Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't the people who did the audit just trying to sell the county on another new curriculum?

I would be interested to know what someone else would say. We bring in a consultant at work and sometimes we get lots of criticism and then the next year there is a new contract and everything is rosy even though nothing has changed too much.

huh? johns Hopkins doesn't own a curriculum. they're suggested MCPS adopt an established curriculum, which they literally say in the audit could be something that's available for free online. this isn't a consulting firm; it's a university charged with doing an objective audit.

can you people please read the freaking audit before trying to spread conspiracy theories?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't the people who did the audit just trying to sell the county on another new curriculum?

I would be interested to know what someone else would say. We bring in a consultant at work and sometimes we get lots of criticism and then the next year there is a new contract and everything is rosy even though nothing has changed too much.

Anonymous wrote:Aren't the people who did the audit just trying to sell the county on another new curriculum?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh my God chicken little get over it already get over it already there a lot of people who still live here who are weathering the storm of 2.0 who are fine with the schools working through the improvements who are happy with the house they bought who are not in financial ruin who aren't scared of poor or brown people get the F over it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the complaints on this board, I feel my kids education at MCPS today is head and shoulders above what I got from FCPS a few decades ago.

I feel the same way about DCPS and so do my kids (we had catch-up from a JKLM when we moved here, and my kids also see what their DCPS friends are doing). There is no comparison.

Anonymous wrote:I just moved to the county, could someone explain what "2.0" is compared to a regular education?

Anonymous wrote:For all the complaints on this board, I feel my kids education at MCPS today is head and shoulders above what I got from FCPS a few decades ago.

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.

SO you think the study is indicating that only 30% of kids are reading when it talks about foundational skills. I have yet to see anyone actually define the term.

Read the audit. They're talking about adherence to state standards. We don’t define it; they did already.

What are the state standards that are lacking then? My guess is they are some hard to define vague concept that no one can exactly define.

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.

SO you think the study is indicating that only 30% of kids are reading when it talks about foundational skills. I have yet to see anyone actually define the term.

Read the audit. They're talking about adherence to state standards. We don’t define it; they did already.

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.

SO you think the study is indicating that only 30% of kids are reading when it talks about foundational skills. I have yet to see anyone actually define the term.