I actually do not have a problem with N, I and P, under the condition that there is a defined and uniformly applied level of mastery to get a P. I do have a big problem with how MCPS is implementing the 4th point, the ES.

There is no value in offering a rare and random measurement on a report card. Our principal has pointed out that ES will be rare because many times an ES can not be achieved because there is no opportunity to do more than the assignment. She gave math examples of where this would be apply. ES will also not represent above grade work so a child doing enrichment in math would still get a P for getting all the answers correct. In other subjects it may or may not be given but probably not.

You will have no idea when you see your child's report card why they received an ES in some subjects and Ps in others. You will have no idea whether they could have achieved an ES if they had done something differently. There is no opportunity for the child to apply themselves and work harder in subjects where they are less gifted and get the reward of a higher grade. This is just wrong because the value of education is to reward merit not just natural talents.

I loved our teacher last year who is more old school. She gave the kids spelling tests every week and the words went home each week for practice. My child is not gifted at spelling, she's terrible at it. She did extra practice every week and was incredibly proud to get everything correct each week and move from an S to O. The lesson that she learned wasn't about spelling, it was that sometimes you need to work to learn and there is reward if you do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new report cars will also show if the child is reading above grade level or has been instructed in math above grade level. I have my own issues with the new report card, but it does show if a child is working above grade level.
23:32, your school's problem sounds like an implementation problem, not a curriculum problem. The teachers could be giving differentiated work. There are not supposed to be a lot of worksheets under this curriculum. So, for example, a math game involving number sense, which is part of the curriculum for second grade this marking period, could be made more complex by adding more and more places. If on grade level is ones, tens, hundreds, the teacher can add thousands, ten thousands, etc to the game.

Are you sure the new report card will show above grade level math instruction? We used the new report card last year, and I did not see such information.

I went to a meeting at our ES, and they said the report card would show if the child is receiving enrichment in math. They specifically said that kids would NOT be receiving above grade math instruction, but would instead be "digging deeper" into the curriculum through enrichment.

I'd be curious to see a report card showing "receiving enrichment."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new report cars will also show if the child is reading above grade level or has been instructed in math above grade level. I have my own issues with the new report card, but it does show if a child is working above grade level.
23:32, your school's problem sounds like an implementation problem, not a curriculum problem. The teachers could be giving differentiated work. There are not supposed to be a lot of worksheets under this curriculum. So, for example, a math game involving number sense, which is part of the curriculum for second grade this marking period, could be made more complex by adding more and more places. If on grade level is ones, tens, hundreds, the teacher can add thousands, ten thousands, etc to the game.

Are you sure the new report card will show above grade level math instruction? We used the new report card last year, and I did not see such information.

I went to a meeting at our ES, and they said the report card would show if the child is receiving enrichment in math. They specifically said that kids would NOT be receiving above grade math instruction, but would instead be "digging deeper" into the curriculum through enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:The new report cars will also show if the child is reading above grade level or has been instructed in math above grade level. I have my own issues with the new report card, but it does show if a child is working above grade level.
23:32, your school's problem sounds like an implementation problem, not a curriculum problem. The teachers could be giving differentiated work. There are not supposed to be a lot of worksheets under this curriculum. So, for example, a math game involving number sense, which is part of the curriculum for second grade this marking period, could be made more complex by adding more and more places. If on grade level is ones, tens, hundreds, the teacher can add thousands, ten thousands, etc to the game.

Are you sure the new report card will show above grade level math instruction? We used the new report card last year, and I did not see such information.

The new report cars will also show if the child is reading above grade level or has been instructed in math above grade level. I have my own issues with the new report card, but it does show if a child is working above grade level.
23:32, your school's problem sounds like an implementation problem, not a curriculum problem. The teachers could be giving differentiated work. There are not supposed to be a lot of worksheets under this curriculum. So, for example, a math game involving number sense, which is part of the curriculum for second grade this marking period, could be made more complex by adding more and more places. If on grade level is ones, tens, hundreds, the teacher can add thousands, ten thousands, etc to the game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I love my kids as much as the next parent, but study the curriculum? I feel like the world has gone mad! My parents, and I'm pretty sure the parents of my friends, were not so overly involved in our academic lives, and we turned out great -- good colleges, good jobs etc.

My kid is in second grade, and I tried to read the 2.0 overview of the grade 2 curriculum...and then I got to these vague concepts like "metacognition" and my eyes rolled back into my head and I recycled the overview.

Metacognition is a great word! 2.0 is preparing students to NOT to be Jerry's enabled kids by learning to think critically. They become aware of their thinking and are resourceful enough to find strategies to help them fill in the gaps.

For too long, kids have been spoon-fed. Now they have the opportunity to dig deeply into concepts. quality over quantity

You shouldn't have recycle the overview, as that was an ignorant move. And FWIW, maybe you should learn to be a bit more resourceful by looking up definitions.

Sounds like someone has been drinking too much of the MCPS propaganda Kool Aid. You are starting to quote it.

Get real. We are talking about K, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders. "Dig deeply into concepts" is BS terminology. The kids at my child's school are not getting "extensions" and are not more academically challenged than the system in place before 2.0. In fact, it is just the opposite. The children who begin the units proficient at state standards have to sit and do busy work. I was encouraged to have my child bring in Harry Potter books to fill the large amounts of time he has to wait for the rest of the class to learn the concepts. He is bored and has dug as deep as the system will let him.

Of course MCPS had to get rid of the old report card. They reflected if a kid was above, on, or below grade level. Under 2.0, no kid is challenged to do above grade level work, even kids that were above grade level in previous years. MCPS had to come up with a BS report card to match their BS curriculum to try to mask the fact that they have only succeeded in moving our kids backwards to lower standards than they aimed at before Starr became Superintendent.

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I love my kids as much as the next parent, but study the curriculum? I feel like the world has gone mad! My parents, and I'm pretty sure the parents of my friends, were not so overly involved in our academic lives, and we turned out great -- good colleges, good jobs etc.

My kid is in second grade, and I tried to read the 2.0 overview of the grade 2 curriculum...and then I got to these vague concepts like "metacognition" and my eyes rolled back into my head and I recycled the overview.

Metacognition is a great word! 2.0 is preparing students to NOT to be Jerry's enabled kids by learning to think critically. They become aware of their thinking and are resourceful enough to find strategies to help them fill in the gaps.

For too long, kids have been spoon-fed. Now they have the opportunity to dig deeply into concepts. quality over quantity

You shouldn't have recycle the overview, as that was an ignorant move. And FWIW, maybe you should learn to be a bit more resourceful by looking up definitions.

Look, I love my kids as much as the next parent, but study the curriculum? I feel like the world has gone mad! My parents, and I'm pretty sure the parents of my friends, were not so overly involved in our academic lives, and we turned out great -- good colleges, good jobs etc.

My kid is in second grade, and I tried to read the 2.0 overview of the grade 2 curriculum...and then I got to these vague concepts like "metacognition" and my eyes rolled back into my head and I recycled the overview.

Anonymous wrote:this grading system sounds like the performance review at work where almost everyone gets rated "successful" but barely anyone excels.

Thats how it works... bell curve... everyone does not excel point blank period...

this grading system sounds like the performance review at work where almost everyone gets rated "successful" but barely anyone excels.

And yet another MCPS thread degenerates into name-calling and away from reasonable, informative discourse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of complainers but the reality is the ABCDF system really doesn't make much sense when D, E and F are all essentially the same. A 3 to 4 scale system is actually a LONG OVERDUE.

But it won't really be a 3 or 4 scale system. the goal is to have everyone get a P. ES does mot equal A. ES will be very rare.

hearsay.. only the facts mam

According to our principal, parents whose children were receiving all As or even a large majority of As should not expect to see the same number of ES grades on their child's report card. The goal is P.

Because an ES is not an A, and an A is not an ES. I know its hard to get through your thick skull but read and learn.

"For example, a student who gets a question wrong on a 10-question test would get an A under a traditional grading standard. But the question the student got wrong may be measuring a more complex application of a skill, rather than simply asking students to recall a fact. If a student can’t apply what they’ve learned, they might receive a P, not an ES."

I know that. I was responding to the person who claimed it was hearsay when I said exactly that: ES does not equal A. Why are people such aggressive witches on this site?

I am the person who said its hearsay pea brain!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of complainers but the reality is the ABCDF system really doesn't make much sense when D, E and F are all essentially the same. A 3 to 4 scale system is actually a LONG OVERDUE.

But it won't really be a 3 or 4 scale system. the goal is to have everyone get a P. ES does mot equal A. ES will be very rare.

hearsay.. only the facts mam

According to our principal, parents whose children were receiving all As or even a large majority of As should not expect to see the same number of ES grades on their child's report card. The goal is P.

Because an ES is not an A, and an A is not an ES. I know its hard to get through your thick skull but read and learn.

"For example, a student who gets a question wrong on a 10-question test would get an A under a traditional grading standard. But the question the student got wrong may be measuring a more complex application of a skill, rather than simply asking students to recall a fact. If a student can’t apply what they’ve learned, they might receive a P, not an ES."

I know that. I was responding to the person who claimed it was hearsay when I said exactly that: ES does not equal A. Why are people such aggressive witches on this site?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of complainers but the reality is the ABCDF system really doesn't make much sense when D, E and F are all essentially the same. A 3 to 4 scale system is actually a LONG OVERDUE.

But it won't really be a 3 or 4 scale system. the goal is to have everyone get a P. ES does mot equal A. ES will be very rare.

hearsay.. only the facts mam

According to our principal, parents whose children were receiving all As or even a large majority of As should not expect to see the same number of ES grades on their child's report card. The goal is P.

Because an ES is not an A, and an A is not an ES. I know its hard to get through your thick skull but read and learn.

"For example, a student who gets a question wrong on a 10-question test would get an A under a traditional grading standard. But the question the student got wrong may be measuring a more complex application of a skill, rather than simply asking students to recall a fact. If a student can’t apply what they’ve learned, they might receive a P, not an ES."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of complainers but the reality is the ABCDF system really doesn't make much sense when D, E and F are all essentially the same. A 3 to 4 scale system is actually a LONG OVERDUE.

But it won't really be a 3 or 4 scale system. the goal is to have everyone get a P. ES does mot equal A. ES will be very rare.

hearsay.. only the facts mam

According to our principal, parents whose children were receiving all As or even a large majority of As should not expect to see the same number of ES grades on their child's report card. The goal is P.