Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prescribing a text is much different than prescribing a bunch of home made and not finished materials.

Textbooks and anthologies go through a scholarly peer review process in order to be published. To publish a textbook, you couldn't just collect a bunch of county level employees and type up some worksheets.

Its very interesting because from a platform standpoint a physical textbook is very one dimensional. Its hard to update and expensive to produce. The more graphics and visuals the more expensive it becomes. There is no interactivity. On-line offers a host of options, can cheaply integrate visuals and info graphics, can cheaply be updated and kept modern, can be integrated into interactive tools.

The problem is with the content, as the higher quality review and gatekeeping process driven by basic economics of textbooks is gone with on-line materials.

That is no guarantee of quality, though. There are plenty of textbooks with errors. There are also plenty of just plain lousy textbooks -- especially in math.

I had an Econ prof. in college who wrote his own textbook. It was horrible. Half the class failed. He was also a horrible prof., so that didn't help.

Anonymous wrote:Prescribing a text is much different than prescribing a bunch of home made and not finished materials.

Textbooks and anthologies go through a scholarly peer review process in order to be published. To publish a textbook, you couldn't just collect a bunch of county level employees and type up some worksheets.

Its very interesting because from a platform standpoint a physical textbook is very one dimensional. Its hard to update and expensive to produce. The more graphics and visuals the more expensive it becomes. There is no interactivity. On-line offers a host of options, can cheaply integrate visuals and info graphics, can cheaply be updated and kept modern, can be integrated into interactive tools.

The problem is with the content, as the higher quality review and gatekeeping process driven by basic economics of textbooks is gone with on-line materials.

That is no guarantee of quality, though. There are plenty of textbooks with errors. There are also plenty of just plain lousy textbooks -- especially in math.

Prescribing a text is much different than prescribing a bunch of home made and not finished materials.

Textbooks and anthologies go through a scholarly peer review process in order to be published. To publish a textbook, you couldn't just collect a bunch of county level employees and type up some worksheets.

Its very interesting because from a platform standpoint a physical textbook is very one dimensional. Its hard to update and expensive to produce. The more graphics and visuals the more expensive it becomes. There is no interactivity. On-line offers a host of options, can cheaply integrate visuals and info graphics, can cheaply be updated and kept modern, can be integrated into interactive tools.

The problem is with the content, as the higher quality review and gatekeeping process driven by basic economics of textbooks is gone with on-line materials.

Anonymous wrote:

I was not at the meeting. But nonetheless it seems to me that there is a difference between "replacing at least 70 percent of printed text with digital materials" and "eliminating all textbooks". Especially given that there is such a thing as electronic textbooks.

On-line is fine with me as long as it is available outside the school hours for a child to access and study and the materials are legitimate created by reputable academic sources not internal MCPS crap. The problem with MCPS is that they will decide to create the materials themselves when they are not qualified to do it. They will not get done and will move forward with missing pieces. They will not provide access outside class time to hide the fact that they are not done. The teachers will complain within the union about the poor quality of materials and lack of completeness. The union will use it as a bargaining chip for salary/benefits. The kids will be left with crap.

As opposed to in other districts throughout the country where teachers are not handed any ready-made lesson plans, resources, or anything other than the standards themselves on a silver platter?

Common Core standards only exist for mathematics and English - so science and social studies courses shouldn't change because of Common Core. However, MD is going to be adopting the Next Generation Science Standards, which have a heavier emphasis on technology and engineering, so that will most likely change middle and high school science courses.

I was not at the meeting. But nonetheless it seems to me that there is a difference between "replacing at least 70 percent of printed text with digital materials" and "eliminating all textbooks". Especially given that there is such a thing as electronic textbooks.

On-line is fine with me as long as it is available outside the school hours for a child to access and study and the materials are legitimate created by reputable academic sources not internal MCPS crap. The problem with MCPS is that they will decide to create the materials themselves when they are not qualified to do it. They will not get done and will move forward with missing pieces. They will not provide access outside class time to hide the fact that they are not done. The teachers will complain within the union about the poor quality of materials and lack of completeness. The union will use it as a bargaining chip for salary/benefits. The kids will be left with crap.

Well this is perfect because they just dumbed-down the SAT so it should dovetail nicely.

Anonymous wrote:

See page 9 of this report - bottom right bullet point states the goal by 2016 is to replace 70% of all written text with longline material. At the MCPS board meeting in which they announced personal laptops for all 3rd graders and the ultimate goal of eliminating all textbooks, the board erupted in applause- less admin work for them.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2013/053013/05.0%20Update%20Strategic%20Tech%20Plan.pdf

I was not at the meeting. But nonetheless it seems to me that there is a difference between "replacing at least 70 percent of printed text with digital materials" and "eliminating all textbooks". Especially given that there is such a thing as electronic textbooks.

PP here..meant 'online' and not 'longline'

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here... Thanks for the responses, however I am winderinf more about the changes in the curriculum in middle school and high school rather than reporting of grades (although agree that the P/ES system is a horrendous system). . Does/will common core/2.0 affect non-math courses? According to the MCPS technology plan the goal is to remove all textbooks for all grades by 2016. So will material, resources move on-line -- and will this change be guided by a 2.0 or common core-based curriculum? If so, I am deeply concerned as 2.0 has really lowered standards at the elementary grade levels. I really hope MCPS leaves middle and high shools alone.

Seriously? I will have to find that link. One of the reasons we went private is because the lack of textbook was hard for our kid. With no text, you really have to listen and pay attention.

See page 9 of this report - bottom right bullet point states the goal by 2016 is to replace 70% of all written text with longline material. At the MCPS board meeting in which they announced personal laptops for all 3rd graders and the ultimate goal of eliminating all textbooks, the board erupted in applause- less admin work for them.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/agenda/2013/053013/05.0%20Update%20Strategic%20Tech%20Plan.pdf

Anonymous wrote:OP here... Thanks for the responses, however I am winderinf more about the changes in the curriculum in middle school and high school rather than reporting of grades (although agree that the P/ES system is a horrendous system). . Does/will common core/2.0 affect non-math courses? According to the MCPS technology plan the goal is to remove all textbooks for all grades by 2016. So will material, resources move on-line -- and will this change be guided by a 2.0 or common core-based curriculum? If so, I am deeply concerned as 2.0 has really lowered standards at the elementary grade levels. I really hope MCPS leaves middle and high shools alone.

Seriously? I will have to find that link. One of the reasons we went private is because the lack of textbook was hard for our kid. With no text, you really have to listen and pay attention.

Anonymous wrote:Well Starr does want to do a study on whether the GT centers and magnets are necessary. Its no secret that he hates these programs and would love to shut them down.

He does? Where did you learn this? Can you provide a link to the reference, please?

Well Starr does want to do a study on whether the GT centers and magnets are necessary. Its no secret that he hates these programs and would love to shut them down.

Like some of the other posters on this thread, I am confused about the C2.0 rollout for middle school and high school. I know it is impacting Math - that is clearly stated on the MCPS website and there is a schedule for the rollout. My child is taking C2.0 Algebra this year in seventh grade and I am hoping there were lessons learned last year.

I am now concerned about the other subjects. Will the curriculum for English, Social Studies and Science be impacted? Will children who take AP courses in high school be affected?

A few years ago they enacted "middle school reform" and that did away with the GT track. They said that the new, more rigorous middle school curriculum would serve the majority of students more than adequately. So now in many middle schools around the county, many or most children enroll in "advanced" English and World Studies and Science which means these courses end up getting watered down. I am concerned that a push to "improve" and make the high school curriculum more "rigorous" would lead to something similar happening in high school.

Anonymous wrote:I have looked at the MCPS website re 2.0. They don't mention anything about how they plan to incorporate common core standards at the higher grade levels--but I know they are planning to do so. It's a real shame. Parents need to wake up and make a fuss like they did in NY--if we don't, they'll mess up middle school and high school the way they have for elementary school! These standards are a joke and so is the new technology plan.

Here's the link that shows 2.0 math throughout school years: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/math/math-curriculum-plan.aspx

I don't know about the other subjects.