Eureka has 29 consecutive lessons on ratios and rates and percents, each with 5-10 homework problems.

And the "consecutive" is surely part of the problem. Cram, cram, cram on one topic and then drop it for a year, instead of covering all topics each quarter and then cycling back.

Anonymous wrote:First person I've heard say Eureka is too slow. Many times its actually too fast paced the way MCPS wants it to be where students arent understanding the concepts and don't have the time to get it because of the pace the county wants to run it. It shows up in test scores time and time again. Is it repetitive? Yes. Does it mean kids are understanding it? No.

Maybe it depends on the grade, but if kids aren't understanding the concepts despite repeating them over and over for weeks/months on end, seems like an intervention is needed.

First person I've heard say Eureka is too slow. Many times its actually too fast paced the way MCPS wants it to be where students arent understanding the concepts and don't have the time to get it because of the pace the county wants to run it. It shows up in test scores time and time again. Is it repetitive? Yes. Does it mean kids are understanding it? No.

Anonymous wrote:I would not cal Benchmark challenging. I think they could do more more on ELA.

Benchmark in general is not good, but I'd call it challenging in the sense that the Benchmark "books" I've seen often exceed the average reading level in that grade, especially compared to the decodables that get sent home. Maybe out of step is a better term. RGR has been great for my kid but this is a problem with piecing a curriculum together rather than using one with a solid phonics component already built in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

I remember my kid already knew his times tables really well but they insisted on making them do these models to teach him what he already knew. I assume this is helpful for some but personally, I found it absurd.

It does seem like overkill at the time, but it’s intended to create a solid understanding of what’s actually happening underneath the shortcut methods and memorization. Those alternate approaches aren’t the way they’ll solve those problems in the long term, but it teaches them skills they’ll use later, in more complex ways.

How many times drawing the same model is enough? 10? 100? 1000?

I think that's the problem because it varies widely by kid. Some pick it up quickly and don't need to do this to death.

OP,

If your child is reading above grade level but cannot organize their thoughts to identify simple concepts on paper, then that is a red flag for ADHD. I don't mean to say your child has ADHD! But you need to work with him on this, and stay vigilant for other red flags. (I'm sure you're aware that inattentive ADHD presents as daydreaming and not paying attention; it's very different from hyperactive ADHD).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I think language art is challenging because they ask 2nd grader to determine key events and central message in a reading article. They also ask for novel study and write something after reading. My kid can read above grade level book, but it is challenging for him to write down summary and key important things. As I say, I am not from here. It seems like it requires a kid to grasp the main idea, supporting idea etc , remind me the style of writing a journal or essay or summarization not at my ES years.

PP here. This is not unusual at all. Be grateful your child is getting this type of instruction! If they are struggling now, know that they will get better with more exposure and practice. This is only ES. Go to your local library and consult with the librarian in the kids section: get books with reading comprehension questions in the back. This will give your kid more practice to read critically. The goal is to pick up a text and to read critically, and to communicate the reader's thoughts clearly. It is a process, and you have to be patient with the kids. They will eventually get it.

What books are commended for these?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

This. 100%.

+100. The slow pace is to ensure students understand the math concepts. Getting them to memorize math facts and shortcuts is easy. But if they don’t understand of the underlying concepts, it starts to show when kids get to Alg 1 and especially beyond.

Kids don’t need to go faster they need to get more word problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

The reason is that 50% of students have low IQ and por mathematical reasoning skills. Eureka tries to save them (which is great), at the expense of starving the minds of high IQ students, because equity focused schools won't let kids go faster if they are able.

If you move from a different district where you excelled in +1 year math in ES, MCPS will make you redo the same class next year.

And you need to fight against that. Unless there is an immovable scheduling obstacle, which can happen in elementary school, there is no reason to repeat a class. I got my kid into Algebra 1 in 6th grade, after many years of boredom in elementary. I had to request a special test from the middle school math coordinator the summer between 5th and 6th.

Use the system to your advantage if you are convinced that your child needs it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

The reason is that 50% of students have low IQ and por mathematical reasoning skills. Eureka tries to save them (which is great), at the expense of starving the minds of high IQ students, because equity focused schools won't let kids go faster if they are able.

If you move from a different district where you excelled in +1 year math in ES, MCPS will make you redo the same class next year.

My kid who is good at math (no idea about IQ) gets math enrichment at our "equity focused" Focus school. I give a lot of credit to Eureka for giving her a solid math understanding, honestly, and I see her using the models Eureka teaches when she's doing the higher level enrichment work at home.

It depends where you're from and what your families proclivities are, OP.

To generalize in the most awful fashion (sorry), I've had European families complain the math is too hard. I've had Asian families complain the math is too easy. No one in my circle ever said English was too hard, though, that's a new one! Perhaps it's because foreigners assume that if English is too hard, it must be because they don't have a good enough command of English

A word of warning: public schools are not the best at teaching writing, because teachers have too many students to grade. Public schools do have funding for lab sciences, though. So in general, they will be pretty good at STEM, not so good at writing.

Finally, a word on intensity: elementary school is supposed to be EASY. Middle school gets harder, and high school even more so. If your child is struggling in any part of his elementary curriculum, you have to take it seriously. Otherwise it will be difficult to catch up later, and your kid won't be optimally positioned to get to advanced tracks in middle and high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

The reason is that 50% of students have low IQ and por mathematical reasoning skills. Eureka tries to save them (which is great), at the expense of starving the minds of high IQ students, because equity focused schools won't let kids go faster if they are able.

If you move from a different district where you excelled in +1 year math in ES, MCPS will make you redo the same class next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

I remember my kid already knew his times tables really well but they insisted on making them do these models to teach him what he already knew. I assume this is helpful for some but personally, I found it absurd.

It does seem like overkill at the time, but it’s intended to create a solid understanding of what’s actually happening underneath the shortcut methods and memorization. Those alternate approaches aren’t the way they’ll solve those problems in the long term, but it teaches them skills they’ll use later, in more complex ways.

How many times drawing the same model is enough? 10? 100? 1000?

Kids are memorizing how to draw the models now, so next year the new Eureka curriculum is going to have the student create a video of themself assembling each problem's model out of plastic manipulatives, to make sure they develop a deep understanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the emphasis is on bringing reading up to speed early because it’s the foundation of all other learning. It’s difficult to teach science, history, even more advanced math if students aren’t strong readers. Math can more easily be accelerated in later grades for students who are capable of a faster pace.

And there’s some evidence that a slower pace in early grades sets a strong foundation for more complex tasks. People complain about their children being taught multiple ways to solve a simple arithmetic problem, but the intent is to help students also understand the underlying concepts when they memorize those facts. And many of those seemingly repetitive approaches come into play again later, in more advanced ways, so it’s helpful to have that grounding from earlier work. My high school student isn’t a math whiz, but a solidly advanced student, and they’ve been surprised over the years to realize there was actually a reason for some of those hated elementary-school lessons like matrices.

Yep. Second grade is horridly boring and repetitive in Eureka math but there is a reason for the long slog.

I remember my kid already knew his times tables really well but they insisted on making them do these models to teach him what he already knew. I assume this is helpful for some but personally, I found it absurd.

It does seem like overkill at the time, but it’s intended to create a solid understanding of what’s actually happening underneath the shortcut methods and memorization. Those alternate approaches aren’t the way they’ll solve those problems in the long term, but it teaches them skills they’ll use later, in more complex ways.

How many times drawing the same model is enough? 10? 100? 1000?

It's because you or your kid is good at math and bad at English. Other kids are the reverse.