Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:40
Subject: Re:2.0
Are you claiming problem solving and critical thinking is somehow new in this decade? Nonsense, math is about problem solving and criticial thinking. As this applies to elementary school math there have been no changes or new paradigms for 101 years. What has changed (and for the worse) is the competence of elementary school math teachers and the increasing aversion and phobia our students have for the subject. And administrators and educators that limit access of students to math concepts based solely on an arbitrary grade level or age are incompetent. They should not be teaching children (with limitless academic potential) rather geriatric subjects with dwindling and extinguishing fire.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:33
Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:Yup. Keep the" new and improved" low standards. I'll take the old and traditional standards from at least 16 other countries including Vietnam when it comes to mathematics! What is MCPS trying to reinvent? For how many decades do we have to go through this reinvention? Someone's making a whole lot of money. I guess given the state of the economy we might as well create more useless jobs to address elementary school mathematics -- Folk, there is no new knowledge (arithematics and prealgebra) to keep recreating curricula and textbooks every 2 years! MCPS needs competent teachers not new textbooks, workbooks/sheets or curricula.
False... Part of the reason for 2.0 and core is we do not study math like Asian countries (among others) do. Since Americans only memorize tables we cannot compete on average. The change is a step in the right direction.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:24
Subject: Re:2.0
From the curriculum 2.0:
Mathematics teaching and learning must be challenging and rigorous with an emphasis on problem solving and reasoning. The
curriculum makes a distinction between problem solving as a general process and the solution of specific word problems which
demonstrate application of mathematical skills. A mathematical problem is something that you do not already know how to do.
Problem solving is the process of transforming something that you do not know how to do into something familiar. (Steen, 1997)
The mathematical problem solving situations that students encounter should include problems that require broader thinking than
traditional word problems demand. (Burns, 1992) Word problems are a means for practicing computation. For example, a
traditional word problem might ask: How much change would you receive from a $10 bill if you spend $2.75? The intent of this
problem is to practice subtraction. Problem solving, on the other hand, should require students to develop a plan, execute the plan,
and establish a purpose for learning to compute.
Mathematics teaching and learning must be challenging and rigorous with an emphasis on problem solving and reasoning. The
curriculum makes a distinction between problem solving as a general process and the solution of specific word problems which
demonstrate application of mathematical skills. A mathematical problem is something that you do not already know how to do.
Problem solving is the process of transforming something that you do not know how to do into something familiar. (Steen, 1997)
The mathematical problem solving situations that students encounter should include problems that require broader thinking than
traditional word problems demand. (Burns, 1992) Word problems are a means for practicing computation. For example, a
traditional word problem might ask: How much change would you receive from a $10 bill if you spend $2.75? The intent of this
problem is to practice subtraction. Problem solving, on the other hand, should require students to develop a plan, execute the plan,
and establish a purpose for learning to compute.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:15
Subject: Re:2.0
Yup. Keep the" new and improved" low standards. I'll take the old and traditional standards from at least 16 other countries including Vietnam when it comes to mathematics! What is MCPS trying to reinvent? For how many decades do we have to go through this reinvention? Someone's making a whole lot of money. I guess given the state of the economy we might as well create more useless jobs to address elementary school mathematics -- Folk, there is no new knowledge (arithematics and prealgebra) to keep recreating curricula and textbooks every 2 years! MCPS needs competent teachers not new textbooks, workbooks/sheets or curricula.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:04
Subject: Re:2.0
Anonymous wrote:I am the parent of the 2nd grader who went to the grading meeting.
There is one fundamental that has not been addressed in this thread -
THE STANDARDS BY WHICH YOUR CHILDREN ARE BEING MEASURED ARE CHANGING. "Common Core" standards are being rolled out in 48 states, including Maryland. The curriculum was going to change no matter what. The fundamentals being taught in each grade were going to change no matter what. Each school system in Maryland, and in the other 47 states for that matter, is going to have to roll out a new curriculum so that children become proficient (that's a common core word) in each standard at the grade level established by the Common Core Standard.
The bottom line is that you may not like MoCo's 2.0 Curriculum, but no matter what, there was going to be a new curriculum to meet Common Core. You'd have to move to either Texas or Virginia to avoid a change to Common Core and a new curriculum.
I can't say that how MoCo is rolling out the new curriculum is any better or worse than another system would roll out a curriculum, but I am taking a wait and see attitude. I have that luxury because I have a happy, apparently average intelligence child who loves going to school. She is learning far more than I ever learned in second grade, and if that is all I get, then I'll stick with 2.0. Sorry, but with all the bluster on DCUM over the past two years about 2.0, I am still not seeing a disaster.
Parents, you aren't going to change MoCo and 2.0, so I suggest you find a way to work in the system or move Snowflake to another system or to private.
Totally agree. But maybe its because my kid is average. God forbid!!
Anonymous
09/19/2012 20:01
Subject: Re:2.0
The poster cannot answer the question because the poster's mathematics background and understanding is very limited. The poster still thinks someone who is "fluent" with a strong foundation in fractions and decimals (with the various and sundry arithematic manipulations) somehow needs further deep understanding of multiplication by "relearning" multiplication tables (for a whole year) with 3 rd graders who have yet been introduced to division from last year's teacher who struggles to "prepare" the lesson plan!
Give me tote of what the poster is smoking!
Give me tote of what the poster is smoking!
Anonymous
09/19/2012 19:42
Subject: Re:2.0
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.
Please explain to me the value of having third-graders previously working 1-2 grades ahead now exploring - under 2.0 - a deeper understanding of place values. PLEASE.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 19:12
Subject: Re:2.0
The fundamental problem here is not curriculum 2.0 or x, it is the poor quality of elementary school math teaching. Curriculum 2.0 will not address the fundamental problem here. When you have teachers with expertise in prealgebra who can teach then the bureaucrats need to get out of the way and not limit the access of able students tp advanced or accelerated math concepts. Simply get out of the way. It is clear these bureacrats are smiply impediments to learning and anti-intellectual types. They should return to coaching lacrosse and soccer.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 18:46
Subject: Re:2.0
Precisely why kids in the far east bushes without fancy wrapping and curriculum 2.0 do much better than our children in basic math ... And even English.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 18:40
Subject: Re:2.0
Continued ...
Espouse. The principles of elementary school math and prealgebra have not changed in 101 years
Curricular come and go. Math remains the same but lots of bureacrats make big bucks.
Espouse. The principles of elementary school math and prealgebra have not changed in 101 years
Curricular come and go. Math remains the same but lots of bureacrats make big bucks.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 18:35
Subject: Re:2.0
Elementary school math and topics have not changed in a 101 years. Math does not change because of new wrapping eg. Curriclum 2.0 or curriculum x. There are MCPS students in 3 rd grade that have mastered elementary school math and prealgebra regardless of what lay parents and incompetent educators
Anonymous
09/19/2012 18:07
Subject: 2.0
Anonymous wrote:You make no sense. Either all you speak is bureaucratic-language (many words meaning nothing) or you simply choose to believe the or soon of MCPS.
Let's simplify: let's say you have current 3rd graders who were accelerated last year. These kids were doing, let's say, complex multiplication and division and doing it well. In your language they "mastered" it. Why, then, are these kids now doing addition and subtraction along side kids who were never accelerated? Taking kids that have done multiplication, division, graphs, measurement etc. and having them spend this year on simple concepts makes no sense.
BTW, don't suggest that all of these accelerated kids really needed more time on addition.
You haven't the foggiest notion what the words being presented to you mean... Doing well and/or mastering multiplication calculating is not at all the same as understanding the underlying principles of multiplication.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 18:05
Subject: Re:2.0
17:40, this is 17:55 again.
The classroom teacher is supposed to be teaching different levels of math, not all the kids in one big group. It's same way they do reading to small groups. This applies only up to 3rd grade this year. If you are not seeing that in the classroom, then there is a problem.
It is also still very early in the year, so the teachers are just now complete some of the assessments to assign kids to groups. If you have a question, ask the teacher. My principal emphasized kids are supposed to still be challenged.
The classroom teacher is supposed to be teaching different levels of math, not all the kids in one big group. It's same way they do reading to small groups. This applies only up to 3rd grade this year. If you are not seeing that in the classroom, then there is a problem.
It is also still very early in the year, so the teachers are just now complete some of the assessments to assign kids to groups. If you have a question, ask the teacher. My principal emphasized kids are supposed to still be challenged.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 17:55
Subject: Re:2.0
I am the parent of the 2nd grader who went to the grading meeting.
There is one fundamental that has not been addressed in this thread -
THE STANDARDS BY WHICH YOUR CHILDREN ARE BEING MEASURED ARE CHANGING. "Common Core" standards are being rolled out in 48 states, including Maryland. The curriculum was going to change no matter what. The fundamentals being taught in each grade were going to change no matter what. Each school system in Maryland, and in the other 47 states for that matter, is going to have to roll out a new curriculum so that children become proficient (that's a common core word) in each standard at the grade level established by the Common Core Standard.
The bottom line is that you may not like MoCo's 2.0 Curriculum, but no matter what, there was going to be a new curriculum to meet Common Core. You'd have to move to either Texas or Virginia to avoid a change to Common Core and a new curriculum.
I can't say that how MoCo is rolling out the new curriculum is any better or worse than another system would roll out a curriculum, but I am taking a wait and see attitude. I have that luxury because I have a happy, apparently average intelligence child who loves going to school. She is learning far more than I ever learned in second grade, and if that is all I get, then I'll stick with 2.0. Sorry, but with all the bluster on DCUM over the past two years about 2.0, I am still not seeing a disaster.
Parents, you aren't going to change MoCo and 2.0, so I suggest you find a way to work in the system or move Snowflake to another system or to private.
There is one fundamental that has not been addressed in this thread -
THE STANDARDS BY WHICH YOUR CHILDREN ARE BEING MEASURED ARE CHANGING. "Common Core" standards are being rolled out in 48 states, including Maryland. The curriculum was going to change no matter what. The fundamentals being taught in each grade were going to change no matter what. Each school system in Maryland, and in the other 47 states for that matter, is going to have to roll out a new curriculum so that children become proficient (that's a common core word) in each standard at the grade level established by the Common Core Standard.
The bottom line is that you may not like MoCo's 2.0 Curriculum, but no matter what, there was going to be a new curriculum to meet Common Core. You'd have to move to either Texas or Virginia to avoid a change to Common Core and a new curriculum.
I can't say that how MoCo is rolling out the new curriculum is any better or worse than another system would roll out a curriculum, but I am taking a wait and see attitude. I have that luxury because I have a happy, apparently average intelligence child who loves going to school. She is learning far more than I ever learned in second grade, and if that is all I get, then I'll stick with 2.0. Sorry, but with all the bluster on DCUM over the past two years about 2.0, I am still not seeing a disaster.
Parents, you aren't going to change MoCo and 2.0, so I suggest you find a way to work in the system or move Snowflake to another system or to private.
Anonymous
09/19/2012 17:40
Subject: 2.0
You make no sense. Either all you speak is bureaucratic-language (many words meaning nothing) or you simply choose to believe the or soon of MCPS.
Let's simplify: let's say you have current 3rd graders who were accelerated last year. These kids were doing, let's say, complex multiplication and division and doing it well. In your language they "mastered" it. Why, then, are these kids now doing addition and subtraction along side kids who were never accelerated? Taking kids that have done multiplication, division, graphs, measurement etc. and having them spend this year on simple concepts makes no sense.
BTW, don't suggest that all of these accelerated kids really needed more time on addition.
Let's simplify: let's say you have current 3rd graders who were accelerated last year. These kids were doing, let's say, complex multiplication and division and doing it well. In your language they "mastered" it. Why, then, are these kids now doing addition and subtraction along side kids who were never accelerated? Taking kids that have done multiplication, division, graphs, measurement etc. and having them spend this year on simple concepts makes no sense.
BTW, don't suggest that all of these accelerated kids really needed more time on addition.