I am the OP. Sincerely hope to hear more from you.

I watched BOE's discussions on Tue. As a PhD with strong math/statistics background, I have to say that they were really struggling with data as well as the data collection mechanism. Without a proper designed mechanism, data can hide true problems and confuse both BOE members and Dr. Starr. It is a pity.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this forum is unfortunately being taken over by sarcastic verbal bullies. This does not help your children. Having worked at the Board of Education level, in the development of C2, this curriculum was designed with the goal of narrowing the achievement gap. From what parents can see, accelerated students are not the priority. This equation is wrong, and over the course of the next few months the School Board will be responding to the mounting number of parents who have rightly spoken up against this elimination of instruction and attention to accelerated students. (By the way, it is wrong to assume accelerated students do not come from ALL races, and as an African American I find it offensive that people who speak against those who want change assume these families are from other countries or from affluent or educated families. )

No one disagree with "closing achievement gap". It is a noble goal period.

However, who will close global achievement gap for American kids? Without science/technology advantage, how will they compete in global economy 10/20 years later?

IMHO, the concerned parents are making a plea, "please not kill the goose that laid golden eggs".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this forum is unfortunately being taken over by sarcastic verbal bullies. This does not help your children. Having worked at the Board of Education level, in the development of C2, this curriculum was designed with the goal of narrowing the achievement gap. From what parents can see, accelerated students are not the priority. This equation is wrong, and over the course of the next few months the School Board will be responding to the mounting number of parents who have rightly spoken up against this elimination of instruction and attention to accelerated students. (By the way, it is wrong to assume accelerated students do not come from ALL races, and as an African American I find it offensive that people who speak against those who want change assume these families are from other countries or from affluent or educated families. )

I don't think anyone has brought up race? There was just the one line, "My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools." But yes it does seem that this curriculum prioritizes narrowing the achievement gap. And if they can find a good way to bring up the lowest performing kids while simultaneously serving the highest performers well, then I'm sure we could all get behind that. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the goal of eliminating the achievement gap though.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this forum is unfortunately being taken over by sarcastic verbal bullies. This does not help your children. Having worked at the Board of Education level, in the development of C2, this curriculum was designed with the goal of narrowing the achievement gap. From what parents can see, accelerated students are not the priority. This equation is wrong, and over the course of the next few months the School Board will be responding to the mounting number of parents who have rightly spoken up against this elimination of instruction and attention to accelerated students. (By the way, it is wrong to assume accelerated students do not come from ALL races, and as an African American I find it offensive that people who speak against those who want change assume these families are from other countries or from affluent or educated families. )

I don't think anyone has brought up race? There was just the one line, "My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools." But yes it does seem that this curriculum prioritizes narrowing the achievement gap. And if they can find a good way to bring up the lowest performing kids while simultaneously serving the highest performers well, then I'm sure we could all get behind that. I wouldn't want to sacrifice the goal of eliminating the achievement gap though.

It seems like this forum is unfortunately being taken over by sarcastic verbal bullies. This does not help your children. Having worked at the Board of Education level, in the development of C2, this curriculum was designed with the goal of narrowing the achievement gap. From what parents can see, accelerated students are not the priority. This equation is wrong, and over the course of the next few months the School Board will be responding to the mounting number of parents who have rightly spoken up against this elimination of instruction and attention to accelerated students. (By the way, it is wrong to assume accelerated students do not come from ALL races, and as an African American I find it offensive that people who speak against those who want change assume these families are from other countries or from affluent or educated families. )

Glad that you spoke with reasoning now.

Have you taken a look at my math formulation of the "acceleration" problem? The "ahead" kids do not receive any special resource if they are simply bumped up to a higher grade.

On the other hand, while you suspect other kids taking more resource out of the system, it is not yet a proven fact. The school system is a close system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. My wife and I lived in MoCo before we had kids. The only concession was that when we bought a house we considered the individual elementary school. Additionally, your comment that we are frustrated about "discovering" that the schools must educate all kids is amazingly condescending.

I am this pp so I will apologize for the condescending tone. I know that we all have different perspectives on this, and I definitely may be wrong. My perspective on this is that I see how Curriculum 2.0 could be much more beneficial to the majority of students in the district than the previous system. Children are no longer permanently divided into the kids who are ahead and the kids who are behind, so children who might once have been denied the opportunity to get to, say, calculus in high school because they didn't test well early in elementary school will now have the opportunity to do so. In other words, they are trying to raise the floor by bringing all students into a reasonably advanced curriculum. This apparently means that they are limiting the ability of some kids to be in a very highly advanced curriculum (and as I understand it this is also because they have evidence that too many kids are being accelerated too quickly without thorough understanding of the material). So when I hear parents complain that their children are no longer being highly accelerated, I fear for the far greater number of kids who would be consigned to the bottom if they go back to the old system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. My wife and I lived in MoCo before we had kids. The only concession was that when we bought a house we considered the individual elementary school. Additionally, your comment that we are frustrated about "discovering" that the schools must educate all kids is amazingly condescending.

I am this pp so I will apologize for the condescending tone. I know that we all have different perspectives on this, and I definitely may be wrong. My perspective on this is that I see how Curriculum 2.0 could be much more beneficial to the majority of students in the district than the previous system. Children are no longer permanently divided into the kids who are ahead and the kids who are behind, so children who might once have been denied the opportunity to get to, say, calculus in high school because they didn't test well early in elementary school will now have the opportunity to do so. In other words, they are trying to raise the floor by bringing all students into a reasonably advanced curriculum. This apparently means that they are limiting the ability of some kids to be in a very highly advanced curriculum (and as I understand it this is also because they have evidence that too many kids are being accelerated too quickly without thorough understanding of the material). So when I hear parents complain that their children are no longer being highly accelerated, I fear for the far greater number of kids who would be consigned to the bottom if they go back to the old system.

Excellent post!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. My wife and I lived in MoCo before we had kids. The only concession was that when we bought a house we considered the individual elementary school. Additionally, your comment that we are frustrated about "discovering" that the schools must educate all kids is amazingly condescending.

I am this pp so I will apologize for the condescending tone. I know that we all have different perspectives on this, and I definitely may be wrong. My perspective on this is that I see how Curriculum 2.0 could be much more beneficial to the majority of students in the district than the previous system. Children are no longer permanently divided into the kids who are ahead and the kids who are behind, so children who might once have been denied the opportunity to get to, say, calculus in high school because they didn't test well early in elementary school will now have the opportunity to do so. In other words, they are trying to raise the floor by bringing all students into a reasonably advanced curriculum. This apparently means that they are limiting the ability of some kids to be in a very highly advanced curriculum (and as I understand it this is also because they have evidence that too many kids are being accelerated too quickly without thorough understanding of the material). So when I hear parents complain that their children are no longer being highly accelerated, I fear for the far greater number of kids who would be consigned to the bottom if they go back to the old system.

Anonymous wrote:My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. My wife and I lived in MoCo before we had kids. The only concession was that when we bought a house we considered the individual elementary school. Additionally, your comment that we are frustrated about "discovering" that the schools must educate all kids is amazingly condescending.

Anonymous wrote:My impression of the parents bringing these concerns is that they moved to Montgomery County, many from abroad, because they heard it had exceptional public schools and they are now frustrated to find that the public schools have to educate all children in the county and not just their own exceptional ones. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Walk into most "top", well-paid school districts in the country and you will find them able to teach to and challenge several levels of students.

I grew up in one of the nations producing a large number of highly successful math, science and technology graduates. Since coming to this country for college and graduate school, the majority of my classmates in nearly every class and seminar have been non-native English speakers.

However, aside from a small number of "highly gifted centers" generally starting in high school, schools in my country do not offer any "math acceleration". The difference is that, starting in late elementary school, our "one size fits all curriculum" is quite a bit more advanced than "on grade" curriculum in this country.

Parents and educators in this country like to talk about "gifted" or "above average" kids who need advanced instruction by virtue of their innate giftedness. Educators in my country generally believe that, as long as they are willing to study hard and given enough help by a skilled, dedicated teacher, most students can master material that is considered "highly advanced" here. I don't think either paradigm is 100% correct, but certainly if we look at the demographics in Montgomery County, it makes sense that the majority of these students would be able to perform at a level that is way above average.

So I don't necessarily have a problem with 2.0 in theory, as long as it is really more advanced than the old curriculum. I think what proponents of 2.0 have to fight against with immigrant parents like me is a belief born of experience, that the only way to get a quality math education in this country is by getting into an advanced class, a different class from the majority of American students, the very American students who rarely make it into graduate level math classes. And no, I don't think the majority of students currently taking "advanced math" are more intelligent than the majority of students taking "on grade math". What they have is parents who spend extra time on math at home and teach them not to give up when something is hard.