Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Are you not grasping the fact that Johns Hopkins strongly recommended this curriculum be replaced?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Are you not grasping the fact that Johns Hopkins strongly recommended this curriculum be replaced?
Are you mit grasping the fact that despite its problems kids still learned ??????
No one said they didn’t learn anything. What the audit said is that only 30% of the kids mastered the state standards, so most kids didn’t learn enough.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Are you not grasping the fact that Johns Hopkins strongly recommended this curriculum be replaced?
Are you mit grasping the fact that despite its problems kids still learned ??????
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Are you not grasping the fact that Johns Hopkins strongly recommended this curriculum be replaced?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
That is true for every curriculum ever, anywhere.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
That's great that it worked for you. For many kids it didn’t.
Anonymous wrote:I sent mine to K as a non-reading 5 year old , that could count to only 10 and could not reliably write his name. 4 years later he is writing in paragraph form (ish), reads well and knows all his math facts. I'd say he has a great foundation.
Anonymous wrote:Our house sold after 9 days on the market (typical for our neighborhood) for the highest price since the real estate bubble
Right but what people are noticing is that VA and DC have appreciated beyond the real estate bubble while MD is still under bubble prices. MCPS had a VERY strong reputation during the last real estate bubble. Prices soared and people spent $ further and further out. Many of the people who did this when they were just starting to have kids are in the age range that has felt 2.0 the most. For them its a double hit, the school system they bought into collapsed and the real estate recovery was sluggish as a result.
If you bought after the bubble crash and after 2.0 was rolled out, you're in a different situation. There was plenty of outrage when 2.0 rolled out and plenty of negative articles in local media about it. (Parents who had kids in upper elementary school had their kids actually knocked back two years in math to repeat things they had already learned. They were furious and now they are receiving affirmation that not only was that unnecessary but their kids were knocked back to learn a faulty way of doing math riddled with errors. ) If you spent five seconds researching MCPS back then you heard the warnings about 2.0 so there is less to complain about now.
Anonymous wrote:Hooray! Montgomery County housing prices are more affordable!
(Actually they aren't, not so's anybody noticed.)
They are way more affordable than DC or VA!!
Anonymous wrote:We did OK selling in a W cluster but had lost money years ago on a Silver Spring house. I used to look at some of the NOVA houses that we almost bought the first time around and really want to scream. NOVA appreciated so much over the past 10 years! DC too. Financially, we would have been better off staying in our tiny, tiny DC house. The elementary schools in NW DC now look better than the MCPS ones.
Hooray! Montgomery County housing prices are more affordable!
(Actually they aren't, not so's anybody noticed.)