Anonymous wrote:I am sorry but I really don't know how to argue with someone who is reading maybe only every third line I write. Perhaps I need to learn to be more brief. But at least we agree that the ability to solve a logic puzzle is not a good indication of anything, which was precisely my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

Please answer - did you see math curricculum for G1-G2? Do you realy think parents cannot see if their children mastered concept of addition 1 to 20 and application of this knowelage to solve problem?

The constant evasiveness in answering the two questions above is persuasive evidence that the demand for math acceleration may be more about bragging rights and less about learning. Remember that storm over losing the GT label?

I get the GTA emails and I know there is one individual obsessed with math pathways. All the postings about math pathways may the work of one person.

One need not have seen the entire curriculum (which it should the the school's job to provide, by the way) to know that a child who has already mastered multiplication and division by 1st grade is not going to be served by the on-grade 1st grade curriculum, whatever new labels or creative methods of instruction you introduce. There are only so many ways to add 2+2. If you told me that MCPS's new way of teaching 2+2 is so new and different from what has been taught for the past 10,000 years that even someone who has already mastered two-digit multiplication would have something new to learn from it, I would be even more concerned.

Now, at higher grade levels, I could almost see it. It is perfectly possible to come up with challenging, tricky problems, problems that would stump most grownups, that do not require any math beyond 4th grade level to solve. See the problem lists for Kangaroo Math or any other math olympiad for example. But, first, these aren't really math problems so much as logic problems or creativity problems. Second, do you really think that a classroom in which the bright kids are given a string of olympiad problems while the others are learning the on-grade material is really the optimal learning environment?

It's a funny coincidence, but today my daughter came home from school with a very challenging logical puzzle. This after two months of her entire class (the 5th graders who were placed into 6th grade math, and most of whom would have been placed in 7th grade math if the school still offered such an option) being bored out of their minds. For whatever reason, they've been forced to spent this entire time reviewing material they'd learned two years ago. Well today was their lucky day. They got the puzzle. The teacher did not teach them how to solve logical puzzles. He did not do one together with them in class. He just handed them this one (more challenging than the ones I remember from the math GRE) and told them to solve it. That's it. Is this what differentiation under 2.0 will look like?

Got it!! You think that the ability to mechanically do things is a demonstration of understanding!!! That is the problem. You confuse mechanical ability, rote memorization, etc., with a deep understanding.

AS for your daughter in 5th grade--she may be doing more than what they used to do in 5th grade before. She may be learning more. A good thing, no?

Look, I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with you, but your response shows that you did not bother to read a single thing I wrote. I really don't want to make this into a pissing contest, but here goes. I have a PhD in math. My graduate work included several semesters of teaching the subject to college students at various levels of ability. I have also been tutoring math to kids of all ages since I was in 10th grade. Now it is possible that your own credentials are much more impressive. Perhaps you've been teaching elementary school math for 20 years in both the inner city and the CTY campus. Perhaps you are the recognized expert on math education in this country or the world. But as you are clearly an advocate of alternative ways of measuring mastery and achievement, how about this. I will post a snapshot of the logic problem my 5th grader got in class today (which none in her class could solve, because no one taught them how, and which I am still trying to puzzle out, an hour after she had gone to bed). If you can solve it in under 15 minutes, I will bow to your authority on the new curriculum and anything else pertaining to math acceleration or the proper way to measure "understanding". But I will still demand specifics rather than just vitriol against entitled parents who think their kids are special. Deal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

Please answer - did you see math curricculum for G1-G2? Do you realy think parents cannot see if their children mastered concept of addition 1 to 20 and application of this knowelage to solve problem?

The constant evasiveness in answering the two questions above is persuasive evidence that the demand for math acceleration may be more about bragging rights and less about learning. Remember that storm over losing the GT label?

I get the GTA emails and I know there is one individual obsessed with math pathways. All the postings about math pathways may the work of one person.

One need not have seen the entire curriculum (which it should the the school's job to provide, by the way) to know that a child who has already mastered multiplication and division by 1st grade is not going to be served by the on-grade 1st grade curriculum, whatever new labels or creative methods of instruction you introduce. There are only so many ways to add 2+2. If you told me that MCPS's new way of teaching 2+2 is so new and different from what has been taught for the past 10,000 years that even someone who has already mastered two-digit multiplication would have something new to learn from it, I would be even more concerned.

Now, at higher grade levels, I could almost see it. It is perfectly possible to come up with challenging, tricky problems, problems that would stump most grownups, that do not require any math beyond 4th grade level to solve. See the problem lists for Kangaroo Math or any other math olympiad for example. But, first, these aren't really math problems so much as logic problems or creativity problems. Second, do you really think that a classroom in which the bright kids are given a string of olympiad problems while the others are learning the on-grade material is really the optimal learning environment?

It's a funny coincidence, but today my daughter came home from school with a very challenging logical puzzle. This after two months of her entire class (the 5th graders who were placed into 6th grade math, and most of whom would have been placed in 7th grade math if the school still offered such an option) being bored out of their minds. For whatever reason, they've been forced to spent this entire time reviewing material they'd learned two years ago. Well today was their lucky day. They got the puzzle. The teacher did not teach them how to solve logical puzzles. He did not do one together with them in class. He just handed them this one (more challenging than the ones I remember from the math GRE) and told them to solve it. That's it. Is this what differentiation under 2.0 will look like?

Got it!! You think that the ability to mechanically do things is a demonstration of understanding!!! That is the problem. You confuse mechanical ability, rote memorization, etc., with a deep understanding.

AS for your daughter in 5th grade--she may be doing more than what they used to do in 5th grade before. She may be learning more. A good thing, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

Please answer - did you see math curricculum for G1-G2? Do you realy think parents cannot see if their children mastered concept of addition 1 to 20 and application of this knowelage to solve problem?

The constant evasiveness in answering the two questions above is persuasive evidence that the demand for math acceleration may be more about bragging rights and less about learning. Remember that storm over losing the GT label?

I get the GTA emails and I know there is one individual obsessed with math pathways. All the postings about math pathways may the work of one person.

From what I understand from the poster is that her daughter is learning the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again-- and did I say over and over and over and over and over again?

One need not have seen the entire curriculum (which it should the the school's job to provide, by the way) to know that a child who has already mastered multiplication and division by 1st grade is not going to be served by the on-grade 1st grade curriculum, whatever new labels or creative methods of instruction you introduce. There are only so many ways to add 2+2. If you told me that MCPS's new way of teaching 2+2 is so new and different from what has been taught for the past 10,000 years that even someone who has already mastered two-digit multiplication would have something new to learn from it, I would be even more concerned.

Now, at higher grade levels, I could almost see it. It is perfectly possible to come up with challenging, tricky problems, problems that would stump most grownups, that do not require any math beyond 4th grade level to solve. See the problem lists for Kangaroo Math or any other math olympiad for example. But, first, these aren't really math problems so much as logic problems or creativity problems. Second, do you really think that a classroom in which the bright kids are given a string of olympiad problems while the others are learning the on-grade material is really the optimal learning environment?

It's a funny coincidence, but today my daughter came home from school with a very challenging logical puzzle. This after two months of her entire class (the 5th graders who were placed into 6th grade math, and most of whom would have been placed in 7th grade math if the school still offered such an option) being bored out of their minds. For whatever reason, they've been forced to spent this entire time reviewing material they'd learned two years ago. Well today was their lucky day. They got the puzzle. The teacher did not teach them how to solve logical puzzles. He did not do one together with them in class. He just handed them this one (more challenging than the ones I remember from the math GRE) and told them to solve it. That's it. Is this what differentiation under 2.0 will look like?

Got it!! You think that the ability to mechanically do things is a demonstration of understanding!!! That is the problem. You confuse mechanical ability, rote memorization, etc., with a deep understanding.

AS for your daughter in 5th grade--she may be doing more than what they used to do in 5th grade before. She may be learning more. A good thing, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

Please answer - did you see math curricculum for G1-G2? Do you realy think parents cannot see if their children mastered concept of addition 1 to 20 and application of this knowelage to solve problem?

The constant evasiveness in answering the two questions above is persuasive evidence that the demand for math acceleration may be more about bragging rights and less about learning. Remember that storm over losing the GT label?

I get the GTA emails and I know there is one individual obsessed with math pathways. All the postings about math pathways may the work of one person.

One need not have seen the entire curriculum (which it should the the school's job to provide, by the way) to know that a child who has already mastered multiplication and division by 1st grade is not going to be served by the on-grade 1st grade curriculum, whatever new labels or creative methods of instruction you introduce. There are only so many ways to add 2+2. If you told me that MCPS's new way of teaching 2+2 is so new and different from what has been taught for the past 10,000 years that even someone who has already mastered two-digit multiplication would have something new to learn from it, I would be even more concerned.

Now, at higher grade levels, I could almost see it. It is perfectly possible to come up with challenging, tricky problems, problems that would stump most grownups, that do not require any math beyond 4th grade level to solve. See the problem lists for Kangaroo Math or any other math olympiad for example. But, first, these aren't really math problems so much as logic problems or creativity problems. Second, do you really think that a classroom in which the bright kids are given a string of olympiad problems while the others are learning the on-grade material is really the optimal learning environment?

It's a funny coincidence, but today my daughter came home from school with a very challenging logical puzzle. This after two months of her entire class (the 5th graders who were placed into 6th grade math, and most of whom would have been placed in 7th grade math if the school still offered such an option) being bored out of their minds. For whatever reason, they've been forced to spent this entire time reviewing material they'd learned two years ago. Well today was their lucky day. They got the puzzle. The teacher did not teach them how to solve logical puzzles. He did not do one together with them in class. He just handed them this one (more challenging than the ones I remember from the math GRE) and told them to solve it. That's it. Is this what differentiation under 2.0 will look like?

Anonymous wrote:Let's make it simple: MCPS cannot produce a document that clearly and concisely describes what (if any) opportunities are available for differentiation and/or acceleration in math under 2.0.

Anyone who has been to a 2.0 meeting knows that these meetings start with powerpoint presentations describing 2.0. In addition, documents describing 2.0 are distributed. Nothing in these documents describes differentiation/acceleration for math. This suggests (proves, maybe) that no such path exists.

MCPS is nothing if not heavy of documentation, description, paperwork, etc. So, if we are to believe Starr that paths to differentiation/acceleration exist, there must be paperwork describing those paths. Mr. Starr, show us the paperwork!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

Please answer - did you see math curricculum for G1-G2? Do you realy think parents cannot see if their children mastered concept of addition 1 to 20 and application of this knowelage to solve problem?

The constant evasiveness in answering the two questions above is persuasive evidence that the demand for math acceleration may be more about bragging rights and less about learning. Remember that storm over losing the GT label?

I get the GTA emails and I know there is one individual obsessed with math pathways. All the postings about math pathways may the work of one person.

Anonymous wrote:
You said: "To test giftedness, you really have to test above grade level, not at grade level." That is what all this is really about--using math to have your well prepared child classified as gifted. Getting the child labeled gifted by forcing MCPS to accelerate them!!! Do you really think MCPS hasn't figured you people out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick examples:

1) If a 5th or 6th grader passes the HSA Algebra 1 exam with a score of above 90% and has an math SAT score > 700 (qualifies for the SET group at JHU for 13 yr old and under group) and wants to move ahead to geometry or algebra 2 I would qualify as an imbecile for blocking this move in preference for marinade in Math 5, 6 or IM in MPCS. Even if MCPS is too lazy to expeditiously access the child and she on her own takes those exams as an example.

2) If a student starts Kindergarten and has already mastered addition, multiplication, division and subtraction I would qualify as an imbecile if his math menu is counting blocks to 100 all year. That is simply not commensurate with his achievement and not a challenge for her as it might be for her peers. I find MCPS is either too lazy to assess and evaluate kids or is incompetent and doesn't know how to assess the achievement levels of K kids or doesn't care as their objective is not to challenge kids appropriately.

Most competent teachers and school systems know how to make these assessments and evaluations in an expeditious manner.

Do you want more case studies and examples?

Please answer the question regarding C 2.0.

1. How did the parents who decided that their child is bored in class figure out that their child had mastered the grade level C 2.0 curriculum?
2. How did the parents obtain the complete C 2.0 math curriculum to answer the question above?

It is sad that you need to stoop to derogatory terms in any response. Sure, Starr has violated your sense of entitlement but that's no reason to be obnoxious. Ever wonder why MCPS ignores parents??

To test giftedness, you really have to test above grade level, not at grade level. MCPS does this with the 2nd grade Raven test. It might do this with the MAP-R and MAP-M, but I don't know enough about them yet. I was never sure about my kid's HG status until he was tested privately for the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. In that test, my 4th grader took a 6th grade level test and graded out in the 90th percentile among 6th graders. So if you have this kind of information and you see what your kid can do at home, then you know that adding numbers between 1 and 20 is not really challenging.