Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers and administrators out there: I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints like this. I am a parent, not a teacher. Teaching is not my profession so I feel comfortable leaving curriculum development to the national and local curriculum experts. I acknowledge that my idea of what is "normal" and "appropriate" at each age might not align with the school system's curriculum. If I need my child to know something they haven't covered yet, like analog clocks, I teach them myself. I do not say things like "MCPS sucks," maligning a huge and incredibly complicated system with one juvenile word. I do not demand my child be put in math and reading classes two levels higher than their own. If they do truly know it all already, they may come home and read or do math or build cool stuff in their free time. I know you are not put in your job to validate my child's brilliance or my parenting. I know you have a difficult job, and you have reasons for everything you do.

Good for you, brown-noser. MCPS sucks. I came up through MCPS schools and they were excellent. Oldest DC also got an excellent education in MCPS schools. Kids in MCPS now -- what a joke. MCPS really sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers and administrators out there: I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints like this. I am a parent, not a teacher. Teaching is not my profession so I feel comfortable leaving curriculum development to the national and local curriculum experts. I acknowledge that my idea of what is "normal" and "appropriate" at each age might not align with the school system's curriculum. If I need my child to know something they haven't covered yet, like analog clocks, I teach them myself. I do not say things like "MCPS sucks," maligning a huge and incredibly complicated system with one juvenile word. I do not demand my child be put in math and reading classes two levels higher than their own. If they do truly know it all already, they may come home and read or do math or build cool stuff in their free time. I know you are not put in your job to validate my child's brilliance or my parenting. I know you have a difficult job, and you have reasons for everything you do.

Good for you, brown-noser. MCPS sucks. I came up through MCPS schools and they were excellent. Oldest DC also got an excellent education in MCPS schools. Kids in MCPS now -- what a joke. MCPS really sucks.

Anonymous wrote:Teachers and administrators out there: I'm sorry you have to deal with complaints like this. I am a parent, not a teacher. Teaching is not my profession so I feel comfortable leaving curriculum development to the national and local curriculum experts. I acknowledge that my idea of what is "normal" and "appropriate" at each age might not align with the school system's curriculum. If I need my child to know something they haven't covered yet, like analog clocks, I teach them myself. I do not say things like "MCPS sucks," maligning a huge and incredibly complicated system with one juvenile word. I do not demand my child be put in math and reading classes two levels higher than their own. If they do truly know it all already, they may come home and read or do math or build cool stuff in their free time. I know you are not put in your job to validate my child's brilliance or my parenting. I know you have a difficult job, and you have reasons for everything you do.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

Anonymous wrote:
This is why homeschooling is so much better. A child shouldn't learn math facts before K and then have to "relearn" them with kids in 1st. My child has a 3 minute timed math sheet. There is only 30 problems on it. Each week, he comes home with a 30/30 and vast pictures on the back. It looks like 1 minute spent on sheet and 2 minutes on coloring. Why not just give him a sheet that takes him 3 minutes to do 30 problems instead? When asked, I was told it was detrimental to the other kids to move some kids too far. So dumbed-down math he will continue until compact math. If I had the money I would homeschool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, sounds like you should go private.

Bad news on that front... my child at highly regarded private is learning to tell time and count money now in 2nd grade. He also learned to tell time in preschool, but had 100% forgotten it by now... so maybe, just maybe, 2nd grade is the more developmentally appropriate time for this.

And the bolded applies to math in general for 99% of the kids. This is part of the reason why many math educators (those who have an advanced degree in math and teach) do not recommend that Algebra be taught to young kids, some even argue that learning Algebra in 7th grade is not appropriate. I believe in SF they will no longer be allowing 8th graders to take Algebra as we know it. Algebra will be broken down and taught throughout school. MCPS curriculum also seems to have taken this route in terms of dispersing algebraic concepts starting from 1st grade. I see it in my 2nd and 5th grader's math HW.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/07/22/san-francisco-middle-schools-no-longer-teaching-algebra-1

"For years, all eighth-graders had to take Algebra 1. The vast majority, however, either failed or did poorly in the subject. Under the new standards, the district is no longer taking a “drill and kill” approach to math. Instead, algebraic concepts will be woven into all math courses, beginning in kindergarten.

The goal is to get students fully prepared for Math 8, a hybrid pre-algebra class in eighth grade focusing on how linear functions and equations all fit together.

Students will then take a deep dive into Algebra 1 as high school freshman, which will also include transformational geometry and angle relationships."

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly what it looks like! It's ridiculous, the ones that don't know what they are doing, and really need help, just bounce around.

No child left behind, because if you go this slow there is no "behind". <---This is exactly right.

To the person who stated the OP needed a private school, how about you get bent.

$2.39 billion Operating budget for a school system that can't provide books or a curriculum, but we who are unhappy should just send our kids to private. How about we hold the school responsible for accomplishing their mission.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, sounds like you should go private.

Bad news on that front... my child at highly regarded private is learning to tell time and count money now in 2nd grade. He also learned to tell time in preschool, but had 100% forgotten it by now... so maybe, just maybe, 2nd grade is the more developmentally appropriate time for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, sounds like you should go private.

Bad news on that front... my child at highly regarded private is learning to tell time and count money now in 2nd grade. He also learned to tell time in preschool, but had 100% forgotten it by now... so maybe, just maybe, 2nd grade is the more developmentally appropriate time for this.

But if he learned it at preschool and then not again at K or 1st, isn't that the fault of the school? Do you think he wouldn't grasp it in K or 1st but he did grasp it in preschool? That doesn't make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's abnormal or age-inappropriate about learning about carbon dioxide and the carbon footprint. (And I know that first-graders learned about the environment under the previous curriculum.)

It makes a lot of sense to me to wait to teach about time on an analog clock until the children have learned about fractions. And I don't see the detriment, since everybody uses digital clocks these days anyway.

Also, a lot of the stuff you complain about is school policy, not the curriculum.

(Probably under the previous curriculum, you would have been one of the people complaining about math acceleration. MCPS can't do anything right.)

+1 on the telling time. I volunteered in my DC's 2nd grade class to help teach telling time, and knowing what "quarter" meant was very useful. Some school districts no longer teach how to read an analog clock, or how to write in cursive. I know some parents have stated that their kids haven't learned cursive in mcps, but mine have (in 3rd grade).

Yes, it is it the school policy, not the curriculum. I think it's great that kids learn about the environment as part of science at an early age. They may not understand the big picture, but they can certainly understand that what one does everyday contributes to the environmental pollution. My 6 yr old DD asked me why I couldn't drive her to school instead of her taking the bus. I had to explain to her about the concept of "carbon footprint". I don't think that's a hard concept for a child to learn. You just have to present it so a 6 yr old can understand it.

Some things are slower, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. At this age, too much too quick acceleration in math for 99% of kids is not the best idea. There have been lots of complains by parents and teachers about how too many kids pre 2.0 were accelerated too quickly in math, and they were finding that these kids were missing or weak in the fundamentals.

My K'er knows what 1/2 and 1/4 mean. I didn't teach him fractions, so I assume he learned about them at school. So I'm confused by the statement that they're not learning fractions until 2nd grade. Could it really differ that much by school or individual teacher?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, sounds like you should go private.

Bad news on that front... my child at highly regarded private is learning to tell time and count money now in 2nd grade. He also learned to tell time in preschool, but had 100% forgotten it by now... so maybe, just maybe, 2nd grade is the more developmentally appropriate time for this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My K'er knows what 1/2 and 1/4 mean. I didn't teach him fractions, so I assume he learned about them at school. So I'm confused by the statement that they're not learning fractions until 2nd grade. Could it really differ that much by school or individual teacher?

PP here.

Honestly, I think it is both. We taught our kids when they were very young what half and quarter meant at home through cooking and counting their coins. Half is easier to learn. Quarter as a concept is harder to learn. I think when you try to get a 6 yr old to apply "quarter" to something other than money, it's harder for them to understand. Some kids will get it; others won't until they get a better understanding of number sense.

+1 Also, remember that getting a kid to understand a quarter of 100, or a quarter of a pizza, is easier than getting them to understand a quarter of 60.