Anonymous wrote:This is familiar to the Romnesque disaster in progress.

Romney (and the Republican party) and MCPS leadership are peas in a pod: Etch-a-sketch, flip-flop, power point smoke and mirrors designed to avoid responding directly to questions from parents, children and the electorate. This has gone on for at least 2 years in regard curriculum 2.0.

I laugh when I hear the various MCPS principals, teachers and MCPS leadership attempt to transmit the "talking points from downtown" about curriculum 2.0. Every parent gets a different take and message depending on which MCPS principal, elementary school teacher of MCPS bureaucrat you talk with. Things are rotten in the State of Denmark. I smell a rat.

For the last 2 years we have heard a lot of different messages from assorted MCPS messengers:

All children will get math education appropriate for their level of mastery. We will differentiate math instruction in all classes. Children will not have to repeat math work already mastered. No child will accelerate or advance in math if appropriate. Children will be allowed to advance or accelerate. We still approve of kids taking geometry in 8 th grade. We don't approve of children taking algebra in elementary school. The teachers are learning the system. We have no metrics to assess how kids in curriculum 2.0. We do have metrics to assess our children in curriculum 2.0. We are not targeting the GT crowd. We are not targeting the aboe average students in the curriculum. Which 47% is MCPS teaching to? Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop ....blah, blah blah...social engineering...close the achievement gap with lying statistics ...

Does this all sound familiar in light of the current election climate.

MCPS flip-flopping, etch-a-sketch, power point lies.

Some one has already stated this is a disaster in the making.

On the contrary, the disaster is already here. Just look at the mixed messages and the incompetent roll out and execution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly despise it when anonymous posters presume that we parents of math-accelerated GT kids fight for what our children need in school. There is no acceptable reason any child should come home saying they hate math because it is boring. I've heard it over and over, from my child, from friends' children.

I have no problem with a curriculum change that brings more depth and understanding. I DO have a problem with a system that insists all children are at the same level because of their age. Math is no different than reading. Should my child who taught himself to read at age 4 sit in a classroom waiting for kids to catch up? If every piece of math work that my child does is used as an example to the others in the class for instruction, doesn't that signal that the child needs to move on to harder concepts?

There's absolutely no reason that MCPS shouldn't continue to re-group children to homogenous math classrooms based on what they are ready to learn. It's more efficient for teachers and children get more time learning what they are ready to learn. What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

As Dr. Starr has said, accelerated children are not the bulk of the children that we serve in our school system.

Do I take pride in my child moving to a different classroom? I never thought of it that way. I do EXPECT my child to be taught at school, not to be the teacher.

So, does that mean I have to sue the public schools to provide an education for my child or pay for private school to do that? Isn't that, essentially, the approach of special ed kids at the other end of the spectrum?

I truly despise when anonymous posters pretend to speak for all parents of "accelerated" kids. My dc is all of the above and I'm one of the biggest defenders here of 2.0.

You say that, but how do we know it's true? You could just be the MCPS-bot who was spraying corporate-speak several pages back now masquerading as a parent. If you are the parent of an accelerated kid, please make your case and tell us why 2.0 is so great.

Anonymous wrote:23:23 here, responding to 6:41

I'm asking where the proof is that the accelerated children did not master the concepts, and would benefit from taking 2 steps back next year, as "dead zombie" poster suggested.

If the proof is in the report cards given out months after they've already been placed back in math, then the assessment has nothing to do with the placement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I truly despise it when anonymous posters presume that we parents of math-accelerated GT kids fight for what our children need in school. There is no acceptable reason any child should come home saying they hate math because it is boring. I've heard it over and over, from my child, from friends' children.

I have no problem with a curriculum change that brings more depth and understanding. I DO have a problem with a system that insists all children are at the same level because of their age. Math is no different than reading. Should my child who taught himself to read at age 4 sit in a classroom waiting for kids to catch up? If every piece of math work that my child does is used as an example to the others in the class for instruction, doesn't that signal that the child needs to move on to harder concepts?

There's absolutely no reason that MCPS shouldn't continue to re-group children to homogenous math classrooms based on what they are ready to learn. It's more efficient for teachers and children get more time learning what they are ready to learn. What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

As Dr. Starr has said, accelerated children are not the bulk of the children that we serve in our school system.

Do I take pride in my child moving to a different classroom? I never thought of it that way. I do EXPECT my child to be taught at school, not to be the teacher.

So, does that mean I have to sue the public schools to provide an education for my child or pay for private school to do that? Isn't that, essentially, the approach of special ed kids at the other end of the spectrum?

I truly despise when anonymous posters pretend to speak for all parents of "accelerated" kids. My dc is all of the above and I'm one of the biggest defenders here of 2.0.

Anonymous wrote:I truly despise it when anonymous posters presume that we parents of math-accelerated GT kids fight for what our children need in school. There is no acceptable reason any child should come home saying they hate math because it is boring. I've heard it over and over, from my child, from friends' children.

I have no problem with a curriculum change that brings more depth and understanding. I DO have a problem with a system that insists all children are at the same level because of their age. Math is no different than reading. Should my child who taught himself to read at age 4 sit in a classroom waiting for kids to catch up? If every piece of math work that my child does is used as an example to the others in the class for instruction, doesn't that signal that the child needs to move on to harder concepts?

There's absolutely no reason that MCPS shouldn't continue to re-group children to homogenous math classrooms based on what they are ready to learn. It's more efficient for teachers and children get more time learning what they are ready to learn. What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

As Dr. Starr has said, accelerated children are not the bulk of the children that we serve in our school system.

Do I take pride in my child moving to a different classroom? I never thought of it that way. I do EXPECT my child to be taught at school, not to be the teacher.

So, does that mean I have to sue the public schools to provide an education for my child or pay for private school to do that? Isn't that, essentially, the approach of special ed kids at the other end of the spectrum?

Anonymous wrote:I truly despise it when anonymous posters presume that we parents of math-accelerated GT kids fight for what our children need in school. There is no acceptable reason any child should come home saying they hate math because it is boring. I've heard it over and over, from my child, from friends' children.

I have no problem with a curriculum change that brings more depth and understanding. I DO have a problem with a system that insists all children are at the same level because of their age. Math is no different than reading. Should my child who taught himself to read at age 4 sit in a classroom waiting for kids to catch up? If every piece of math work that my child does is used as an example to the others in the class for instruction, doesn't that signal that the child needs to move on to harder concepts?

There's absolutely no reason that MCPS shouldn't continue to re-group children to homogenous math classrooms based on what they are ready to learn. It's more efficient for teachers and children get more time learning what they are ready to learn. What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

As Dr. Starr has said, accelerated children are not the bulk of the children that we serve in our school system.

Do I take pride in my child moving to a different classroom? I never thought of it that way. I do EXPECT my child to be taught at school, not to be the teacher.

So, does that mean I have to sue the public schools to provide an education for my child or pay for private school to do that? Isn't that, essentially, the approach of special ed kids at the other end of the spectrum?

Anonymous wrote:

No matter how many times you slay the zombie it just keeps rising from the dead.

You are not repeating a year of curriculum if you have not grasped the matter conceptually. If you were in second grade and did third grade math, move onto third grade the following year under a curriculum that assesses mastering mathematics fundamentaly (which was not stressed under the old system) then you cannot move to fourth grade material until that happens. Its all quite simple but the same zombie idea keeps rising from the dead to be slayed again.

Parents are frustrated because this simple idea they cannot understand.

"

No, I am frustrated because I don't agree with it. Where is the proof that accelerated children currently in 4th and 5th grade do not grasp the matter conceptually? My child seems to grasp it. The frequent math assessments indicated that he grasped it. The students I watched when volunteering in the math class seemed to grasp it. If you don't believe (or MCPS doesn't believe) that MCPS math testing has validity to assess mastery of concepts, then MCPS should put forward a more successful indicator. Simply saying that the students didn't grasp the math because this statement fits with 2.0 philosophy is not proof.

If math has been mistaught under the old curriculum, what proof is there that the students doing grade-level work mastered the concepts? They take the same tests . . . they were introduced to the same concepts, only at a different pace . . . do they need to repeat the material from last year and the year before, etc., etc., to prove they fully mastered it before they can advance?

Anonymous wrote:
What MCPS is saying to us is that our children need to be the examples for the kids who don't get it. So, sorry, accelerated kids, sit and wait for everyone to catch up to you. We'll give you a bone here and there, but mostly suck it up.

No matter how many times you slay the zombie it just keeps rising from the dead.

You are not repeating a year of curriculum if you have not grasped the matter conceptually. If you were in second grade and did third grade math, move onto third grade the following year under a curriculum that assesses mastering mathematics fundamentaly (which was not stressed under the old system) then you cannot move to fourth grade material until that happens. Its all quite simple but the same zombie idea keeps rising from the dead to be slayed again.

Parents are frustrated because this simple idea they cannot understand.

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 wrote: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.