I am the PP at 13:45. What are fake math problems? Can you give an example, please?

Also, why do you assume that I work for MCPS? In fact, I do not work for MCPS, and I am not a teacher.

I think that your post confirms my statement that there are posters on DCUM who feel contempt for teachers, though.

In 2.0 they absolutely are doing fake math problems. Its stupid. Incredibly stupid.

You really think the reason that US students score so low compared to other nations despite what we spend on education is because parents think the teachers are not smart? Really? So if we all start kissing the asses of fools like you, close our eyes and pretend real hard that our school aren't failing then "Wow, Dorothy, the schools aren't failing! Gee MCPS is just dandy, Just dandy I say lets give Idiot Starr a big gold medal. Oh I love MCPS."

We have absolute idiots running our school system. This is why the system is declining.

MCPS is an embarrassment. Plain and simple.

Now they're doing fake math problems?

And who specifically says "well we had to change something", and how do you know what they majored in?

If I were going to identify a major problem in education in the US, based on comments on DCUM, I would say: parents' contempt for teachers.

If that's how you truly feel about teachers in MCPS, then you are really obligated to take your children out of MCPS. And no excuses about how you'd like to, but you can't.

1. There is no evidence that students in accelerated math were unable to perform math. In fact, the scores for students in acceleration were always strong. It was the students not in acceleration that failed and had low scores. This group continues to fail under 2.0.

2. The older system didn't have teachers that knew anything about math either BUT it did present students with real math problems and let them move at their own pace. Students who were strong in math or had parents that taught them outside the classroom were able to learn math at a deeper and faster pace aligned with their interest.

3. 2.0 doesn't solve the problem of addressing lower performing students. IMO it makes it worse for the lower performers. It only succeeds in frustrating and holder back the higher performers.

4. My favorite saying in MCPS is "well we had to change something". Oh my - this just wraps their idiocy up in nice little package now doesn't it. Only an education major would think that doing anything is the way to solve a problem. No, solving a problem means a.) understanding what the problem is -even if that isn't complimentary to the existing people b.) identifying a solution that actually solves the problem and c.) through testing and analysis ensure that you are not creating other problems. MCPS failed on all 3. They can not face that they are a BIG part of the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Probably true, but the vast majority of IT jobs don't require an advanced degree.

The jobs that don't require the degrees though are the ones the Americans are in. The higher level software engineers, architects, chief tech officer positions etc have advanced degrees and usually did not go through a US K-12 school system.

That's not been my experience in my 15+ yrs in IT. The higher level people are usually US educated people, and the lower level drone techies are the H1Bs from foreign countries. There are several upper level people that have been educated in foreign countries, to be sure, but the vast majority that I've seen have been educated here. Maybe that will change in 10 yrs, but this isn't the case currently.

And actually, one of the reasons why a lot of the low-level techies come from Asian countries is because, although they can write code (or do complex math problems), their educational system historically taught math in rote fashion. I think this has been changing in the past few years. They, too, are now focusing more on critical thinking skills. But my experience in the past with a lot of the H1Bs has been that they are fine when you tell them exactly what to do, but they would lack critical thinking skills or thinking outside the box. Again, this is changing, and of course, there are outliers - I've worked with some H1Bs techies that were awesome.

This is why Bill Gates was a champion of CC.. because he saw that in the tech field at least, there was a serious lack of critical thinking, problems solving, thinking outside the box skills. Too much rote...just memorize a formula and plug in the numbers. That's how I learned it, too, in the US.

I think people are confusing accelerated math with really understanding math. You can be in an accelerated math program but lack understanding of the concepts. I think some parents and teachers have posted as much here on DCUM about how in the past this very thing was happening.

My experience as well.

Anonymous wrote:

The worst part of the MCPS 2.0 is that is actively training young students in all the bad habits that I see in the US educated engineers. 2.0 is not achieving deep thinking, 2.0 is achieving random thoughts that never connect which is VERY different.

How, specifically, is math under Curriculum 2.0 doing this? Specifically, with your personal experience of math under Curriculum 2.0, compared to math under the previous curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also a bit stunned by the idea that it's a waste of time to debate math education with the people who are supposed to be doing the math education.

Isn't the core issue exactly that the people who are supposed to be doing the math education are just not capable of doing it? Asking an education major how to develop a math curriculum is like asking a blind person "What color is that square?".

If that's what you think, then you might as well thrown in the towel and go home. It's hopeless. There is no possible solution.

(Also, people keep talking about "education majors". At how many degree-granting institutions is it possible to major solely in education, just education, as a single major? Also, what proportion of teachers have only a a single bachelor's degree and nothing more? I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you?)

That's not been my experience in my 15+ yrs in IT. The higher level people are usually US educated people, and the lower level drone techies are the H1Bs from foreign countries. There are several upper level people that have been educated in foreign countries, to be sure, but the vast majority that I've seen have been educated here. Maybe that will change in 10 yrs, but this isn't the case currently.

I've been in IT for 20 years and as someone in a "Chief" level position, I'm unique in being educated in the US for K-12. (I went to private school.) The seniors in the more complex areas R&D, Product, Engineering, CTO, CIO in the top companies are all products of non-US based early education. You see US educated staff in sales, finance, marketing. I have no idea whether they were ever H1B visa holders early in their career.

Here's the difference - the ability to solve complex problems with the simplest approach. So many of the US educated engineers would find a solution but it was overly complex and broke several other things or wasn't repeatable or didn't even solve the problem. Sometimes their approach just correlated with another action that they were too sloppy to realize they did and this was the solution. However, they didn't understand the difference between causation and correlation so they ran down the wrong roads.

In contrast, the engineers with non-US education had a very different approach. They would stop, think, and identify a solution that worked systemically, was simple, and always backed up by rigorous proof. They took a mathematical approach to measuring the solution rather than a qualitative assumption. They were able to address issues at each layer because they simply expanded the model and systemic approach. The US educated engineers has difficulty working across the layers and got up just seeing them as separate products.

The worst part of the MCPS 2.0 is that is actively training young students in all the bad habits that I see in the US educated engineers. 2.0 is not achieving deep thinking, 2.0 is achieving random thoughts that never connect which is VERY different.

Anonymous wrote:

Probably true, but the vast majority of IT jobs don't require an advanced degree.

The jobs that don't require the degrees though are the ones the Americans are in. The higher level software engineers, architects, chief tech officer positions etc have advanced degrees and usually did not go through a US K-12 school system.

That's not been my experience in my 15+ yrs in IT. The higher level people are usually US educated people, and the lower level drone techies are the H1Bs from foreign countries. There are several upper level people that have been educated in foreign countries, to be sure, but the vast majority that I've seen have been educated here. Maybe that will change in 10 yrs, but this isn't the case currently.

And actually, one of the reasons why a lot of the low-level techies come from Asian countries is because, although they can write code (or do complex math problems), their educational system historically taught math in rote fashion. I think this has been changing in the past few years. They, too, are now focusing more on critical thinking skills. But my experience in the past with a lot of the H1Bs has been that they are fine when you tell them exactly what to do, but they would lack critical thinking skills or thinking outside the box. Again, this is changing, and of course, there are outliers - I've worked with some H1Bs techies that were awesome.

This is why Bill Gates was a champion of CC.. because he saw that in the tech field at least, there was a serious lack of critical thinking, problems solving, thinking outside the box skills. Too much rote...just memorize a formula and plug in the numbers. That's how I learned it, too, in the US.

I think people are confusing accelerated math with really understanding math. You can be in an accelerated math program but lack understanding of the concepts. I think some parents and teachers have posted as much here on DCUM about how in the past this very thing was happening.

I'm also a bit stunned by the idea that it's a waste of time to debate math education with the people who are supposed to be doing the math education.

Isn't the core issue exactly that the people who are supposed to be doing the math education are just not capable of doing it? Asking an education major how to develop a math curriculum is like asking a blind person "What color is that square?".

Anonymous wrote:Its really a waste of time to debate to the quality of a math program with liberal arts or education folks. These are the people for whom math is a mystery, irrelevant and who just aren't smart enough to understand it.

As long as the US can continue to attract talent from other countries, they can run all the tech companies. The MCPS grads can be the administrative assistants or maybe get a job as copy writer in the PR department to write about the accomplishments of real STEM educated people. The STEM people will make more money and afford private school. The liberal arts people won't be able to afford private school so they can stay in MCPS. They don't know any better anyway so it doesn't matter. Everyone is happy.

Everybody posting here is anonymous. How do you know what's on their transcripts and their diplomas? Or do you assume that people who agree with you have a "real STEM education", and people who disagree with you don't?

I'm also a bit stunned by the idea that it's a waste of time to debate math education with the people who are supposed to be doing the math education.

Its really a waste of time to debate to the quality of a math program with liberal arts or education folks. These are the people for whom math is a mystery, irrelevant and who just aren't smart enough to understand it.

As long as the US can continue to attract talent from other countries, they can run all the tech companies. The MCPS grads can be the administrative assistants or maybe get a job as copy writer in the PR department to write about the accomplishments of real STEM educated people. The STEM people will make more money and afford private school. The liberal arts people won't be able to afford private school so they can stay in MCPS. They don't know any better anyway so it doesn't matter. Everyone is happy.

Anonymous wrote:
Common Core? Building blocks math needs to be direct and succint. No funny business, no 10 days to dally about all week on the same topic. Get the building blocks done right and divide students by ability levels. Norway, UK, Korea, CHina, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, etc. - all have more % enginering students than the US and can effectively teach math in to 4 year olds through 17 year olds.

I am wondering whether you have looked at the actual Common Core math standards? Here is a link:

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Common Core says that these standards are internationally benchmarked. I know from my own experience that they are quite comparable to the Singapore Math books for K-6. Common Core opponents say that they are not internationally benchmarked, but if the opponents then go on to explain how they're not benchmarked, I haven't seen it.

Also, I guarantee that no class in MCPS is spending 10 days to dally about all week on the same topic. Not one.

Anonymous wrote:

Probably true, but the vast majority of IT jobs don't require an advanced degree.

The jobs that don't require the degrees though are the ones the Americans are in. The higher level software engineers, architects, chief tech officer positions etc have advanced degrees and usually did not go through a US K-12 school system.

I have worked at very large finance companies and technology companies, including some that can only hire U.S. citizens.
The mindset from Morgan Stanley through Lockheed Martin has been the following: We'd rather hire an undergrad math, stats or engineering student over anything else because those individuals can learn. They can actually learn! They can actually master difficult subjects and build upon them.
So we will hire then, invest in them, train them, and retain them! They're smart! They work hard! They pick things up fast (much faster than lib arts people). They fail and get 40%s on their midterms but that gets curved to a B+ and that's great! We'll take a B GPA engineering student from Princeton engineering, Wisconsin, Cornell, Syracuse, etc any day. Why again? BECAUSE THEY CAN FIGURE THINGS OUT AND HAVE A SOLID EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION. THey can also figure out MBA programs is short order and then are better set to lead and manage. Pick that stuff up like cake.

Common Core? Building blocks math needs to be direct and succint. No funny business, no 10 days to dally about all week on the same topic. Get the building blocks done right and divide students by ability levels. Norway, UK, Korea, CHina, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, etc. - all have more % enginering students than the US and can effectively teach math in to 4 year olds through 17 year olds.

If Curr 2.0 and math is not sorted out in 1 or 2 years, or is a big of joke as this article states or as untransparent about tests or results or pupil performance as it has been, we will not hesistate to do what is right for our children. My husband, educated in Europe, won't stand for a below average curriculum or school system goals, and neither will I. and certainly not at these tax dollars. Must be an ROI of negative 50%...

Probably true, but the vast majority of IT jobs don't require an advanced degree.

The jobs that don't require the degrees though are the ones the Americans are in. The higher level software engineers, architects, chief tech officer positions etc have advanced degrees and usually did not go through a US K-12 school system.