Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is math under 2.0 "deeper"? I'm not trying to be a pain, just generally curious. I just don't really understand how concepts like arithmetic and fractions are made deeper. Is it just more repetition or something?

Pretty much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since K through 3 have not been accelerated during his tenure (the "go-slow but deep") we have an appropriate control or comparator group to test your hypothesis. Tell me how these kids are doing on outside metrics (e.g., MSA) last year, this year and the next? It will be interesting to follow this cohort out. So far, from what I have gathered from the recent summer MSA release results for the elementary school kids they are not holding ground but moving in reverse. I do not believe any of these kids were accelerated or enriched under Starr; rather beneficiaries of a much deeper curriculum with emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving.

As discussed at the very beginning of this thread, the MSAs are not a valid assessment of learning under the Common Core. So the fact that third graders taught third grade math under C 2.0 did not score as well as third graders taught third grade math under the curriculum the MSAs were designed to assess doesn't really say much.

But, didn't MSA scores decline across the board, not just for third graders (the only ones taking MSA who had been taught under 2.0)?

which other grades take MSAs?

Anonymous wrote:How is math under 2.0 "deeper"? I'm not trying to be a pain, just generally curious. I just don't really understand how concepts like arithmetic and fractions are made deeper. Is it just more repetition or something?

Anonymous wrote:
But, didn't MSA scores decline across the board, not just for third graders (the only ones taking MSA who had been taught under 2.0)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since K through 3 have not been accelerated during his tenure (the "go-slow but deep") we have an appropriate control or comparator group to test your hypothesis. Tell me how these kids are doing on outside metrics (e.g., MSA) last year, this year and the next? It will be interesting to follow this cohort out. So far, from what I have gathered from the recent summer MSA release results for the elementary school kids they are not holding ground but moving in reverse. I do not believe any of these kids were accelerated or enriched under Starr; rather beneficiaries of a much deeper curriculum with emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving.

As discussed at the very beginning of this thread, the MSAs are not a valid assessment of learning under the Common Core. So the fact that third graders taught third grade math under C 2.0 did not score as well as third graders taught third grade math under the curriculum the MSAs were designed to assess doesn't really say much.

But, didn't MSA scores decline across the board, not just for third graders (the only ones taking MSA who had been taught under 2.0)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since K through 3 have not been accelerated during his tenure (the "go-slow but deep") we have an appropriate control or comparator group to test your hypothesis. Tell me how these kids are doing on outside metrics (e.g., MSA) last year, this year and the next? It will be interesting to follow this cohort out. So far, from what I have gathered from the recent summer MSA release results for the elementary school kids they are not holding ground but moving in reverse. I do not believe any of these kids were accelerated or enriched under Starr; rather beneficiaries of a much deeper curriculum with emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving.

As discussed at the very beginning of this thread, the MSAs are not a valid assessment of learning under the Common Core. So the fact that third graders taught third grade math under C 2.0 did not score as well as third graders taught third grade math under the curriculum the MSAs were designed to assess doesn't really say much.

Anonymous wrote:Since K through 3 have not been accelerated during his tenure (the "go-slow but deep") we have an appropriate control or comparator group to test your hypothesis. Tell me how these kids are doing on outside metrics (e.g., MSA) last year, this year and the next? It will be interesting to follow this cohort out. So far, from what I have gathered from the recent summer MSA release results for the elementary school kids they are not holding ground but moving in reverse. I do not believe any of these kids were accelerated or enriched under Starr; rather beneficiaries of a much deeper curriculum with emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving.

Anonymous wrote:Most importantly, the elimination of acceleration for the able and ready and the insistence of one size fits all in a single classroom...does Starr espouse these changes or will you find another excuse for him. Of course, these ideas came before him!

Anonymous wrote:And how does the Common Core curriculum differ from 2.0?

"Over the last eight years, a large majority of students have been accelerated through the math curriculum, as teachers and principals have been pressured to meet unrealistic targets. As a result, students have accumulated gaps in their understanding. Dr. Starr has been working to slow acceleration, but the effects linger on and could take many years to overcome. In fact, there is still a target for 71% of students to pass Algebra 1 in 8th grade in 2013 in spite of recommendations by math resource teachers and the 2009 K-12 math workgroup that all targets be removed. All stakeholders need to understand that acceleration cannot substitute for depth of instruction. Even for a relatively small number of highly able students, magnet teachers have recommended the specialized curriculum available in magnet programs rather than acceleration through the standard curriculum."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/11/teachers-why-so-many-kids-are-flunking-final-exams-in-montgomery-county/

I'm looking forward to your explanation of how that really means "We don't like it when Asian-American students do well in math, and we're going to stop it."

Anonymous wrote:"Amother way of thinking about what the poster is saying - strategic implementation of a system designed to reduce the performance gap by bringing the tail ends of the performance distribution to the middle. Eliminating student advancement for the ready and able and forcing all to receive the same instruction within the same class acheives this goal by bring up the back while retarding the front."

this seems to sum things up well. I think that this is the natural consequence of lumping all the kids into a class together so that it becomes much harder to target the more advanced kids since you have so little time for that and the greatest onus is put on bringing the others up to passing.