, here or on GTA Letters, under whatever persona--there is really no evidence that you are doing anything more than crying wolf.

Being obnoxious to parents in either forum doesn't help your lame cause.

Arlington/fairfax school have capacity to accelerate 10% of its student body to magnets or G&T. MoCo can only help 1% of its top students.
Both have plenty of ESL teachers and special needs programs.

I am a new poster here who is not buying the MCPS line at all. They just have not earned the benefit of the doubt. I have no faith in the BOE or Starr (who was secretly hired by the BOE).

If parents want to change MCPS to be more responsive to family needs, whether it is for HG kids or later HS start times or large class sizes or some other group, then they need to change the BOE. That is the only way. This will not happen in the upcoming election either since only 3 candidates are running. I will say that if Barclay or someone else is ousted, then that might open up the minds of some existing Apple Ballot BOE members.

If the Apple Ballot wins again, then the stats quo will continue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the point is that MCPS is claiming that under C 2.0 they will meet the needs on the not gifted kids--the ~35% in the regular classroom. They also seem to be saying these not gifted kids were not learning--they were being pushed ahead w/o learning well.

Actually, the point is PREVIOUSLY 40% were considered gifted.... A new curriculum is in place and 40% of the children are CURRENTLY not gifted any longer.

The curriculum is not the same so what got a student advancement before will not get you advancement now. Parents are not willing to accept that.... Its understandable, reality shattering in fact... but some people need to let it sink in.

Its not that CS 2.0 is addressing kids previously not identified as gifted... Its addressing the kids that were considered gifted previosly under a new set of criteria.

This is the nature of the problem and the point can be driven home ad nauseum but some will choose to ignore the new landscape placed plainly in front of them.

Those kids might not be considered gifted, but testing/assesment won't changed the fact that 40% of the children have higher aptitude.
2.0 or not 2.0, it is impossile to create one-size fits all curriculum.
Previously, MCPS had a system in place to assess kids and create somewhat homogeneous groups. That system wasn't perfect, but it worked for most kids.
I am not willing to accept that 2.0 is suitable for all kids, and no advancement is nessesery.
I am not willing to accept BS from principals telling me that teachers can accomodated my kids needs within the class. It's impossile giving current class sizes (27 kids in my DS 1st grade class).
So, I'm not against 2.0 as a whole, but only against "one size fits all" aproach. And I won't stop complaing.

No one said no advancement is necessary.... Super just said as much in interview but your child obviously hasn't demonstrated the necessarys to do so. Complain all you want it will not transform your child to gifted

Are you really this obtuse? Don't you realize that MCPS is NOT PROVIDING any GUIDELINES to identify kids as needing advancement? Don't you realize that they DON'T WANT to advance ANY kids whether they need advancement or not?

Doesn't it bother you at all that you are buying - hook, line and sinker. You are buying the notion that "sure, sure we'll advance any kids who need it...as long as they demonstrate that they need it...but, we aren't really going to look for kids who need it, we don't have any method to judge whether they need it and, for good measure, we don't possess any process to get them advancement. If you are this gullible, I've got the proverbial bridge to sell you.

BTW, you continually refer to one poster, I'm quite sure there are a few of us that you believe are that one poster.