Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading the posts on this forum it sounds like the shortcomings of 2.0 are that it has assessment categories / skill areas that are either not appropriate for the age group and/or are somewhat ambiguous (someone mentioned Thinking Outside the Box as an assessment area). Also sounds like grading criteria are unclear. Lastly, I've read multiple complaints that the curriculum is not sufficiently rigorous, particularly in math. Have I captured the key issues or are there other things that make 2.0 frustrating? My daughter is still in pre school so I don't have any first hand experience to draw from.

There are other problems with 2.0. The biggest to me being that teachers have not been adequately trained in how to teach it and what to do, so the benefits of an integrated curriculum are not being implemented. The stated goal is for everyone to be proficient (which is a ridiculous goal all by itself), which is not clearly-defined. The report cards provide no roadmap on how parents can help their child improve. In my son's elementary school, the majority of students get P's, no one gets ES and a few get I's. The county has stated that ES is a grade for the top 1%. I say if that is the case, why have the grade?

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. Throwing kids in one class doesn't really address the problem that some kids are ahead of others. Differences will always exist, nothing will change this. The achievement gap will never be closed honestly.

When you think about it, the real strategy behind putting all the kids in one class is to slow down the highly able kids. That seems immoral to me.

An honest approach would be to challenge every child and give children who are behind opportunities to catch up by giving them resources and opportunities to catch up.

My main problems with 2.0 are not necessarily around content. Instead, I have a problem with roll-out.
1) Heterogeneous grouping is not a productive way to challenge every child
2) There is a cohort of third graders that gets the new curriculum every year. Changes this big should be piloted and tested, not just rolled out blind every year. The pain should be distributed across different cohorts, not born by one group of kids.
3) Assessments are not helpful to parents at all. I want information about how my child does against his/her peers and MCPS does everything it can to hide that information. I don't want this for bragging rights. Instead, I want to understand if and where my child needs help. I have a child that I suspected was behind in reading, but I didn't realize how far behind until we got private testing. Dropping the Terra Nova test was a mistake.
4) Pearson - This curriculum is made by a private company for their profits. I expect we will eventually get testing from this company that shows how well C2.0 works. Pearson will also control how much parents can see of the testing because it will be copyrighted. There are too many conflicts of interest that bother me about the Pearson relationship. They may not be aligned with MCPS interests.

By the way, there is a law called COMAR that requires MCPS to provide education opportunities for gifted children that need it. I think MCPS is violating this law, at least in sprit. MCPS says as much when you listen to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly do not understand what the problem is with having "Proficient" as a grade.
It is like substituting "A" for "P" -- so what?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
Is your child learning...is your child mastering the material?
Newsflash -- the grades are all just symbols...made up...
Somebody made up the system using "A", "B" , etc.
Someone made this up.
Just because it says proficient...doesn't mean they have dummied down the curriculum.
They are just using a different symbol.
The system is by no means perfect...but to be all up in arms because you don't like the way proficient sounds...well that is ridiculous to me.

LOL!
I commented on what you said...you need to know whether or not your child is learning to read and do math.
If my reply was not "substantive" enough for you...how about this:
I do not think the 'ABCD' told me anything either.
Maybe our teacher is some superstar...an anomaly....but we have received a lot of information from her and feel we are given solid understanding of where our child is and what DC is learning...
We feel it is accurate because it pretty much matches up with what our personal evaluation is...
Do we think the math is weak..thus far ... we do
So we supplement...
I like the "deeper" evaluation areas of metacognition, etc.
I like the "idea" of an integrative curriculum...
Has there been perfect execution thus far...no way...


You know we had E G S F in graduate school and nobody complained because it was obvious it translated into ABCD and they later did change it to ABCD. But the 2.0's P does not translate into A. It seems to translate into ABC. With ES being A+++ if it is really only 1% as someone said. Grading this way lost much meaningful information. On top of this, they are not grades for reading or math. They are grades for metacognition and intellectual risk taking. I don't know about you. I don't trust school teachers to judge these and it tells me nothing whether my child is learning to read or do math.

I am sorry but if you do not know if your child is reading or can count...that is your fault.
Like I said...system is not perfect...and still being refined...
but I did not think the old system was perfect either...and needed refinement.

I know exactly where my child is. Thank you!
You did not comment on the substance of my argument at all. You only attacked my supposed ignorance of my child's academic abilities.
Don't you want to know what the teachers think your child is at academically? Do you really think that the grading system that are being used is informative? If you do, you are either brainwashed or a MCPS employee.
The old system was not perfect, but grading each subject by ABCD is not what is broken.

So we supplement...
I like the "deeper" evaluation areas of metacognition, etc.
I like knowing that my child cannot just "read" the words and phrases...but has real "comprehension" of them...
I like the "idea" of an integrative curriculum...
I like that DC's class had to write and perform a play...as a way of integrating writing, comprehension, social studies...
Has there been perfect execution thus far...no way...
I don't mind where things are headed...but I was not a fan of "traditional" teaching anyway...
Too much teaching primarily to tests and just going for the grade as opposed to true and meaningful learning...
Plus...I realize a lot of the grading and teaching was subjective anyway...teacher 1 grades on a curve...teacher 2 doesn't count homework...same grading system....but 2 different teachers come to their grades in 2 different ways...
Maybe I'm an outlier...
Look...I'm not trying to argue with you...I don't really care if you like the system or not...you have a right to your opinion...
But just because I have a different one does not make me brainwashed or some MCPS employee....
HAHHA...that is just silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly do not understand what the problem is with having "Proficient" as a grade.
It is like substituting "A" for "P" -- so what?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
Is your child learning...is your child mastering the material?
Newsflash -- the grades are all just symbols...made up...
Somebody made up the system using "A", "B" , etc.
Someone made this up.
Just because it says proficient...doesn't mean they have dummied down the curriculum.
They are just using a different symbol.
The system is by no means perfect...but to be all up in arms because you don't like the way proficient sounds...well that is ridiculous to me.

LOL!
I commented on what you said...you need to know whether or not your child is learning to read and do math.
If my reply was not "substantive" enough for you...how about this:
I do not think the 'ABCD' told me anything either.
Maybe our teacher is some superstar...an anomaly....but we have received a lot of information from her and feel we are given solid understanding of where our child is and what DC is learning...
We feel it is accurate because it pretty much matches up with what our personal evaluation is...
Do we think the math is weak..thus far ... we do
So we supplement...
I like the "deeper" evaluation areas of metacognition, etc.
I like the "idea" of an integrative curriculum...
Has there been perfect execution thus far...no way...


You know we had E G S F in graduate school and nobody complained because it was obvious it translated into ABCD and they later did change it to ABCD. But the 2.0's P does not translate into A. It seems to translate into ABC. With ES being A+++ if it is really only 1% as someone said. Grading this way lost much meaningful information. On top of this, they are not grades for reading or math. They are grades for metacognition and intellectual risk taking. I don't know about you. I don't trust school teachers to judge these and it tells me nothing whether my child is learning to read or do math.

I am sorry but if you do not know if your child is reading or can count...that is your fault.
Like I said...system is not perfect...and still being refined...
but I did not think the old system was perfect either...and needed refinement.

I know exactly where my child is. Thank you!
You did not comment on the substance of my argument at all. You only attacked my supposed ignorance of my child's academic abilities.
Don't you want to know what the teachers think your child is at academically? Do you really think that the grading system that are being used is informative? If you do, you are either brainwashed or a MCPS employee.
The old system was not perfect, but grading each subject by ABCD is not what is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly do not understand what the problem is with having "Proficient" as a grade.
It is like substituting "A" for "P" -- so what?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
Is your child learning...is your child mastering the material?
Newsflash -- the grades are all just symbols...made up...
Somebody made up the system using "A", "B" , etc.
Someone made this up.
Just because it says proficient...doesn't mean they have dummied down the curriculum.
They are just using a different symbol.
The system is by no means perfect...but to be all up in arms because you don't like the way proficient sounds...well that is ridiculous to me.

You know we had E G S F in graduate school and nobody complained because it was obvious it translated into ABCD and they later did change it to ABCD. But the 2.0's P does not translate into A. It seems to translate into ABC. With ES being A+++ if it is really only 1% as someone said. Grading this way lost much meaningful information. On top of this, they are not grades for reading or math. They are grades for metacognition and intellectual risk taking. I don't know about you. I don't trust school teachers to judge these and it tells me nothing whether my child is learning to read or do math.

I am sorry but if you do not know if your child is reading or can count...that is your fault.
Like I said...system is not perfect...and still being refined...
but I did not think the old system was perfect either...and needed refinement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly do not understand what the problem is with having "Proficient" as a grade.
It is like substituting "A" for "P" -- so what?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
Is your child learning...is your child mastering the material?
Newsflash -- the grades are all just symbols...made up...
Somebody made up the system using "A", "B" , etc.
Someone made this up.
Just because it says proficient...doesn't mean they have dummied down the curriculum.
They are just using a different symbol.
The system is by no means perfect...but to be all up in arms because you don't like the way proficient sounds...well that is ridiculous to me.

You know we had E G S F in graduate school and nobody complained because it was obvious it translated into ABCD and they later did change it to ABCD. But the 2.0's P does not translate into A. It seems to translate into ABC. With ES being A+++ if it is really only 1% as someone said. Grading this way lost much meaningful information. On top of this, they are not grades for reading or math. They are grades for metacognition and intellectual risk taking. I don't know about you. I don't trust school teachers to judge these and it tells me nothing whether my child is learning to read or do math.

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly do not understand what the problem is with having "Proficient" as a grade.
It is like substituting "A" for "P" -- so what?
pro·fi·cient (pr-fshnt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
Is your child learning...is your child mastering the material?
Newsflash -- the grades are all just symbols...made up...
Somebody made up the system using "A", "B" , etc.
Someone made this up.
Just because it says proficient...doesn't mean they have dummied down the curriculum.
They are just using a different symbol.
The system is by no means perfect...but to be all up in arms because you don't like the way proficient sounds...well that is ridiculous to me.

Anonymous wrote:Reading the posts on this forum it sounds like the shortcomings of 2.0 are that it has assessment categories / skill areas that are either not appropriate for the age group and/or are somewhat ambiguous (someone mentioned Thinking Outside the Box as an assessment area). Also sounds like grading criteria are unclear. Lastly, I've read multiple complaints that the curriculum is not sufficiently rigorous, particularly in math. Have I captured the key issues or are there other things that make 2.0 frustrating? My daughter is still in pre school so I don't have any first hand experience to draw from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


.

I just skimmed your post but it takes a half a second to recognize that if your child is I then the are behind. There's nothing about 2.0 that hides the fact that a child isn't up to speed. If you already knew they were behind the terra nova wouldn't help you.

This story is exactly happened to us. After years of suspicion and some independent testing we discovered there was a learning disability that prevented progress in reading. It took a lot of our own initiative and constant communication with the school to confirm this problem. There is no way to convince the school there is a problem without some kind of independent testing. When you take away tools like Tera Nova, you now have no tools to communicate with the school. If the school doesn't want to deal with you, they just keep saying your kid is on-grade level when almost every kid is on-grade level and when it takes you enormous effort in working with your child at home to keep them on-grade level.

This is why testing and grades and report cards are important. Your feelings and your sense, don't really count in MCPS world.

Anonymous wrote:22:30 - I agree with you 100%