Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

I am the PP you were addressing..

Clearly you don't get it... I've stated in this thread over and over, just because you can do fourth grade math does not mean you have a deeper conceptual understanding of 4th grade math. Its not a mystery that under this new curriculum a child who was accelerated will not initially remain accelerated if they haven't demonstrated complete understanding yet.

Its not that she forgot, its not that she's being held back and its not because you can't be accelerated its because under the new curriculum she has not gained the foundation to move on yet even though she can do higher level math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

I am not the PP you are responding to, but you're wrong. The school could absolutely send your daughter, if she were truly able to demonstrate that she needed the acceleration (under the admittedly more strict guidelines than the county's previous acceleration policy), to another class for math. What is gone with 2.0 is skipping an entire class (or half the grade or more in some cases) ahead a grade in math and hoping that the holes fill themselves in. I understand maybe your child's teacher or even principal has told you this, but that doesn't make it true for the entire curriculum. It is not going to keep her from getting into Harvard someday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

Anonymous wrote:From a different perspective, my DH teaches at the University level in a field that requires a strong understanding of math. He has noticed over the last several years that his students are woefully unprepared for college level math. They have no deeper understanding of concepts, can't figure out the basics and only have a very surface level comprehension of just about everything. While some memorization is actually important in the math field (ie knowing your multiplication tables etc) he is thrilled that they are slowing down the acceleration of students and getting back to where kids have to know how they got the answer, different ways to solve and look at math. He feels this is a much better approach to math than what has been in place. I'm sure other's that see the end result of the previous push in math will agree with him. There is even remedial college math courses going into the curriculum to cover what the students didn't get from K-12 but need in college. So I suggest people take a bigger picture approach. I also can see the need for adapting how the elementary is taught even under 2.0, our school seems to be vested in making adjustments if they don't feel like its working.

This! Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:What is the Jr. Great books curriculum? Is your son already reading? What kinds of books can he read?

Yes, he can read...chapter books (Magic Tree House, etc...) But in Jr. Great Books they seem to read to them. It is about comprehension and creative thinking. They spend a week or more on one story and look at the plot, ask creative questions about comprehension (i.e. there is not right answer, but emphasizes critical thinking), do projects, they are going to act their story out. He loves it. It takes place as a pull out group outside the class each day, I think.

From a different perspective, my DH teaches at the University level in a field that requires a strong understanding of math. He has noticed over the last several years that his students are woefully unprepared for college level math. They have no deeper understanding of concepts, can't figure out the basics and only have a very surface level comprehension of just about everything. While some memorization is actually important in the math field (ie knowing your multiplication tables etc) he is thrilled that they are slowing down the acceleration of students and getting back to where kids have to know how they got the answer, different ways to solve and look at math. He feels this is a much better approach to math than what has been in place. I'm sure other's that see the end result of the previous push in math will agree with him. There is even remedial college math courses going into the curriculum to cover what the students didn't get from K-12 but need in college. So I suggest people take a bigger picture approach. I also can see the need for adapting how the elementary is taught even under 2.0, our school seems to be vested in making adjustments if they don't feel like its working.

Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far the other way. Once one child was moved up..everyone else wanted to follow. In my son's 5th grade class 2/3 of the kids were taking 7th grade math. Each of us thinks that our child really needs it but really only a small number do.

If the advanced placement cut is not met the kid does not move up. Since when do parents define the cut? Sounds like a broken pendulum. What a silly system. Parents telling teachers and principals what academic performance and scores merit acceleration and advancement!

Someone asked for specifics and facts. Here goes:

Old curriculum: Schools put quotas on kids who had to be accelerated to be college-ready. Schools over-accelerated and kids weren't ready to do math. Spiraling curriculum worked really well for accelerated kids but was confusing to the majority of the kids, who didn't develop number sense. HOWEVER, it did have actual assessments that told teachers (and parents) where a child was ready to learn next (scores were always on grade level and above grade level)

New curriculum: Slower, more depth, develop strong number sense and be able to explain how you get your answer before moving onto the next concept. Great for many kids. Boring for kids who already know the concept and need more. Teachers told to teach multiple levels in one classroom vs. the old switch model with each teacher teaching a specific level. More assessments, but nothing that actually shows where a child is to start. So, assessment might be on an understanding of even and odd numbers. But what if you have a child who mastered that a year or two ago? There's nothing that I've seen that actually shows exactly what a child is ready to learn next. Curriculum has what's called Drexel problems to challenge children. Implementation of Drexel's has been hit and miss depending on schools and teachers.

Problem with the curriculum isn't so much changing how they are teaching math, it's with the lack of data for teachers and parents along with an insistence that all children have to remain in a multi-level, same-grade classroom for math. It's ineffective and no one wins.

Oh, and add to that the fact that the county hasn't even written the curriculum for the guinea pig children, now in 3rd grade.

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far the other way. Once one child was moved up..everyone else wanted to follow. In my son's 5th grade class 2/3 of the kids were taking 7th grade math. Each of us thinks that our child really needs it but really only a small number do.

Yes, a small number do.

What is the Jr. Great books curriculum? Is your son already reading? What kinds of books can he read?

Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far the other way. Once one child was moved up..everyone else wanted to follow. In my son's 5th grade class 2/3 of the kids were taking 7th grade math. Each of us thinks that our child really needs it but really only a small number do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you have mastered fractions and all their sundry manipulations you can add, multply, divide, factor and understand the associative, commutative and distributive properties. That child should not be confined to 1st, 2nd or 3rd math grade curricula. Unfortunately, most MCPS principals and teachers in MCPS elementary school here have no fundamental grasp of math education. This is a fact.

I will be devil's advocate. Assume you have a child who has mastered spoken and written French, and all their school has to offer is brief PTA-sponsored after-school French class. Or a child who has been taking Suzuki violin since they were 3, and all the school has to offer is introductory violin in 4th grade. Should they be confined to the school's curriculum? From an outsider's perspective this is what it sounds like to me to have to provide acceleration two or three grade levels ahead in math.

But the public schools DO offer higher levels as part of their curriculum. A 1st grader could theoretically go to a 3rd or 4th grade class for math. And yes, in the past, at least, elementary schoolers could take middle school math. So if the teachers are there, and the child is ready, why shouldn't they?

Only a devil educator and advocate would subject a kid facile with arithematic operations to suffer in a math classroom of 30 counting blocks to 10 for a whole year. Only really makes common sense to the devil. An teacher in the business of education (in a school) would not allow this and ensure appropriate subject material commensurate to ability and aptitude. This is not happening across the board for many in MCPS. The MCPS bar is far too low without opportunity for appropriate advancement.