So for those that believe that MCPS is not doing enough in math what specifically should parents do with their kids at home? Define "supplement" plz. Not Asking to be snarky. I have a kindergartener and was not a math or science major so I do not know what is normal or not. I know she is doing more than I did in my half day K 40 years ago but that is my only basis for comparison.

Anonymous wrote:Another vote for 2.0. I have a 2nd grader and a 4th grader in compacted math. The 2nd grader with 2.0 is consistently being introduced to concepts earlier than my "advanced" math pre-2.0 child.

Your fourth grader also had 2.0 math in 2nd. My fourth grader has been under 2.0 since then.

Anonymous wrote:This is not true. In the old system, kids could be put 1, 2 or 3 years ahead and some were even 4 years ahead (rare). At our school, classes were commonly structured as grade level + 1 year ahead extensions. So, for example, a 2nd grader could be taking 3rd grade math with 4th grade extensions. The unit tests tested both 3rd and 4th grade concepts. Within one classroom some kids could be one year ahead completing one year in a year, and other kids could be working one year ahead completing two years in one year. There was a lot of flexibility and students were pre-assessed for skills mastered for placement at the beginning of the year. Then they were assessed in each unit. So, it was very clear where they began, what they worked on and what they mastered. That is not at all the case now.

This is not at all how it worked in my kid's school. In my kid's school, there was:

a. grade level
b. grade level + 1 with extensions +2

But given that the next year the extensions + 2 became the grade level + 1, it would still be one year of math in one year, except I guess for that first year of extensions. And there was no flexibility, either. Maybe a grade level + 1 kid went back to grade level, but a grade level kid never went ahead to grade level + 1. Where they put you in second grade is where you stayed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another non-learner here. My kid did go to a Montessori preschool which probably got him off an "too advanced" start. This was all him though and he is just a quick learner. He is curious about math and reads math books on his own.

Anyways, that's not the point. The point is that the challenge is not there for him. A few years ago it would have been. Now, not so much.

A few years ago, it wouldn't have been either. The old system was not letting kids learn at their own pace. The old system was putting kids a year ahead, or rarely two years ahead. But it was still a year of math in a year. Not a challenge for a math lover and quick learner.

This is not true. In the old system, kids could be put 1, 2 or 3 years ahead and some were even 4 years ahead (rare). At our school, classes were commonly structured as grade level + 1 year ahead extensions. So, for example, a 2nd grader could be taking 3rd grade math with 4th grade extensions. The unit tests tested both 3rd and 4th grade concepts. Within one classroom some kids could be one year ahead completing one year in a year, and other kids could be working one year ahead completing two years in one year. There was a lot of flexibility and students were pre-assessed for skills mastered for placement at the beginning of the year. Then they were assessed in each unit. So, it was very clear where they began, what they worked on and what they mastered. That is not at all the case now.

This may have varied somewhat by individual school. Obviously, the larger the cohort of individuals ready for math at a particular level, the easier it was to arrange. No matter what school you attended in the old system, if you were the only kid who was capable of working 2 years ahead, you were probably SOL. But, if there were 20 kids working 2 years ahead, then the system would create a class for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Another vote for 2.0. I have a 2nd grader and a 4th grader in compacted math. The 2nd grader with 2.0 is consistently being introduced to concepts earlier than my "advanced" math pre-2.0 child.

Yeah right. Its our resident MCPS staffer trying to make people think 2.0 is so dandy. You have to be an idiot to not notice the decline in math standards and teaching with 2.0.

I haven't noticed it. (And I don't work for MCPS.) I guess that makes me an idiot. Oh well.

Another vote for 2.0. I have a 2nd grader and a 4th grader in compacted math. The 2nd grader with 2.0 is consistently being introduced to concepts earlier than my "advanced" math pre-2.0 child.

Yeah right. Its our resident MCPS staffer trying to make people think 2.0 is so dandy. You have to be an idiot to not notice the decline in math standards and teaching with 2.0.

Another vote for 2.0. I have a 2nd grader and a 4th grader in compacted math. The 2nd grader with 2.0 is consistently being introduced to concepts earlier than my "advanced" math pre-2.0 child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an older and younger child so I can compare. My older child received a much stronger math education than my younger child is now receiving with 2.0.

I also have an older and younger child so I can also compare. My younger child is now receiving a much stronger math education with 2.0 than my older child received.

Totally disagree and I also have a pre and post 2.0 (including a current 4th grade DS in compacted Math.) The previous Math including the discipline of studying for and taking of the 2 hour unit tests was MUCH more rigorous before 2.0. Now the compacted Math instructor is fabulous and gives a lot of workseets outside the curriculm and that totally helps but if DS was not in compacted Math, 2.0 Math would have been terribly unchallenging......