Anonymous wrote:

Well, maybe four is on the young side, but second grade is absolutely on the LATE side! What about teaching coins in Kindergarten? (5/6) and continue it in First grade (6/7). It's just an example of public schools prolonging concepts that could be taught a year earlier. No wonder kids are bored and restless in class, they aren't learning a thing.

What is the benefit of teaching "this is a penny, this is a nickel, this is a dime, this is a quarter" in kindergarten? And what should be removed from the curriculum to make room for that?

Also, what are you basing your "they aren't learning a thing" on? Do you mean that literally? The kids go to school all day and learn not one thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.

Is this from your personal experience? I don't think that either of my kids, at age 4, could have thought, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." Now I could have said, "You should get back two quarters and four pennies," and they would have been able to do that, but that's not really math, that's just coin recognition.

I would be interested in the thoughts of kindergarten and first-grade teachers who actually taught kindergarteners and first-graders about money under the old curriculum. As I recall, the kindergarten teaching was only coin recognition; I don't remember what the teaching was in first grade.

Yep, personal experience, not all kids, but many can. (I mentioned snack bar because often those are set up with round numbers and no tax.)

Many kids can think, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." ? Or even, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.75, so that's the same as a $1 bill and three quarters, and four quarters make a $1 bill, so I should get a quarter back, but they only gave me two dimes, which is 10 + 10 = 20 cents, which is less than a quarter, which is 25 cents?"

I mean, you could probably make a reasonable case that some aspects of money should be taught in kindergarten and then other aspects of money in first grade and then other aspects of money in second grade (and then other aspects of money when they get to decimals), but you can also make a reasonable case for eliminating the repetitiveness and waiting until second grade for the whole thing. It's the same with telling time on an analog clock. Should you teach kindergarteners to read the hour, and first-graders to read the half hour, and second-graders to read the whole clock, or should you eliminate the repetition and wait until second grade for the whole thing? There are advantages and disadvantages either way

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.

Is this from your personal experience? I don't think that either of my kids, at age 4, could have thought, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." Now I could have said, "You should get back two quarters and four pennies," and they would have been able to do that, but that's not really math, that's just coin recognition.

I would be interested in the thoughts of kindergarten and first-grade teachers who actually taught kindergarteners and first-graders about money under the old curriculum. As I recall, the kindergarten teaching was only coin recognition; I don't remember what the teaching was in first grade.

Yep, personal experience, not all kids, but many can. (I mentioned snack bar because often those are set up with round numbers and no tax.)

Well, maybe four is on the young side, but second grade is absolutely on the LATE side! What about teaching coins in Kindergarten? (5/6) and continue it in First grade (6/7). It's just an example of public schools prolonging concepts that could be taught a year earlier. No wonder kids are bored and restless in class, they aren't learning a thing.

Anonymous wrote:Money isn't dealt with on standardized testing. So it isn't a concern. That is why it is not introduced until later.

Oddly enough, all these high schoolers are taking AP Calc and passing AP and final exams. Yet, they can't understand basic concept of credit cards, how to balance a checkbook, income after taxes, which shirt is cheaper after sales and coupons, etc.... They aren't on exams. So it is never taught and it is never learned.

Public schools in America teach to the test. They always have and they always will. It is up to the parents to teach basic every day common sense math and finances.

No, you are putting the cart before the horse. The standardized tests were written to align to the standards. If it's in the standards, then it's on the standardized test. Not the other way around. In any case, what standardized test are you referring to? The standardized tests that count for the schools/school system don't start until third grade. There are no such tests for K-2.

If you think schools should teach kids practical math -- and I agree that this is a good goal -- then you should push for the schools to require a class in practical math. People are not going to learn about coupons and income tax in calculus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.

Is this from your personal experience? I don't think that either of my kids, at age 4, could have thought, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." Now I could have said, "You should get back two quarters and four pennies," and they would have been able to do that, but that's not really math, that's just coin recognition.

I would be interested in the thoughts of kindergarten and first-grade teachers who actually taught kindergarteners and first-graders about money under the old curriculum. As I recall, the kindergarten teaching was only coin recognition; I don't remember what the teaching was in first grade.

Yep, personal experience, not all kids, but many can. (I mentioned snack bar because often those are set up with round numbers and no tax.)

Money isn't dealt with on standardized testing. So it isn't a concern. That is why it is not introduced until later.

Oddly enough, all these high schoolers are taking AP Calc and passing AP and final exams. Yet, they can't understand basic concept of credit cards, how to balance a checkbook, income after taxes, which shirt is cheaper after sales and coupons, etc.... They aren't on exams. So it is never taught and it is never learned.

Public schools in America teach to the test. They always have and they always will. It is up to the parents to teach basic every day common sense math and finances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC was very bored in second grade math because all they did was two digit addition with concrete models. This stuff is tedious, a couple story problems to a page and no algorithms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with introducing the standard algorithm to a child who has already spent some time modeling yet that was strictly forbidden in second grade. Time exploring the algorithm has value and can be much more open ended and engaging than drawing pictures of rocks.

The goal of 2.0 is Calculus A/B for all by senior year but that is IF this experiment works out. These kids who are spinning their wheels year after year and hating math may never get there, no matter how carefully the standards have it all mapped out.

I don't understand. My child certainly was taught the standard algorithm in second grade. And the Common Core standards explicitly call for fluency in the standard algorithm. In what school was your child in second-grade math?

My child was in the pilot year of 2.0 in 2nd grade is now in 6th. We spoke to the teacher at the time, were told, she was not allowed to teach an algorithm. If things have mellowed since then, that's encouraging, but my DC is still at the bleeding edge of the rollout and we've only seen worse in the time since then. Nonetheless, the standard algorithm is not actually mentioned in the second grade standards:

Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.2.NBT.B.5
Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.2.NBT.B.6
Add up to four two-digit numbers using strategies based on place value and properties of operations.
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.2.NBT.B.7
Add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method. Understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.

Is this from your personal experience? I don't think that either of my kids, at age 4, could have thought, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." Now I could have said, "You should get back two quarters and four pennies," and they would have been able to do that, but that's not really math, that's just coin recognition.

I would be interested in the thoughts of kindergarten and first-grade teachers who actually taught kindergarteners and first-graders about money under the old curriculum. As I recall, the kindergarten teaching was only coin recognition; I don't remember what the teaching was in first grade.

Not the PP but when does MCPS teach coin recognition under 2.0? 2ND GRADE!!!! That is the huge issue. It is not even covered in K or 1st at all.

Prior it was coin recognition in K and in 1st it was basic math and math problems focused on money instead of just numbers. Simple but each year they added a little more depth. To not start until kids are 8 years old is way too late.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For MCPS, yes math groups and centers is a new thing. That started with 2.0
Prior to that the kids tested into math classes starting at the end of K. Moved up and down quarterly or yearly as needed. Kids could have a reading teacher in AM and a different math teacher in PM

I bet it isn't a new thing for MCPS either. These things go in and out of fashion. If this were the first time ever that MCPS had within-class math groups, I'd be very surprised.

They didn't. But nice for you to assume they did

Anonymous wrote:
I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.

Is this from your personal experience? I don't think that either of my kids, at age 4, could have thought, "I had $2.00, and the popsicle was $1.46, so I should have gotten 54 cents in change, but they only gave me 50 cents." Now I could have said, "You should get back two quarters and four pennies," and they would have been able to do that, but that's not really math, that's just coin recognition.

I would be interested in the thoughts of kindergarten and first-grade teachers who actually taught kindergarteners and first-graders about money under the old curriculum. As I recall, the kindergarten teaching was only coin recognition; I don't remember what the teaching was in first grade.

Anonymous wrote:

My DC was very bored in second grade math because all they did was two digit addition with concrete models. This stuff is tedious, a couple story problems to a page and no algorithms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with introducing the standard algorithm to a child who has already spent some time modeling yet that was strictly forbidden in second grade. Time exploring the algorithm has value and can be much more open ended and engaging than drawing pictures of rocks.

The goal of 2.0 is Calculus A/B for all by senior year but that is IF this experiment works out. These kids who are spinning their wheels year after year and hating math may never get there, no matter how carefully the standards have it all mapped out.

I don't understand. My child certainly was taught the standard algorithm in second grade. And the Common Core standards explicitly call for fluency in the standard algorithm. In what school was your child in second-grade math?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't forget that kids don't even learn about money until 2nd grade. Nothing until 2nd grade! So if your 4-7yr old wants to buy something with their own money, you better wait until the curriculum starts in 2nd grade so they know what a dime, quarter, and dollar mean. LOL

Ridiculous!

What's ridiculous?

That children are not taught to use/count coins until second grade!

Why is that ridiculous?

I'll bite. Because there's more than one way to learn. Some people pick math up much more quickly dealing with money than they do studying place value. In theory you need to have a deep understanding of place value to understand money, yet you can send a four-year-old to a snack bar with $2 and they know if they've been short changed. Sometimes you need to understand to do, sometimes you need experience to understand. The current curriculum has no regard for the latter.