Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could homeschool in one day more than what MCPS teaches directly to your child in a week. That is not an exaggeration. Most kids spend their day in free time with the new differentiation groups.

OK, so homeschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This bothers me too. My child is so bored and spends most of her time in groups explaining to kids who aren't nearly as strong, what to do. I mean are they differentiating them so the kids can now teach? I am all for helping here and there but to constantly group the highest with the lowest is basically a child who is asking to become a teacher's aide. Why they can not just track these kids and keep them in like classes so the teachers don't have to constantly do groups, is beyond me.

'

This is exactly what I have observed. At our school, they have made it clear that 'working together in groups' is a priority. So, this is what goes on. The kids who are stronger in a subject (usually reading/math) are helping out the kids who are not as strong. I think there IS a place for that, because you do learn by teaching others. But, it goes on daily.

Yesterday, we observed the teacher give the kids an activity while she pulled the 5 (FIVE!!) reading groups up to her desk. The activity was way over some of the kids' heads. The kids who did understand what needed to be done were able to complete it quickly and then just spent the rest of the time helping the other kids (who didn't seem to grasp the point of it anyway).

Each reading group only got about 15 minutes of direct instruction, if that.

If the point of K-2nd grade is to get the kids reading, then they should group the classrooms by reading levels. 2 or 3 reading levels in a class. So there is still room for advancement/movement. But, the teacher isn't trying to squeeze in 5 reading groups during an hour or 75 minute block of time.

They kids are evaluated anyway, and it would be easy to place them in 1st and 2nd grade based on what their reading level was the previous year.

I agree but the reason they don't do this is because of diversity. Because most of the lower range kids would be the ESOL and FARMS students. Mostly hispanic and black. And then they would cry racism. So they keep the classes looking uniform. Split between gender, race and level. It benefits no one but the parents who think it looks good. The teachers are scrambling.

PP, please don't bring race into this. It will just turn off other people to this discussion. I think there are valid points being presented in this thread, and making this about race won't be constructive, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This bothers me too. My child is so bored and spends most of her time in groups explaining to kids who aren't nearly as strong, what to do. I mean are they differentiating them so the kids can now teach? I am all for helping here and there but to constantly group the highest with the lowest is basically a child who is asking to become a teacher's aide. Why they can not just track these kids and keep them in like classes so the teachers don't have to constantly do groups, is beyond me.

'

This is exactly what I have observed. At our school, they have made it clear that 'working together in groups' is a priority. So, this is what goes on. The kids who are stronger in a subject (usually reading/math) are helping out the kids who are not as strong. I think there IS a place for that, because you do learn by teaching others. But, it goes on daily.

Yesterday, we observed the teacher give the kids an activity while she pulled the 5 (FIVE!!) reading groups up to her desk. The activity was way over some of the kids' heads. The kids who did understand what needed to be done were able to complete it quickly and then just spent the rest of the time helping the other kids (who didn't seem to grasp the point of it anyway).

Each reading group only got about 15 minutes of direct instruction, if that.

If the point of K-2nd grade is to get the kids reading, then they should group the classrooms by reading levels. 2 or 3 reading levels in a class. So there is still room for advancement/movement. But, the teacher isn't trying to squeeze in 5 reading groups during an hour or 75 minute block of time.

They kids are evaluated anyway, and it would be easy to place them in 1st and 2nd grade based on what their reading level was the previous year.

I agree but the reason they don't do this is because of diversity. Because most of the lower range kids would be the ESOL and FARMS students. Mostly hispanic and black. And then they would cry racism. So they keep the classes looking uniform. Split between gender, race and level. It benefits no one but the parents who think it looks good. The teachers are scrambling.

PP, please don't bring race into this. It will just turn off other people to this discussion. I think there are valid points being presented in this thread, and making this about race won't be constructive, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This bothers me too. My child is so bored and spends most of her time in groups explaining to kids who aren't nearly as strong, what to do. I mean are they differentiating them so the kids can now teach? I am all for helping here and there but to constantly group the highest with the lowest is basically a child who is asking to become a teacher's aide. Why they can not just track these kids and keep them in like classes so the teachers don't have to constantly do groups, is beyond me.

'

This is exactly what I have observed. At our school, they have made it clear that 'working together in groups' is a priority. So, this is what goes on. The kids who are stronger in a subject (usually reading/math) are helping out the kids who are not as strong. I think there IS a place for that, because you do learn by teaching others. But, it goes on daily.

Yesterday, we observed the teacher give the kids an activity while she pulled the 5 (FIVE!!) reading groups up to her desk. The activity was way over some of the kids' heads. The kids who did understand what needed to be done were able to complete it quickly and then just spent the rest of the time helping the other kids (who didn't seem to grasp the point of it anyway).

Each reading group only got about 15 minutes of direct instruction, if that.

If the point of K-2nd grade is to get the kids reading, then they should group the classrooms by reading levels. 2 or 3 reading levels in a class. So there is still room for advancement/movement. But, the teacher isn't trying to squeeze in 5 reading groups during an hour or 75 minute block of time.

They kids are evaluated anyway, and it would be easy to place them in 1st and 2nd grade based on what their reading level was the previous year.

I agree but the reason they don't do this is because of diversity. Because most of the lower range kids would be the ESOL and FARMS students. Mostly hispanic and black. And then they would cry racism. So they keep the classes looking uniform. Split between gender, race and level. It benefits no one but the parents who think it looks good. The teachers are scrambling.

Anonymous wrote:You could homeschool in one day more than what MCPS teaches directly to your child in a week. That is not an exaggeration. Most kids spend their day in free time with the new differentiation groups.

Anonymous wrote:You could homeschool in one day more than what MCPS teaches directly to your child in a week. That is not an exaggeration. Most kids spend their day in free time with the new differentiation groups.

2nd grade and I was horrified. SO different from what older child experienced pre-Curriculum 2.0. Husband & I left debating private school. It is depressing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This bothers me too. My child is so bored and spends most of her time in groups explaining to kids who aren't nearly as strong, what to do. I mean are they differentiating them so the kids can now teach? I am all for helping here and there but to constantly group the highest with the lowest is basically a child who is asking to become a teacher's aide. Why they can not just track these kids and keep them in like classes so the teachers don't have to constantly do groups, is beyond me.

'

This is exactly what I have observed. At our school, they have made it clear that 'working together in groups' is a priority. So, this is what goes on. The kids who are stronger in a subject (usually reading/math) are helping out the kids who are not as strong. I think there IS a place for that, because you do learn by teaching others. But, it goes on daily.

Yesterday, we observed the teacher give the kids an activity while she pulled the 5 (FIVE!!) reading groups up to her desk. The activity was way over some of the kids' heads. The kids who did understand what needed to be done were able to complete it quickly and then just spent the rest of the time helping the other kids (who didn't seem to grasp the point of it anyway).

Each reading group only got about 15 minutes of direct instruction, if that.

If the point of K-2nd grade is to get the kids reading, then they should group the classrooms by reading levels. 2 or 3 reading levels in a class. So there is still room for advancement/movement. But, the teacher isn't trying to squeeze in 5 reading groups during an hour or 75 minute block of time.

They kids are evaluated anyway, and it would be easy to place them in 1st and 2nd grade based on what their reading level was the previous year.

Anonymous wrote:

This bothers me too. My child is so bored and spends most of her time in groups explaining to kids who aren't nearly as strong, what to do. I mean are they differentiating them so the kids can now teach? I am all for helping here and there but to constantly group the highest with the lowest is basically a child who is asking to become a teacher's aide. Why they can not just track these kids and keep them in like classes so the teachers don't have to constantly do groups, is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it depends on the teacher.

I've observed my 3rd grader last year in math, and while they did work in groups, the teacher walked around and interacted with all the groups, and sometimes would pause to address the whole class about something.

It is a bit disappointing sometimes because my DC is very good at math, and DC told me that often times, the teacher would pair DC with a child who was weaker in math on purpose, and DC would end up explaining a lot to this other kid. Now, this can also benefit DC as well - having to explain something to someone makes DC really think about that subject. But at times, DC was bored. DC in now in compacted math, and they still work in groups.

I agree that if you want your kids to have a lot of differentiation, that is not going to happen in a large public school.

I once read an article on BBC News about how UK educators wanted to observe how the Chinese math teachers taught their kids. What they noticed was that in the UK, and here, the kids work in groups, while in China, it's the teacher dealing with the whole class, the way they used to teach math here, the way I grew up. In the Chinese class, the teacher would ask a math question, and the children had to raise a card up with the right answer. The teacher could see immediately which kid was having difficulty and could work with that kid earlier on; vs. in small groups, it takes the teacher longer to figure out who is having difficulty. I could see this as a valid argument.

I don't know when and why educators here decided to have small groups.

Please do not assume that teachers have this kind of say in what goes on in their own classroom. In most cases, they don't decide.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it depends on the teacher.

I've observed my 3rd grader last year in math, and while they did work in groups, the teacher walked around and interacted with all the groups, and sometimes would pause to address the whole class about something.

It is a bit disappointing sometimes because my DC is very good at math, and DC told me that often times, the teacher would pair DC with a child who was weaker in math on purpose, and DC would end up explaining a lot to this other kid. Now, this can also benefit DC as well - having to explain something to someone makes DC really think about that subject. But at times, DC was bored. DC in now in compacted math, and they still work in groups.

I agree that if you want your kids to have a lot of differentiation, that is not going to happen in a large public school.

I once read an article on BBC News about how UK educators wanted to observe how the Chinese math teachers taught their kids. What they noticed was that in the UK, and here, the kids work in groups, while in China, it's the teacher dealing with the whole class, the way they used to teach math here, the way I grew up. In the Chinese class, the teacher would ask a math question, and the children had to raise a card up with the right answer. The teacher could see immediately which kid was having difficulty and could work with that kid earlier on; vs. in small groups, it takes the teacher longer to figure out who is having difficulty. I could see this as a valid argument.

I don't know when and why educators here decided to have small groups.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it depends on the teacher.

I've observed my 3rd grader last year in math, and while they did work in groups, the teacher walked around and interacted with all the groups, and sometimes would pause to address the whole class about something.

It is a bit disappointing sometimes because my DC is very good at math, and DC told me that often times, the teacher would pair DC with a child who was weaker in math on purpose, and DC would end up explaining a lot to this other kid. Now, this can also benefit DC as well - having to explain something to someone makes DC really think about that subject. But at times, DC was bored. DC in now in compacted math, and they still work in groups.

I agree that if you want your kids to have a lot of differentiation, that is not going to happen in a large public school.

I once read an article on BBC News about how UK educators wanted to observe how the Chinese math teachers taught their kids. What they noticed was that in the UK, and here, the kids work in groups, while in China, it's the teacher dealing with the whole class, the way they used to teach math here, the way I grew up. In the Chinese class, the teacher would ask a math question, and the children had to raise a card up with the right answer. The teacher could see immediately which kid was having difficulty and could work with that kid earlier on; vs. in small groups, it takes the teacher longer to figure out who is having difficulty. I could see this as a valid argument.

I don't know when and why educators here decided to have small groups.