Anonymous wrote:Some people get education degrees to teach math and science. Those degrees are very much more rigorous than people that get education degree who never studied content such as a lot of admin. People that study math and science are typically nerdy people that will be bullied by admin because those people are adverse to lying and frauding the data which is a big modus in education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh geeze. They scheduled this meeting when Julie Yang was supposed to be gone at her kid's graduation but she opted to stay so she can advocate for this. Yikes.

After the regional program approval day, I feel now she is more or less isolated by the rest of the BOE for being the "political incorrect" figure to voice out for gifted education. Sigh...

Gifted students raise the bar too much for the board... can't actually address barriers to bring lower performing students up. Instead we have to chop the highest performers down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like kids currently in second grade are totally neglected in this plan - slides 13-14 totally glosses over them. I don’t understand how to help my kid get what he needs

Provide it yourself and assume that MCPS is actively hostile to educational achievement.

Sure, more than happy to. We do this with everything else but a) not sure what’s out there/high quality for math (CTY, RSM, etc) and b) this plan is hasty and ill-conceived and was barely publicized. I’m at a loss for how to advocate for change when I’m not even sure what’s is coming down the line - especially for current second graders.

According to the testimonies from the curriculum study committee, this newly approved math curriculum is good, maybe better than Eureka math according to them. However, each of them also warned multiple times that bad implementation would cause more harm than benefit. They accurately predict MCPS's inability.

This is the problem with MCPS that I have witnessed time again in the 13 years we've been with MCPS. They are terrible at implementing new programs.

100% this will do more harm than good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like kids currently in second grade are totally neglected in this plan - slides 13-14 totally glosses over them. I don’t understand how to help my kid get what he needs

Provide it yourself and assume that MCPS is actively hostile to educational achievement.

Sure, more than happy to. We do this with everything else but a) not sure what’s out there/high quality for math (CTY, RSM, etc) and b) this plan is hasty and ill-conceived and was barely publicized. I’m at a loss for how to advocate for change when I’m not even sure what’s is coming down the line - especially for current second graders.

According to the testimonies from the curriculum study committee, this newly approved math curriculum is good, maybe better than Eureka math according to them. However, each of them also warned multiple times that bad implementation would cause more harm than benefit. They accurately predict MCPS's inability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh geeze. They scheduled this meeting when Julie Yang was supposed to be gone at her kid's graduation but she opted to stay so she can advocate for this. Yikes.

After the regional program approval day, I feel now she is more or less isolated by the rest of the BOE for being the "political incorrect" figure to voice out for gifted education. Sigh...

Anonymous wrote:Oh geeze. They scheduled this meeting when Julie Yang was supposed to be gone at her kid's graduation but she opted to stay so she can advocate for this. Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If state requires that kids in grades 2-5 be regrouped by level for math class, have or are they also suggesting group them by reading level as well? Isn't it comsidered a discrimination if there are 4 classes in a grade, all poor performing math or/reading kids are all grouped one class if they decide to go down that route?

No, it's just a math thing. And the idea is that the groupings are flexible and reassessed regularly, so the kids are not "tracked" or stuck in a "high track" or a "low track" but can go up and down over time as needed.

If it's anything like the tracked reading groups, I would be livid. The kids in the higher group were left to their own devices because the teacher was more focused on the lower performing groups.

Compacted math allows for the higher performing kids to get more attention from the teachers than in group settings.

I saw this happen with the reading groups for my DCs. It was terrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like kids currently in second grade are totally neglected in this plan - slides 13-14 totally glosses over them. I don’t understand how to help my kid get what he needs

Provide it yourself and assume that MCPS is actively hostile to educational achievement.

Sure, more than happy to. We do this with everything else but a) not sure what’s out there/high quality for math (CTY, RSM, etc) and b) this plan is hasty and ill-conceived and was barely publicized. I’m at a loss for how to advocate for change when I’m not even sure what’s is coming down the line - especially for current second graders.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like I’m going to cry. Why the heck are they doing this? I have a 5th grader who was dismayed by the destruction of ELC and only enjoys compacted math this year. They are in a cohorted ELA class but the material is no better. They do not have WIN time on any sort of regular basis. I can’t believe instead of trying to fix the mess they made they want to go break down something else that works fine- the only thing working well for advanced kids. It really feels like someone has a vendetta against advanced kids and these changes are only meant to ruin their access to appropriate curriculum. This sucks for teachers too. WTH

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If state requires that kids in grades 2-5 be regrouped by level for math class, have or are they also suggesting group them by reading level as well? Isn't it comsidered a discrimination if there are 4 classes in a grade, all poor performing math or/reading kids are all grouped one class if they decide to go down that route?

No, it's just a math thing. And the idea is that the groupings are flexible and reassessed regularly, so the kids are not "tracked" or stuck in a "high track" or a "low track" but can go up and down over time as needed.

Anonymous wrote:If state requires that kids in grades 2-5 be regrouped by level for math class, have or are they also suggesting group them by reading level as well? Isn't it comsidered a discrimination if there are 4 classes in a grade, all poor performing math or/reading kids are all grouped one class if they decide to go down that route?