The College Board, like the MCPS leadership, is made up of the old generation elite and the education estabilshment that watch a new generation of high performers that are from the recent immegrant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-college-board-can-move-past-sat-blunder/2012/06/06/gJQAeLZpIV_blog.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/sat-summer_n_1560537.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATADOANAns-5_gRIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=pj5lijQ1iCY&usg=AFQjCNE4-ClC5s0wEqrqcXe2qh7DgwsWGQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-college-board-sat-20120605,0,5866106.story&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATACOAJAkfK-_gRIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=nJ3cbFZozP0&usg=AFQjCNFwmOugsuzeEB5rA_EIg6yUI-Eathttp://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-06-04/summer-SAT-students/55385706/1&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATACOAJAns-5_gRIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=pj5lijQ1iCY&usg=AFQjCNG7hhzJYJFxsK3ss9OR5KywH-I7pQhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2012-06-04/summer-SAT-students/55385706/1&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATACOAJAns-5_gRIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=pj5lijQ1iCY&usg=AFQjCNG7hhzJYJFxsK3ss9OR5KywH-I7pQhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-college-board-sat-20120605,0,5866106.story&ct=ga&cad=CAEQAhgAIAAoATACOAJAkfK-_gRIAVAAWABiBWVuLVVT&cd=nJ3cbFZozP0&usg=AFQjCNFwmOugsuzeEB5rA_EIg6yUI-EatQ

Anonymous wrote:I think that Curriculum 2.0 is structured as prep for the MSA. I've heard several school admins say this off the record. The reality for math is that it just doesn't matter if kids want to learn math. They only need to perform to the level of the MSA so any resource spent beyond this point is a waste of a resource for MCPS.

Really? That is odd, because our school admins told us that with Common Core standards coming in, MSA would be phased out. Curriculum 2.0 IS the MCPS way of adopting common core. There will be testing, but it won't be MSA, and we were told it would be very different from MSA. The proposed timing we heard was that those kids finishing kindergarten now are unlikely to take MSA, as the new tests will be in place by the time they hit 3rd grade. MSA may remain for middle and HS as 2.0 is rolled out to the those grades, but I am not sure.

Anonymous wrote:I think that Curriculum 2.0 is structured as prep for the MSA. I've heard several school admins say this off the record. The reality for math is that it just doesn't matter if kids want to learn math. They only need to perform to the level of the MSA so any resource spent beyond this point is a waste of a resource for MCPS.

I think this is the sad reality.

Anonymous wrote:I relayed a conversation with my 1st grader and another parent made an assumption that because something requires no thought and is easy that the child was bored. That was an incorrect extrapolation. Easy does not always lead to boredom- her (and her classmates) creative response is a high level of sociability. Perhaps I should have noted I had been observing the class that day (and do go in periodically when they ask for volunteers). I've been surprised by the consistent noise and lack of direction when I walk in on occasion. On the other hand, for the most part it is "happy noise" without conflict so I attribute this to the work style of the current teacher.

I do not in any way discount the needs of the ESOL kids- this is first grade and no doubt they will be fluent in English and better off for speaking multiple languages within a couple of years. My point was that if the kids speak English as a native language, most of the work is not challenging. And, given the "no acceleration" policy with the new curriculum, they will provide extra work, but it is busy work and not inherently challenging. Without the challenge the tasks can be fun, but they do not expand thought or require as much concentration as your average video game. If you want progress, you have to do additional work at home. This is not just true for the gifted students, it's true for a large number of students.

The fact is, the note that they sent home indicates that all students should be getting 100% right on their spelling every week. They are all being given the same words, but the reading levels are vastly different. Why not give them words that reflect the level where they currently are? Why not push all children? I'm not saying all the time, but yes, a lot more than they do now.

DD is finishing first grade a Silver Spring ES. Her class does not all get the same spelling words. Those on first grade spelling get one set of patterned words, those on second grade spelling get a different set of patterned words. The high frequency words are even more individualized because kids will continue to get the high frequency words each week until they spell them correctly. So some may have three new high frequency words and two repeats from last week, some may have five new words, some none, etc. A couple of the kids in DD's class have moved up to third grade high frequency words because they tested through all the first and second grade words.

I relayed a conversation with my 1st grader and another parent made an assumption that because something requires no thought and is easy that the child was bored. That was an incorrect extrapolation. Easy does not always lead to boredom- her (and her classmates) creative response is a high level of sociability. Perhaps I should have noted I had been observing the class that day (and do go in periodically when they ask for volunteers). I've been surprised by the consistent noise and lack of direction when I walk in on occasion. On the other hand, for the most part it is "happy noise" without conflict so I attribute this to the work style of the current teacher.

I do not in any way discount the needs of the ESOL kids- this is first grade and no doubt they will be fluent in English and better off for speaking multiple languages within a couple of years. My point was that if the kids speak English as a native language, most of the work is not challenging. And, given the "no acceleration" policy with the new curriculum, they will provide extra work, but it is busy work and not inherently challenging. Without the challenge the tasks can be fun, but they do not expand thought or require as much concentration as your average video game. If you want progress, you have to do additional work at home. This is not just true for the gifted students, it's true for a large number of students.

The fact is, the note that they sent home indicates that all students should be getting 100% right on their spelling every week. They are all being given the same words, but the reading levels are vastly different. Why not give them words that reflect the level where they currently are? Why not push all children? I'm not saying all the time, but yes, a lot more than they do now.

I'm just guessing that the way it was done before was not working for some students. Maybe not those with parents on here. I don't think anyone is threatened by bright children; MoCo needs its brightest kids to continue to do well. I think it's more likely that the change was made specifically to help the average kids rather than specifically to hurt the advanced kids. But given the degree of resistance, I wouldn't be surprised if the policies are modified over time to allow more advancement.

I'd really like to get down to specifics. When I was a kid, the "advanced" math was doing Algebra I in 8th, Geometry in 9th, Algebra II in 10th, Trigonometry in 11th, and Calclulus in 12th. That's all that was offered for advanced kids. Now, that old "advanced" route is apparently the new standard for all kids in MoCo. How bad can this be?

If it was not working for some students is the appropriate fix to demote those students (return them back to their grade level) or punish the other able students by doing away with the pathway or taking away this option? MCPS is not addressing the root cause of this problem by taking away the pathway for able and willing high performers. This begs the true motive here.

If the bright kids are increasingly not the kids of the leadership or MCPS establishment their success is indeed a threat and the leadership will hatch or concoct policies and to reestablish the balance and make their kids look good. If the kids of the MCPS leadership and establishment were indeed, by and large, these able high performers this policy would never have been entertained.

Kids are smarter and intellectually quicker than you and I were 30 to 50 years ago (as it should be). There are kids in Algebra 1 in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade. The internet, online classes and computer programming discrete mathematical logic are evening the playing fields. There is a reason why the landscape of high performers today looks alot different than 30 or 40 years ago. This slow change is indeed threatening to the teachers and leaders in Montgomery county. These teachers and leaders are increasingly teaching children of a different ethnic and racial mix that are out performing the traditional high performers of yesteryear. When the MCPS teachers and leadership start to reflect the backgrounds of the children in the MCPS schools this foolish policy will disappear.

I'm just guessing that the way it was done before was not working for some students. Maybe not those with parents on here. I don't think anyone is threatened by bright children; MoCo needs its brightest kids to continue to do well. I think it's more likely that the change was made specifically to help the average kids rather than specifically to hurt the advanced kids. But given the degree of resistance, I wouldn't be surprised if the policies are modified over time to allow more advancement.

I'd really like to get down to specifics. When I was a kid, the "advanced" math was doing Algebra I in 8th, Geometry in 9th, Algebra II in 10th, Trigonometry in 11th, and Calclulus in 12th. That's all that was offered for advanced kids. Now, that old "advanced" route is apparently the new standard for all kids in MoCo. How bad can this be?

What is so threatening to the MCPS locals or MCPS establishment about allowing the able high performers the opportunity and choice for math advancement while teaching to the middle and bottom? Isn't this a "win win" proposition for all stakeholders concerned? The high performers may drift to the middle of the next math step. In other words, keep the pathways for the able (no 40% mandates for acceleration -- just evidence-driven) and adopt and worship the new curriculum 2.0? This is much wiser and sounder educational policy for the 21st century.

If tHe MSAs are to test the competency of our kids when it comes to important knowledge, then what's wrong with teaching them the things they need to know for the MSAs. I'll never understand the thinking that we shouldn't structure our kids' education around what's on the MSAs.

I think that Curriculum 2.0 is structured as prep for the MSA. I've heard several school admins say this off the record. The reality for math is that it just doesn't matter if kids want to learn math. They only need to perform to the level of the MSA so any resource spent beyond this point is a waste of a resource for MCPS.

That dialog doesn't quite sound like evidence to me. My 6-year-old always says things are easy for him. He climbs around the monkey bars and says "I can do this! This is easy!" He swims a few feet and says "I can swim! This is easy!" Maybe it's an age where they are building confidence and celebrating their own mastery. And if it were me as a mom, I would nip that talk of boredom in the bud. There is always something to learn in every situation, and boredom is just a lack of creativity. Finally, don't discount the needs of the COLOR group you describe, because they are about a third of elementary students in the county (ESOL).

Also, to quote my 1st grader on the reading/writing/social studies part, "I can talk when I do my work because it's easy."

me: but what about your friends? maybe it's distracting for them.

1st grader: no, everyone in my group can talk and do the work.

me: what about other groups? maybe if your group is talking they can't concentrate.

1st grader, thinks for a minute. responds: no, all the groups can (do the work and talk) except the COLOR group.

me: the COLOR group?

1st grader: They don't speak English.

So we go to the library and do other things because the reading curriculum is also limited.

I have had kids in both. Can't say I like either. Under the old system, they would jump kids up a grade level without paying attention to the concepts in-between. Parents were then expected to provide the intermediate instruction to prevent a knowledge gap. When over half the kids are "accelerated" I think there is a problem with defining accelerated. Clearly, it was just bad, jumpy education.
Now, I have a child who is extremely bored. The "enrichment activities" are too easy. And there are no other options.

A far better solution would be to use a stepped program the way they did at one of the schools I went to (and one that my eldest attended recently in another state). Using flowcharts the kids move through the SAME curriculum at their own pace. You slow down or speed up the movement of students by demanding higher level of mastery on tests (minimum of 75%, but can make some high performers achieve 90 or 95% before being allowed to move on).

So, basically, either way I have to teach them, except in the year that they get the "super-teacher" who manages this within the curriculum they are mandated.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think prohibiting math acceleration for all able, proficient, and willing kids demonstrating mastery in MCPS is the solution to your childhood observations? Sounds straight out of Mao's communist China and the RED book. I would not want may taxes supporting such policies. I do not think you can generalize your anecdotal childhood observations, perceptions and opinions to how to educate individual students in our County. For every "burned out" kid you claim to have witnessed I have also seen many go from boredom in school, to class disturber, school trouble maker, dismissal and explusion for lack of intellectual and academic challenge. Unless you can provide more compelling data and evidence than these anecdotes, that able, capable and willing kids are harmed (or burned out) by advancement in math you have done little to convince me such draconian policy is necessary. School policy should not be founded on anecdotes. School policy should be evidence-based. Some will argue some MCPS kids in past ran into troubles with knowledge gaps but this was also due to another foolish policy mandating a percentage 9up to 40 percent) of a given class needs to be accelerated in math. The problem here is with mandates -- not the benefits of acceleration for appropriate students.

Listen, it wasn't an anecdote; I was just trying to temper this disagreement by telling you where I was coming from and hoping you would tell me where you were coming from. It's the kind of cooperation and compromise necessary to share a school system of 70,000 very different elementary students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Naivete is bliss. It's not the recent immigrants and their children who are the MCPS leadership and teachers in our schools. At least in the schools my kids attend the leadership and teachers do not reflect the race and ethnicity of the students being led and taught. There is a tremendous lag. The traditional leadership of MCPS and her schools are run still run by the old generation. They teach an increasing multi-cultural and diverse student body many of whom out perform their own children and thus get the "entitled" spoils: prizes, awards, magnet slots, Ivy slots and other prize college admissions ...

+100000


Your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, really.

Let's try a different approach. In my children's MCPS school (upper west county) the leadership and teachers do not reflect the race and ethnicity of the students they lead and teach. Most of the students (recent immigrant generation) are outperforming most of the student body. If the MCPS leadership and teachers reflected the backgrounds of these high performers (witness the increasing diversity in Montgomery County) it would be a snowy day in hell before that group would prohibit students with subject mastery from advancing. The advocates of this policy, within MCPS, are the "entitled" or "establishment" group with kids losing out (or missing out on customary entitlements) to these high performers (There is a reason TJ magnet, Blair magnet Takoma Park magnet and just about any magnet school in the US are increasingly populated with children not of the traditional educational establishment). This observation worries the establishment and their children. This regressive policy has absolutely nothing to do with the new common core standards and everything to do with trying to close this glaring emerging gap. It is a desperate attempt to try to hold kids back so they don't get to far ahead.

This is utterly ridiculous. Why would they want to hold back high performers who make the school system as a whole look better.

Because it looks even better to claim they closed the gap between blacks/Hispanics and whites/Asians. It also helps attract more blacks/Hispanics since whites are leaving MC.

I think they SHOULD be working on closing that gap.