[quote=Anonymous]Curriculum 2.0 is just a one size fits all program. Children are not put into groups according to ability. The general ed teacher who has 32 kids in her class also can't possibly differentiate the lesson 32 different ways to meet each child's needs. The reality ends up being that the child who has mastered concepts is bored while waiting for the majority of the kids to catch up before new concepts or challenges are offered. The child who may have difficulty keeping up may not get the extra attention he or she deserves and falls further behind. Maybe the 50% of kids in the middle are served with the new 2.0 Curriculum but I would expect with the tax dollars MCPS receives, parents should expect more from their public school system.

As a parent who has witnessed the implementation first hand, it seems to me that the teachers have not been properly trained or given enough support to do what the program promises. MCPS should think twice about the expense of rolling out the Curriculum 2.0 which has far more limitations than the program it is replacing. How much will it cost and how far down the road will MCPS go till it decides to ditch Curriculum 2.0?[/quote]

+1 to this and some of the other things mentioned above.

2nd grader here who has been very frustrated with curriculum 2.0 math:

"Mommy, I hate math."

Why?

"I used to like math when I learned something."

Different conversation...

Showing work from school -- "We were doing place value in the hundreds. I made it harder and decided to go to the millions."

So, school agreed about a month and a half into school year that Curriculum 2.0 was not working for accelerated kids. School opened up 2 accelerated classrooms and went back to moving kids as needed. Same child now LOVES math. It's his favorite subject again. Only problem? The county hasn't written the curriculum for all elementary levels. So, since he's in the guinea pig year and he needs acceleration, there's NO WRITTEN CURRICULUM to match his needs.

MoCo needs to stop implementing this disaster before there's actually a curriculum for the teachers. That certainly is not serving children who do need the acceleration and express frustration and boredom when they aren't getting it (like mine.) Good teachers and school administrators know what the kids really do need. Let these experts supply it.

Curriculum 2.0 is just a one size fits all program. Children are not put into groups according to ability. The general ed teacher who has 32 kids in her class also can't possibly differentiate the lesson 32 different ways to meet each child's needs. The reality ends up being that the child who has mastered concepts is bored while waiting for the majority of the kids to catch up before new concepts or challenges are offered. The child who may have difficulty keeping up may not get the extra attention he or she deserves and falls further behind. Maybe the 50% of kids in the middle are served with the new 2.0 Curriculum but I would expect with the tax dollars MCPS receives, parents should expect more from their public school system.

As a parent who has witnessed the implementation first hand, it seems to me that the teachers have not been properly trained or given enough support to do what the program promises. MCPS should think twice about the expense of rolling out the Curriculum 2.0 which has far more limitations than the program it is replacing. How much will it cost and how far down the road will MCPS go till it decides to ditch Curriculum 2.0?

It is this curricular philosophy, or the implementation thereof, that explains why many of our kids will never gain the prerequisites or confidence for higher maths and physics in high school. The ball game is over, and phobia for maths and physics well entrenched, before these children even hit middle school. In high school, they do not want to have to work at math or physics or possibly threaten the inflated GPAs needed to get into colleges of their picking. A viscious cycle. It is no surprise by high school, the only American kids in maths and physics, (science) predominantly bear immigrant phenotype. These are the same American children overwhelmingly winning all the regional, national and international math, science, engineering and computer science prizes (e.g., Davidson Fellows, USAMO, IMO, Intel, Siemens, AP scholars and perfect SAT/ACT). These American kids and their parents are not sucked into the ennui of straight As, or curriculum 2.0 and their MCPS teachers. They recognize this is a very low bar for demands of the 21st century.

[quote=Anonymous]My child attends Beverly Farms Elementary School and the "new" 2.0 Curriculum has been a disaster. My child, who was accellerated and above grade level last year, is bored because she has not been given any new extensions or challenging concepts this year. She just keeps repeating concepts that she passed last year and my child now hates going to school. To motivate her to practice math skills at home, I have resorted to buying our own sets of math text books and use old Everyday Math workbooks the school sent home for my older children that were unused. Everyday Math had its limitations and critics but at least there was differentiation available so kids could move at their own pace. My older children did well with the old program and unless I teach my younger child, she will not have the opportunity to take higher level math when she reaches high school.[/quote] is she in first or second grade? I think you are being a bit of an alarmist concerning her prospects of success in high school.

My child attends Beverly Farms Elementary School and the "new" 2.0 Curriculum has been a disaster. My child, who was accellerated and above grade level last year, is bored because she has not been given any new extensions or challenging concepts this year. She just keeps repeating concepts that she passed last year and my child now hates going to school. To motivate her to practice math skills at home, I have resorted to buying our own sets of math text books and use old Everyday Math workbooks the school sent home for my older children that were unused. Everyday Math had its limitations and critics but at least there was differentiation available so kids could move at their own pace. My older children did well with the old program and unless I teach my younger child, she will not have the opportunity to take higher level math when she reaches high school.

"...led to a country...."

Unfortunately, I don't seem to have any typing skills.

Yeah to 16:13!

That is the point I thought the pig poster was trying to make; though her metaphor was rather muddy.
Third, I did not know that pigs had become one of the preferred animals for experimental purposes. I learned something new today.

If not for the fear of transmission of pig viruses in humans and the immune barrier colonies of pigs would provide all the necessary organs for human solid organ transplantation and eliminate the donor organ shortage overnight (xenotransplantation).

Of course hundreds of thousands of pig valves are continually implanted into the human heart worldwide for valvular heart disease. The rat couldn't compete with the pig on this score.

15:59 here again. PP, I agree with you that it is all important. I just think that math translates into many other skills, including grammar and logic and science.

The problem I have with math is that people are afraid of it, and they shouldn't be. I think that a feeling of accomplishment in math at an early age is important to getting over that fear. Same with reading, but our schools seem to concentrate on catching the kids who can't read, but they don't seem to be as concerned about the kids who can't do math. This de-emphasis on math had lead to a country that has to import engineers to innovate.

OP here, thank you, this is helpful. Though I think you can learn reasoning skills in ways other than through math. I agree that math is important, but I don't think it is any more important than language skills.

Language skills are only important as the ability to think logically and critically as well as problem solve. Immersion rather than aversion to (or fear of) Mathematics and Physics are where I think the latter skills are best honed in young children. This largely explains the current return on intellectual investment from the plethora of liberal arts communicating nomads with no basic foundation in mathematics and physics (science).

Anonymous wrote:

I don't see how comments like this add anything to the discourse other than to convey that you are unhappy; which is why I appreciate the prior poster's response. Just repeating the statement that the schools are teaching to the lowest level is a mantra, not an argument. Also, I think your metaphor would be better if you referenced rats in an experiment rather than piglets in a pen.

As usual, you missed the point entirely. Don't read the labels to find out whether curriculum 2.0 is working; simply, get data from those in the battle fields (children and teachers). Where did you read the statement that "the schools are teaching to the lowest level" from the piggy post? Confused again. Do not mix apples with oranges. And you prefer an analogy to liken children to rats in an experiment rather than piglets in a pen? Experimental animal models are not limited to rodents. Over the years pigs are better animal models and closer to the human condition. Oink, oink.

First, I started this thread to get data from parents of children who have experience with the curriculum.
Second, poster 14:50 said

Teachers supposedly can differentiate in the classroom. I don't know other schools, but in our school, there is only one level of education and that is teaching to the lowest level.

That is the point I thought the pig poster was trying to make; though her metaphor was rather muddy.
Third, I did not know that pigs had become one of the preferred animals for experimental purposes. I learned something new today.

Anonymous wrote:I have a masters in engineering, and I am a lawyer. I vote for math reasoning being most important, because without the underlying logic, you cannot make a very effective argument.

I have a first grader in MCPS. She brings home her math worksheets with no problems wrong. The advanced stuff gets sent home for us to do with her as "extra". Frankly, I work full time, and barely have enough time to help her get the real homework done. That being said, she has learned concepts in first grade curriculum 2.0 that I never learned in first grade. I am not worried whether she'll be challenged. Right now, I just like that she has a feeling of accomplishment in mastering first grade. She's eager to try the next thing because she feels like she can do it.

I have spent some time speaking with the teachers at my daughter's school about 2.0. They don't love it, but the do like the new State Common Core Curriculum standards it meant to satisfy. The Common Core is meant to give the understanding that the prior curriculums did not because the prior curriculum was centered on learning what the answer was, not how it was arrived at.

It's not like they have stopped teaching our kids by introducing 2.0. They are still teaching our kids.

OP here, thank you, this is helpful. Though I think you can learn reasoning skills in ways other than through math. I agree that math is important, but I don't think it is any more important than language skills.

Richest country on the planet?

Perhaps... and/or the greatest thieves (e.g., robber barrons) in the history of mankind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a Curriculum 2.0 worksheet for a second grader:
What is 10 + 5? (Can't recall the exact digits, but something like this.)
How did you find the answer? (Supposedly, how did you find your answer part, means going "deeper" according to MCPS.)
But for a second grader who can do middle school math, it just means going deeper into frustration. I would personally get very frustrated if someone asked me to explain such a basic question in detail. I'm glad my child does not complain too much. We do our best to keep her motivated. Curriculum 2.0 is just a joke. But the real problem is no more homegenous grouping of students. Teachers supposedly can differentiate in the classroom. I don't know other schools, but in our school, there is only one level of education and that is teaching to the lowest level.

Are you saying that under the old system algebra was routinely taught in second grade?

I don't think the example you provided is teaching to the lowest level of second grade student -- which I would consider to be true if 90% of the class could answer the questions easily. I think it could be challenging to articulate how you arrived at the answer. Though if you had to provide the same explanation 20 times I can see how that would be tedious.

Is your daughter actually coming home frustrated? Most children that age are rather happy to be experts at a task. If she is actually frustrated, I can see why you are not a fan of the curriculum.

I don't have much problem asking how you arrived to the solution. The issue is that the underlying problem is just too basic whose solution is already burned in to the child. If the problem was appropriately challenging, a 7 year old would be more motivated to articulate the answer.

I have a masters in engineering, and I am a lawyer. I vote for math reasoning being most important, because without the underlying logic, you cannot make a very effective argument.

I have a first grader in MCPS. She brings home her math worksheets with no problems wrong. The advanced stuff gets sent home for us to do with her as "extra". Frankly, I work full time, and barely have enough time to help her get the real homework done. That being said, she has learned concepts in first grade curriculum 2.0 that I never learned in first grade. I am not worried whether she'll be challenged. Right now, I just like that she has a feeling of accomplishment in mastering first grade. She's eager to try the next thing because she feels like she can do it.

I have spent some time speaking with the teachers at my daughter's school about 2.0. They don't love it, but the do like the new State Common Core Curriculum standards it meant to satisfy. The Common Core is meant to give the understanding that the prior curriculums did not because the prior curriculum was centered on learning what the answer was, not how it was arrived at.

It's not like they have stopped teaching our kids by introducing 2.0. They are still teaching our kids.

I don't see how comments like this add anything to the discourse other than to convey that you are unhappy; which is why I appreciate the prior poster's response. Just repeating the statement that the schools are teaching to the lowest level is a mantra, not an argument. Also, I think your metaphor would be better if you referenced rats in an experiment rather than piglets in a pen.

As usual, you missed the point entirely. Don't read the labels to find out whether curriculum 2.0 is working; simply, get data from those in the battle fields (children and teachers). Where did you read the statement that "the schools are teaching to the lowest level" from the piggy post? Confused again. Do not mix apples with oranges. And you prefer an analogy to liken children to rats in an experiment rather than piglets in a pen? Experimental animal models are not limited to rodents. Over the years pigs are better animal models and closer to the human condition. Oink, oink.