Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it... The one take home message from parents is that they like the "feeling" of their kid going to another class and getting special attention rather than them taking a step back and building a foundation to make them even stronger in the future...

This is the world we live in...

That is not what I'm hearing at all. I hear frustrated parents who's kids are stuck because of an ill-conceived transition from one system to another. MCPS should have been able to figure out a way to implement 2.0 that did not involve having children repeat an entire year of curriculum. There are plenty of ways this could have been handled better; having kids repeat is not one of them.

No matter how many times you slay the zombie it just keeps rising from the dead.

You are not repeating a year of curriculum if you have not grasped the matter conceptually. If you were in second grade and did third grade math, move onto third grade the following year under a curriculum that assesses mastering mathematics fundamentaly (which was not stressed under the old system) then you cannot move to fourth grade material until that happens. Its all quite simple but the same zombie idea keeps rising from the dead to be slayed again.

Parents are frustrated because this simple idea they cannot understand. And if you have a better idea for a person in third grade to show fundamental understanding of third grade math while doing fourth grade work please do us a favor and enlighten the community including MCPS how to do so.

No matter what a change in curriculum is never going to go smoothly I hate to inform you.

Anonymous wrote:I get it... The one take home message from parents is that they like the "feeling" of their kid going to another class and getting special attention rather than them taking a step back and building a foundation to make them even stronger in the future...

This is the world we live in...

That is not what I'm hearing at all. I hear frustrated parents who's kids are stuck because of an ill-conceived transition from one system to another. MCPS should have been able to figure out a way to implement 2.0 that did not involve having children repeat an entire year of curriculum. There are plenty of ways this could have been handled better; having kids repeat is not one of them.

I get it... The one take home message from parents is that they like the "feeling" of their kid going to another class and getting special attention rather than them taking a step back and building a foundation to make them even stronger in the future...

This is the world we live in...

You should not worry about other parents feelings on this matter. You feeling is what matters. And if you prefer you child to take steps back and build a foundation to make them even stronger in the future you should simply do so. Very simple solution since no one is forcing you to follow the crowd. You know best.

I get it... The one take home message from parents is that they like the "feeling" of their kid going to another class and getting special attention rather than them taking a step back and building a foundation to make them even stronger in the future...

This is the world we live in...

I hope you get it. It's a great feeling for a kid to advance and get As in the higher level class (acceleration and advancement was probably a good thing) and perhaps he should be advanced some more for challenge! But, if the kid is failing ... no parent, or student, would like that feeling or special attention. I hope you get my drift. It's really not a complicated issue or notion.

I get it... The one take home message from parents is that they like the "feeling" of their kid going to another class and getting special attention rather than them taking a step back and building a foundation to make them even stronger in the future...

This is the world we live in...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

I am not the PP you are responding to, but you're wrong. The school could absolutely send your daughter, if she were truly able to demonstrate that she needed the acceleration (under the admittedly more strict guidelines than the county's previous acceleration policy), to another class for math. What is gone with 2.0 is skipping an entire class (or half the grade or more in some cases) ahead a grade in math and hoping that the holes fill themselves in. I understand maybe your child's teacher or even principal has told you this, but that doesn't make it true for the entire curriculum. It is not going to keep her from getting into Harvard someday.

All due respect, you are wrong. In fact, our principal specifically told us (at a meeting we have already had) that if anyone could be accelerated, if would be DD (her teacher agrees). She specifically told us that there will be NO acceleration in this school b/c of 2.0. In fact, the math blocks (that used to all occur at the same time during the day) have shifted in order to prevent kids in one grade from attending math in another grade. (For ex., last year as a 2nd grader, she attended 4th grade math in a 4th grade class b/c it occurred at the same time. This year each grade does math at a different time of day in order to make sure that there is no movement between grades).

I get that it is hard to know from anonymous posts whether someone is blowing smoke about their "little snowflake" as it's called here. But I can tell you that this girl loves and accels at math (probably from her father's side b/c he's a physicist). Trust me, I'm not interested in complaining about this out of some sense personal narcissism ("my kid is great" or whatever). I'm just dealing with a kid who's accels at math and currently in her school, there is no way to get her the instruction she needs.

Glad to hear if this is being handled differently where you are. But from where I sit it is frustrating.

"Where I am" is working for MCPS. It sounds like that is your principal's decision based upon a number of factors (the scheduling of different math blocks, etc). It is not county policy that your daughter cannot be accelerated as I described previously. I stand by what I said that you should continue to advocate for her if you feel that is what is really appropriate.

The real problem is this years 3rd graders, according to our principal, because there is no curriculum 2.0 formally for fourth grade yet, so consulting the fourth grade teacher for advanced lessons for a third grader may not result in lessons that correlate to 2.0 in fourth grade once it is rolled out next year.

Sounds like these educational bureaucrats don't know anything about education or trying to solve a problem. Because the problem is so difficult to solve they will go ahead and screw the 3rd graders...like Romney kick the can down the road!

Implementation of the new curriculum 2.0 by incompetent educators, teachers, principals and administrators is a plain old fashioned MCPS disaster.

Perhaps the superintendent needs to hire another $2 million dollar educational consultant to advise MCPS how to bring this on board without sacrificing the progress of many of her clients and students. This is not rocket science. No sane management implements a system cold turkey while simultaneously destroying an old system and thus leaving many kids caught in the transition -- in a lurch.


Curriculum 2.0 and its implementation continues as a disaster after 2 years...particularly for many with 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders over the last 2 years!!
DISASTER.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

I am not the PP you are responding to, but you're wrong. The school could absolutely send your daughter, if she were truly able to demonstrate that she needed the acceleration (under the admittedly more strict guidelines than the county's previous acceleration policy), to another class for math. What is gone with 2.0 is skipping an entire class (or half the grade or more in some cases) ahead a grade in math and hoping that the holes fill themselves in. I understand maybe your child's teacher or even principal has told you this, but that doesn't make it true for the entire curriculum. It is not going to keep her from getting into Harvard someday.

All due respect, you are wrong. In fact, our principal specifically told us (at a meeting we have already had) that if anyone could be accelerated, if would be DD (her teacher agrees). She specifically told us that there will be NO acceleration in this school b/c of 2.0. In fact, the math blocks (that used to all occur at the same time during the day) have shifted in order to prevent kids in one grade from attending math in another grade. (For ex., last year as a 2nd grader, she attended 4th grade math in a 4th grade class b/c it occurred at the same time. This year each grade does math at a different time of day in order to make sure that there is no movement between grades).

I get that it is hard to know from anonymous posts whether someone is blowing smoke about their "little snowflake" as it's called here. But I can tell you that this girl loves and accels at math (probably from her father's side b/c he's a physicist). Trust me, I'm not interested in complaining about this out of some sense personal narcissism ("my kid is great" or whatever). I'm just dealing with a kid who's accels at math and currently in her school, there is no way to get her the instruction she needs.

Glad to hear if this is being handled differently where you are. But from where I sit it is frustrating.

Clearly you don't get it... I've stated in this thread over and over, just because you can do fourth grade math does not mean you have a deeper conceptual understanding of 4th grade math. Its not a mystery that under this new curriculum a child who was accelerated will not initially remain accelerated if they haven't demonstrated complete understanding yet.

Its not that she forgot, its not that she's being held back and its not because you can't be accelerated its because under the new curriculum she has not gained the foundation to move on yet even though she can do higher level math.

Oh yeah, let's repeat for you: what is the MCPS plan for the 3rd grader who has a deeper conceptual understanding of 4th grade math? Is the question clear now?

I went to the grading meeting for my second grader. Here is what I understand with respect to math: the classroom teacher assesses the kids and breaks them into small groups to conduct differentiated lessons. If the teacher exhausts the second grade math curriculum with any students, she will consult a third grade teacher for the next appropriate lessons for the second grader. In other words, rather than the second grader going to a third grade classroom to learn third grade math, she'll get third grade math instruction in her second grade classroom. I am not sure, however, how many small groups one second grade teacher can effectively teach. If she has 20 kids on 10 different levels, can she effectively give time to all 10 levels, or will the kids at the more advanced levels get ignored (or be instructed to help other children in the class) or will they get moved to a specialist for more advanced instruction or will they be grouped with less advanced kids.

The real problem is this years 3rd graders, according to our principal, because there is no curriculum 2.0 formally for fourth grade yet, so consulting the fourth grade teacher for advanced lessons for a third grader may not result in lessons that correlate to 2.0 in fourth grade once it is rolled out next year.

Anonymous wrote:2.0 is a load of crap if there is no way of assessing a students's capability (or teacher's capability) before, during and after implementation. After 2 MCPS school calendar years of this nonsense...that's all my children take away from this social experiment. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap.

Refer to 17:11, as you seem to be one of the sheeple who can't understand the need to help kids develop critical thinking skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If acceleration and grouping is offered for reading, why shouldn't it be offered in math? That's my first concern with 2.0. My second concern is that those who are already accelerated in math will be forced to repeat math lessons during the transition years.

If Curriculum 2.0's approach will provide better grounding in math, why can't students get the better grounding and then accelerate, if they are capable and interested?

They can...

THEY CAN NOT. That is the whole point. Last year, before 2.0, kids who were able to do the work, were able to go to an upper grade classroom in order to get the challenge they needed in math. (A 2nd grader could go to a 3rd grade room and get 3rd grade math; a 3rd grader could go to a 5th grade class, if that was his/her level). Please understand that this is OVER under 2.0. This is NO LONGER ALLOWED. I know this b/c last year, my DD went to a 4th grade class to do math, this year, simply b/c she's a 3rd grader, she is re-doing 3rd grade math (along with her entire, undifferentiated classroom of children). Has she lost all of her math abilities over the summer? No. But under 2.0, it doesn't matter that she is ready for more (and did more advanced math last year!). All that matters is that she's a 3rd grader...and 2.0 says this 3rd grade work is what ALL 3rd graders will do.

Do parents really think this makes sense?

I am the PP you were addressing..

Clearly you don't get it... I've stated in this thread over and over, just because you can do fourth grade math does not mean you have a deeper conceptual understanding of 4th grade math. Its not a mystery that under this new curriculum a child who was accelerated will not initially remain accelerated if they haven't demonstrated complete understanding yet.

Its not that she forgot, its not that she's being held back and its not because you can't be accelerated its because under the new curriculum she has not gained the foundation to move on yet even though she can do higher level math.

Let's say she does have a deeper conceptual understanding of 4th grade math. Some elementary schools will not accelerate math at all. Period. And if she is is accelerated, what then? Worksheets to do? Does she get differentiated instruction? How will that work if the school takes a no-acceleration-approach?

I'm asking about numbers to make a point, not to establish a new quota. Posters have said students still have the opportunity to accelerate under 2.0. Posters also have made the point that students who "truly" need acceleration and are in "dire" need of acceleration can accelerate under 2.0. If the criteria are so strict that typically 1 student per grade gets acceleration (given as an example in the previous post), is there really differentiation in math?

Anonymous wrote:
So how many students are truly able to demonstrate their need for advancement in math to MCPS satisfaction? What are the criteria? How many students will be provided accelerated opportunities in math? If not 1/3 of the grade, is it 1/10 of the grade, 1/100 of the grade, etc.?

I went to a cluster meeting several years ago laying the groundwork for the new math curriculum and the MCPS math curriculum rep indicated that in her decades long teaching career, she had only encountered a few students who were truly unique and needed more than the new curriculum would provide. Having heard that, the comment about continued opportunities does not reassure me.

All students are given the opportunity to accel if that is what is appropriate for them. If you feel that your child is in dire need of this, you should be scheduling a meeting with your child's teacher or with the principal to discuss your child and provide evidence, or ask to see their evidence, for his/her placement.

It would be silly to set a percentage like that as a policy. That was never the intent of the old acceleration model either, it's just kind of what happened as schools got into competition with one another over who was accelerating more kids and more and more parents demanded that their children be pushed ahead in math. Now, students are looked at on an individual basis, which is how I think it should be. There might be one student in a grade who is ready, so like the previous example, they might be sent to a higher grade level class. There might be 5 from across the grade level, so they might be pulled in a small group by a focus teacher daily or a few times per week.

If you are looking for numbers like that, you're not going to get them for a reason-because those of us actually educating the children have found that making blanket statements like, "We will accelerate 50% of our students to the next grade level" gets us a bunch of kids who are woefully underprepared for middle and high school math, and beyond.

So how many students are truly able to demonstrate their need for advancement in math to MCPS satisfaction? What are the criteria? How many students will be provided accelerated opportunities in math? If not 1/3 of the grade, is it 1/10 of the grade, 1/100 of the grade, etc.?

I went to a cluster meeting several years ago laying the groundwork for the new math curriculum and the MCPS math curriculum rep indicated that in her decades long teaching career, she had only encountered a few students who were truly unique and needed more than the new curriculum would provide. Having heard that, the comment about continued opportunities does not reassure me.