Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the petition on change.org to change the current curriculum 2.0 to better accommodate differentiated student levels in particular math....Search "No Time To Waste " on change .org...We really need signatures to make improvements happen...Don t just complain....Take action! Thanks

Why the anonymity behind the petition? The GTA email list shows just one parent behind the push for math based segregation. Before signing the petition ask:

why math only?
what is the hidden agenda?
why anonymous posting?

Anonymous wrote:Check out the petition on change.org to change the current curriculum 2.0 to better accommodate differentiated student levels in particular math....Search "No Time To Waste " on change .org...We really need signatures to make improvements happen...Don t just complain....Take action! Thanks

Anonymous wrote:The 2.0 goal chart says it all: All kids are aiming for proficient. Proficient = meeting state standards that align with 47 other states. MCPS before Starr used to aim higher for our kids. A good chunk of our kids aimed for and reached above state standards. These kids are now left to "independently" learn while the teacher focuses and catching up the rest of the class. They are no longer receiving above state standards instruction.

Anonymous wrote:Where is the community response? In 2008 Maryland was voted one of the top five state school systems in the nation, along with Virginia. Montgomery County Public Schools have been rolling out the new Curriculum 2.0 and as we have heard over and over, "the goal is proficiency." Another name for proficiency is competence. Compare that with other schools systems whose goals include excellence (which we have always been told to strive for). Our teachers are working harder than ever, with less support in the class room. And now so many decisions have been made that include no more honors, no more recognition for acceleration or advanced abilities, no more rewards or reasons for our kids to strive....the goal is proficiency. While the completely different curriculum may end up being a challenge for some, there is no concrete plan to address the needs and abilities of students who learn quickly and at an accelerated pace and who would benefit from regular advanced instruction. If a student demonstrates proficiency on a topic, where is the commitment of our school system to provide for those children beyond the common core? who would benefit from more in-depth critical thinking ? The Montgomery County Public Schools website answers this question by saying the curriculum itself is enriched and advanced. This is a non-answer. There may be many reasons that are given for the new curriculum. But advanced and accelerated learners are by definition being ignored. It is not the fault of our teachers. With the new curriculum they are not given the tools they need to both serve and move the majority towards proficiency and address the needs of advanced students. We demand more from Montgomery County. If we as parents do not take action, I wonder if in 2013 we will still be considered one of the top five state school systems in the nation. I doubt it. Maybe we will move back to Fairfax County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Okay I see. I didn't know whether or not MCPS would allow kids to skip grades or not. I guess I should've figured that they didn't as no one has brought it up before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

A girl who was in K last year at my son's MoCo public school last year skipped to 2nd grade this year, so it does happen. I don't know if the mom fought for this or not, but she doesn't seem like the type that would.


MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Okay I see. I didn't know whether or not MCPS would allow kids to skip grades or not. I guess I should've figured that they didn't as no one has brought it up before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

MCPS resists moving kids ahead a grade (there was one case in the news a few years back where someone fought long and hard to get his daughter moved ahead a grade; not sure what the outcome was). And truth be told, for some kids the social consequences of grade skipping outweigh the academic advantages. It's a no-win situation when the schools aren't willing to give advanced learners advanced material.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Again, I will ask - would it be appropriate for some kids to be moved ahead a grade? Perhaps MCPS does not do allow kids to skip a grade - I just don't know. But it may be one solution.

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.

Anonymous wrote:In critiquing 2.0, I am seeing the 'my child is bored' vs 'my child is fine' arguments. Parents extrapolate to the whole system based on their limited experience with the kids around them. We have to recognize that for various reasons some kids are ahead of other kids. The question is whether it is acceptable to hold kids back when you have the resources to move them ahead.

I have two kids. One is doing fine in 2.0. My older child would have been bored silly. For those of you that don't have an outlier kid, either SN or HG, please don't tell those that do to suck it up. It is not about trying to get our kids into Harvard or get more resources . It is about watching all of your child's natural curiosity slowly sucked out of them due to boredom. In pre-school my one child wanted to be a scientist and we worked on experiments together. He loved reading, math and going to preschool. In K-2, which did not differentiate, this child used to come home and scream that he hated school (but liked his teachers) and that school was boring.

C2.0 is a disaster because it forces all these different learners into one square hole. Aside from that, I still can't believe how it bypassed parent input and how it is being rolled out so quickly without any kind of piloting. It may get changed and modified over 10 years, but this cohort of kids is getting short-changed.

I will vote against this BOE.