One critical aspect of curriculum 2.0 that you have excluded (perhaps inadvertently): students that has mastered the content of this curriculum (curriculum 2.0) will no longer be allowed to move up. Even if this mastery is ascertained at the beginning of the school year the child must remain in the assigned classroom and repeat the content. This is particularly germane for any student in mathematics. There are no longer any pathways for advancement even if the child has mastered the math content at the start of the school year.

Now I'm about to paste in the official summary of Curriculum 2.0. You can all see what it says. It says that our children are being taught to juggle chainsaws. If you don't see it in there, it's just because they are trying to cover it up.

--New internationally driven standards in math, reading, and writing
--Renewed focus on teaching the whole child
--Nurtures skills that build confidence and success
--Engages students beyond reading and math, to spark greater interest
in science, social studies, information literacy, art, music, physical
education, and health
--Integrates thinking, reasoning, and creativity for a lifetime of learning
--Enhances learning by connecting subjects

Now I'm about to paste in the official summary of Curriculum 2.0. You can all see what it says. It says that our children are being taught to juggle chainsaws. If you don't see it in there, it's just because they are trying to cover it up.

--New internationally driven standards in math, reading, and writing
--Renewed focus on teaching the whole child
--Nurtures skills that build confidence and success
--Engages students beyond reading and math, to spark greater interest
in science, social studies, information literacy, art, music, physical
education, and health
--Integrates thinking, reasoning, and creativity for a lifetime of learning
--Enhances learning by connecting subjects

OK, to the couple of posters (maybe the same person) who say that the purpose of 2.0 is to *intentionally* slow down the prodigies, what possible motive could a school system have for that? Don't you think that sounds a little paranoid? You can disagree with the educational theory at play here that children need more depth in math and less acceleration, but do you really think administrators are sitting in meeting rooms trying to figure out how to mess with your child, with no other productive goals?

I think we must be talking about a different Montgomery County than the one I live in. I have to get off of DCUM. C'mon people, a conspiracy to hold back your kids? Do you think that sounds even a little crazy?

Anonymous wrote:I think we must be talking about a different Montgomery County than the one I live in. I have to get off of DCUM. C'mon people, a conspiracy to hold back your kids? Do you think that sounds even a little crazy?

Anonymous wrote:Naivete is bliss. It's not the recent immigrants and their children who are the MCPS leadership and teachers in our schools. At least in the schools my kids attend the leadership and teachers do not reflect the race and ethnicity of the students being led and taught. There is a tremendous lag. The traditional leadership of MCPS and her schools are run still run by the old generation. They teach an increasing multi-cultural and diverse student body many of whom out perform their own children and thus get the "entitled" spoils: prizes, awards, magnet slots, Ivy slots and other prize college admissions ...

Anonymous wrote:Naivete is bliss. It's not the recent immigrants and their children who are the MCPS leadership and teachers in our schools. At least in the schools my kids attend the leadership and teachers do not reflect the race and ethnicity of the students being led and taught. There is a tremendous lag. The traditional leadership of MCPS and her schools are run still run by the old generation. They teach an increasing multi-cultural and diverse student body many of whom out perform their own children and thus get the "entitled" spoils: prizes, awards, magnet slots, Ivy slots and other prize college admissions ...

OK, to the couple of posters (maybe the same person) who say that the purpose of 2.0 is to *intentionally* slow down the prodigies, what possible motive could a school system have for that? Don't you think that sounds a little paranoid? You can disagree with the educational theory at play here that children need more depth in math and less acceleration, but do you really think administrators are sitting in meeting rooms trying to figure out how to mess with your child, with no other productive goals?