Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't work for most people?

Most people are average students. And traditional math works just fine for most average students and certainly for those above average.

Math isn't for everyone. Just ask anyone with a JD--had we enjoyed math, some of us might have opted for med school instead.

Candidly, I believe those who excel at math should be tracked in STEM programs. They don't need 2.0. In fact, 2.0 is doing a huge disservice to above average students.

My biggest gripe with 2.0 is that kids no longer switch classes for math and reading. Instead, teachers rush through three or four groups on different levels during the block. There's no reason why this should be. While a small number of schools might have continued switching classes, most do not. Huge disservice to all students.

I'm befuddled as to why people think all students need to excel at algebra. I haven't used it since algebra 2 in HS. Build a stem track and prepare those kids with high level math instruction--go ahead and use the Japanese/American Reform method if you like---but you'll probably need to recruit Japanese teachers.

No, it doesn't. People can say until they're blue in the face that it does, but the fact is that it doesn't. The only evidence anybody has cited in support of the idea is

a. it worked for me
b. I know these people who are math teachers, and they say...

That's not evidence.

Why have test scores gone down in MCPS in the last 2-3yrs, in all levels?

+1! There's the evidence: test scores have gone down since the switch. At this point the issue is not "implementation" but the 2.0 program itself. It simply does NOT work.

While the "old math" worked for most students (as shown by test scores which declined over time as methods were tweaked under NCLB by U.S. teachers, who BTW consistently come from the Bottom Quartile of the SAT!!), the new new new math 2.0 definitely DOESN'T work for most students!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go read the thread on tutors. So many families supplement because 2.0 super sucks.

Search on DCUM for threads about math tutors before 2.0. There were plenty.

In elementary school? I don't think so.

Go read the parcc data. Check out the algebra data.

Think again.

Also, the PARCC data may show many things, but one thing they certainly do not show is that math under Curriculum 2.0 is less effective than under the previous curriculum. It is not possible for the PARCC data to show that.

They'll give it another year or so, then they won't have any excuses.

Exactly but then it will be a new change somewhere else. It is obvious they got rid of finals because of the constant decline in scores.

Anonymous wrote:UK and Canada have universal healthcare. UK has social safety net for housing. Which of those countries is dealing with the issues we struggle with in post-racial America? Did those countries subject AAs to segregation? How about a war on drugs and the mass incarceration of AA men, creating generations of fatherless children?

By the way, is the achievement gap limited to math? I don't think so.

Are you kidding me? Give me a break lady. Do the crime, you do the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't work for most people?

Most people are average students. And traditional math works just fine for most average students and certainly for those above average.

Math isn't for everyone. Just ask anyone with a JD--had we enjoyed math, some of us might have opted for med school instead.

Candidly, I believe those who excel at math should be tracked in STEM programs. They don't need 2.0. In fact, 2.0 is doing a huge disservice to above average students.

My biggest gripe with 2.0 is that kids no longer switch classes for math and reading. Instead, teachers rush through three or four groups on different levels during the block. There's no reason why this should be. While a small number of schools might have continued switching classes, most do not. Huge disservice to all students.

I'm befuddled as to why people think all students need to excel at algebra. I haven't used it since algebra 2 in HS. Build a stem track and prepare those kids with high level math instruction--go ahead and use the Japanese/American Reform method if you like---but you'll probably need to recruit Japanese teachers.

No, it doesn't. People can say until they're blue in the face that it does, but the fact is that it doesn't. The only evidence anybody has cited in support of the idea is

a. it worked for me
b. I know these people who are math teachers, and they say...

That's not evidence.

Why have test scores gone down in MCPS in the last 2-3yrs, in all levels?

UK and Canada have universal healthcare. UK has social safety net for housing. Which of those countries is dealing with the issues we struggle with in post-racial America? Did those countries subject AAs to segregation? How about a war on drugs and the mass incarceration of AA men, creating generations of fatherless children?

By the way, is the achievement gap limited to math? I don't think so.

Anonymous wrote:How did we score in social studies or history? Must have been pretty crappy. Justice O'Connor launched a civics movement in light of the deplorable statistics.

How about science? English?

You are pointing to data in a vacuum, and it's not compelling.

Most people will agree that math and literacy is the most important subjects in school. Without a solid foundation in both these areas, one's ability to do well in these other subjects would be severely affected.

And I don't understand what you mean by pointing to data in a vacuum. Is the data from the article that OP posted also data in a vacuum? Both these data points show math scores: one for kids under 2.0, and another for young and older adults pre Common Core. Both scores suck. But, the data for the adults show that the way we taught math prior to CC wasn't that great, either. Since PARCC and CC in MD are relatively new, it's a lot harder to gauge the effectiveness.

I'm not disputing that the implementation of 2.0 was bad. I think MCPS should hire math specialists like they have reading specialists. And in fact, one district in another state did just that, including more training for the lower grade teachers, who admittedly stated that in college, teachers in early ES education don't focus on math enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to the data that proves it doesn't work, then explain what that means. Tell me who it doesn't work for--broken down by race, language and socioeconomics. Actually, dept of ed doesn't actually have good data on that yet...

Before anyone links to the old ny times article, please note that the article is merely an indictment on the American education system rather than proof that the traditional approach to math doesn't work.

Oddly enough, our universities are head and shoulders above those in other countries and draw significant numbers of foreign students for that reason. Great npr piece on that earlier this year.

We must have read a different article. The article I read is specifically about math teaching in the US.

How did we score in social studies or history? Must have been pretty crappy. Justice O'Connor launched a civics movement in light of the deplorable statistics.

How about science? English?

You are pointing to data in a vacuum, and it's not compelling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to the data that proves it doesn't work, then explain what that means. Tell me who it doesn't work for--broken down by race, language and socioeconomics. Actually, dept of ed doesn't actually have good data on that yet...

Before anyone links to the old ny times article, please note that the article is merely an indictment on the American education system rather than proof that the traditional approach to math doesn't work.

Oddly enough, our universities are head and shoulders above those in other countries and draw significant numbers of foreign students for that reason. Great npr piece on that earlier this year.

The "system" also includes how a subject matter is taught, and yes, includes subpar teachers compared to some other countries. American adults, pre-Common Core, in general suck at math, and even in literacy:

Published on October 18, 2013:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/23-advanced-economies-us-adults-rank-21st-math-skills

"The survey tested a sample of approximately 5,000 Americans ages 16 to 65..
The U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on Friday released the initial results of an international survey of adult skills in literacy and mathematics, revealing that Americans rank 21st in “numeracy” and are tied for 15th in literacy among adults in 23 advanced economies.

American adults also scored below the average in both numeracy and literacy for all respondents in all 23 advanced economies."

We scored below the UK and Canada, which also has a large immigrant population.

Anonymous wrote:Link to the data that proves it doesn't work, then explain what that means. Tell me who it doesn't work for--broken down by race, language and socioeconomics. Actually, dept of ed doesn't actually have good data on that yet...

Before anyone links to the old ny times article, please note that the article is merely an indictment on the American education system rather than proof that the traditional approach to math doesn't work.

Oddly enough, our universities are head and shoulders above those in other countries and draw significant numbers of foreign students for that reason. Great npr piece on that earlier this year.

Link to the data that proves it doesn't work, then explain what that means. Tell me who it doesn't work for--broken down by race, language and socioeconomics. Actually, dept of ed doesn't actually have good data on that yet...

You do realize that America seems to be the only first world country with a subpar education system, right?

Our kids sit in groups. They receive minimal direct instruction since teachers must quickly cycle through a handful of groups on different levels for math, reading and spelling (if your school still does spelling--many do not--words your way isn't spelling). They receive less classroom instruction in general (in terms of hours in school). And the profession isn't highly regarded as it is in other countries. We also have extreme discipline issues and must combat inequality that doesn't exist to the same degree in other countries. We have homeless students who are hungry---name another first world country with that problem. Newsflash: we have homeless students in mcps...lots of them...and those are just the ones our LEA has identified.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't work for most people?

Most people are average students. And traditional math works just fine for most average students and certainly for those above average.

Math isn't for everyone. Just ask anyone with a JD--had we enjoyed math, some of us might have opted for med school instead.

Candidly, I believe those who excel at math should be tracked in STEM programs. They don't need 2.0. In fact, 2.0 is doing a huge disservice to above average students.

My biggest gripe with 2.0 is that kids no longer switch classes for math and reading. Instead, teachers rush through three or four groups on different levels during the block. There's no reason why this should be. While a small number of schools might have continued switching classes, most do not. Huge disservice to all students.

I'm befuddled as to why people think all students need to excel at algebra. I haven't used it since algebra 2 in HS. Build a stem track and prepare those kids with high level math instruction--go ahead and use the Japanese/American Reform method if you like---but you'll probably need to recruit Japanese teachers.

No, it doesn't. People can say until they're blue in the face that it does, but the fact is that it doesn't. The only evidence anybody has cited in support of the idea is

a. it worked for me
b. I know these people who are math teachers, and they say...

That's not evidence.

It doesn't work for most people?

Most people are average students. And traditional math works just fine for most average students and certainly for those above average.

Math isn't for everyone. Just ask anyone with a JD--had we enjoyed math, some of us might have opted for med school instead.

Candidly, I believe those who excel at math should be tracked in STEM programs. They don't need 2.0. In fact, 2.0 is doing a huge disservice to above average students.

My biggest gripe with 2.0 is that kids no longer switch classes for math and reading. Instead, teachers rush through three or four groups on different levels during the block. There's no reason why this should be. While a small number of schools might have continued switching classes, most do not. Huge disservice to all students.

I'm befuddled as to why people think all students need to excel at algebra. I haven't used it since algebra 2 in HS. Build a stem track and prepare those kids with high level math instruction--go ahead and use the Japanese/American Reform method if you like---but you'll probably need to recruit Japanese teachers.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is disputing that the demographics in the US and Japan are different. Nor is anybody saying that Curriculum 2.0 is the perfect math curriculum handed down on Mt. Math from the Great Math Teacher In The Sky.

The question under discussion is whether "traditional math" teaching methods in the US (however defined) worked for most people in the US. And the answer to this question is: no.

But more importantly is there any reason to believe 2.0 is an improvement? Yes, there have been some changes but why do we believe they will work for more people than what we had. If 2.0 was pulled out of some half-wits ass in central office, I'd rather have the old system. Heck, I'd rather have any system that includes a book and a teacher. Our Algebra I is being taught out of slapped together packets.