Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Cause that's what it seems like at Bannockburn Elementary School.

I'm sorry to read this.

(It does suggest to me, however, that the idea that the best schools in MCPS are in Bethesda is wrong. My kids' school has a FARMS rate and an ESOL rate both over 20%, and my experience of Curriculum 2.0 has been great.)

Again, at the risk of putting too fine a point on this, but schools that haven't been high-achieving will (of course) have a better experience with 2.0. Schools that were high-achieving with a lot of students in advanced/enriched classes are the ones losing with 2.0. This speaks to the fact that 2.0 is damaging the higher-achieving students by taking away opportunities and pathways to advance beyond the basic level. 2.0 has always been about bringing up the bottom and keeping the top from thriving -- that should trouble everyone.

Anonymous wrote:
Really? Cause that's what it seems like at Bannockburn Elementary School.

I'm sorry to read this.

(It does suggest to me, however, that the idea that the best schools in MCPS are in Bethesda is wrong. My kids' school has a FARMS rate and an ESOL rate both over 20%, and my experience of Curriculum 2.0 has been great.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No..it is saying the top 3% probably need a curriculumn that is different from the majority. MoCo kids may be as a whole more affluent etc then kids from a rural area and can handle an overall more challenging curriculum (or so we would like to believe)..but that doesn't mean that most can't be in a standard MoCo classroom.

Exactly. By and large the standard curriculum of a given place reflects that place's demographics. You will find a different curriculum in a county school system in e.g. rural Alabama than you will in MoCo or Cambridge.

A question is why Common core fits MoCo then. I have to say that the strategy of 3% sounds make sense. However, the two comments above exactly dispute the foundation of the common core to some extent.

The Common Core is not a curriculum. The Common Core is standards. In this grade, students should be able to do [this], and they should be able to do [that]. You can look the standards up here:

http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

School districts design their curricula so that they align with the Common Core standards.

Please note that "aligning with the Common Core standards" does not mean "students will be able to do this AND NOTHING MORE".

Really? Cause that's what it seems like at Bannockburn Elementary School.

Anonymous wrote:First, the Common Core is not a curriculum. The Common Core is standards. It is up to the state and the school district to write the curriculum.

Second, is our goal that not every kid in the classroom gets to the proficient level?

Third, if your previously great MCPS ES has gone from an enriching challenge to a rigid drilling bureaucracy after the adoption of Curriculum 2.0, Curriculum 2.0 is not responsible for this. If it were, the same thing would have happened at every school. And it hasn't.

To answer your erroneous points:
1) yes, the CC is a standard, not a curriculum, but it forms the basis for the watered-down-lower-common-denominator curriculum that is written to adhere to it
2) yes, I would love to see every child in the classroom reach proficient (whatever, exactly that means), but I would not do so at the expense of the high-achieving students
3) the reason our "previously great" MCPS ES has gone downhill (perhaps more than other ESs) is precisely because we were operating at a high level (farther to fall, so to speak)

Don't be fooled, the CC is the starting point to an erosion of the public school system in this country. It is about bringing it down to a sub-par level in the name of equality of education. Unintended consequences, indeed.

I thought this thread was about HGC and not the general student population.

First, the Common Core is not a curriculum. The Common Core is standards. It is up to the state and the school district to write the curriculum.

Second, is our goal that not every kid in the classroom gets to the proficient level?

Third, if your previously great MCPS ES has gone from an enriching challenge to a rigid drilling bureaucracy after the adoption of Curriculum 2.0, Curriculum 2.0 is not responsible for this. If it were, the same thing would have happened at every school. And it hasn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent point! The issue with Common Core is that, on some level, it ignores this reality and approaches curriculum standards as if students across the country were all performing at the "average point" when plenty are excelling (your Cambridge, MA example). Areas where excellence is happening need to be encouraged (and, perhaps even more rigor could be added), areas where sub-par performance is happening need extra encouragement/support. But, to treat the entire country as if the performance was similar across the board ignores the truth and obscures the areas where need exists.

Nowhere in the Common Core does it say that students are only allowed to be able to do the things in the Common Core standards and are forbidden from doing anything more. If states want to add more, then they are free to add more -- as far as I know.

Let's assume you're right )that individual states can add not to the cc standards. In practice that simply wouldn't work b/c there are only do many hours in the school day. If your school must cover x,y and z under the cc standards, that is where the time must be spent. The lessons will be written to support those standards, tests will cover the standards, etc. So, even if not prohibited from doing more, the reality is that schools won't be able to do more.

I don't get it. You are arguing that if Cambridge, MA, required x, y, and z before the Common Core, but the Common Core only requires x and y, then with the Common Core, Cambridge, MA, will only be able to do x and y, because there are only so many hours in the school day. How does that work?

Oh, that's easy. It's because the curriculum is written in such a way that you must cover x and y ad nauseam until every kid in the classroom gets to the proficient level. That could mean that you must cover addition for 6 months because that is what the new standard (and your corresponding curriculum) dictates. So, whereas in the past Cambridge might have been able to assess the kids and recognize that they could master addition in 1 month and then move along to, say, multiplication, now they would need to remain working on addition.

It essentially becomes the ridiculous extreme of "teaching to the test" by making it "working to the standard" or "working to the inflexible curriculum." After all, if the curriculum dictates, say, 6 months of addition work, the teachers would have to go around the curriculum in order to add enrichment and/or to move more quickly. In addition, the test that corresponds to the new standard will only test addition (to continue our example), so we know how that goes, right. Sure, it means that the teachers have to drill and drill and drill addition so the kids are "ready for the test." I know this all defies logic and common sense. If our previously great MCPS ES hadn't done these types of things with the rollout of curriculum 2.0, I wouldn't be nearly so cynical about these new standard. Honestly, within on year our school went from enriching, ability level appropriate level work which challenged kids of all levels and became a rigid, everyone must learn the same things at the same pace bureaucratic system. Looking at the bored faces of kids who had previously done challenging work, as they were forced to do worksheets on addition for-- literally-- months at a time was just plain sad. Sad and wrong.

This is what can happen when good intentions are implemented over large groups without proper thought to the unintended consequences.

Anonymous wrote:I think Mass rejected the common core so Cambridge would not be changing.

No. Massachusetts has adopted the Common Core.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/05/are-new-curriculum-standards-any-better/lCMcfN54tVvAo1R54MNBQK/story.html

I think Mass rejected the common core so Cambridge would not be changing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent point! The issue with Common Core is that, on some level, it ignores this reality and approaches curriculum standards as if students across the country were all performing at the "average point" when plenty are excelling (your Cambridge, MA example). Areas where excellence is happening need to be encouraged (and, perhaps even more rigor could be added), areas where sub-par performance is happening need extra encouragement/support. But, to treat the entire country as if the performance was similar across the board ignores the truth and obscures the areas where need exists.

Nowhere in the Common Core does it say that students are only allowed to be able to do the things in the Common Core standards and are forbidden from doing anything more. If states want to add more, then they are free to add more -- as far as I know.

Let's assume you're right )that individual states can add not to the cc standards. In practice that simply wouldn't work b/c there are only do many hours in the school day. If your school must cover x,y and z under the cc standards, that is where the time must be spent. The lessons will be written to support those standards, tests will cover the standards, etc. So, even if not prohibited from doing more, the reality is that schools won't be able to do more.

I don't get it. You are arguing that if Cambridge, MA, required x, y, and z before the Common Core, but the Common Core only requires x and y, then with the Common Core, Cambridge, MA, will only be able to do x and y, because there are only so many hours in the school day. How does that work?

Agreed, an HGC environment might allow for that. I was referring to a regular classroom environment (many different ability levels, some kids needing remedial help, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent point! The issue with Common Core is that, on some level, it ignores this reality and approaches curriculum standards as if students across the country were all performing at the "average point" when plenty are excelling (your Cambridge, MA example). Areas where excellence is happening need to be encouraged (and, perhaps even more rigor could be added), areas where sub-par performance is happening need extra encouragement/support. But, to treat the entire country as if the performance was similar across the board ignores the truth and obscures the areas where need exists.

Nowhere in the Common Core does it say that students are only allowed to be able to do the things in the Common Core standards and are forbidden from doing anything more. If states want to add more, then they are free to add more -- as far as I know.

Let's assume you're right )that individual states can add not to the cc standards. In practice that simply wouldn't work b/c there are only do many hours in the school day. If your school must cover x,y and z under the cc standards, that is where the time must be spent. The lessons will be written to support those standards, tests will cover the standards, etc. So, even if not prohibited from doing more, the reality is that schools won't be able to do more.

In the HGC they can cover more because they can move quickly through Common Core and that opens up time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent point! The issue with Common Core is that, on some level, it ignores this reality and approaches curriculum standards as if students across the country were all performing at the "average point" when plenty are excelling (your Cambridge, MA example). Areas where excellence is happening need to be encouraged (and, perhaps even more rigor could be added), areas where sub-par performance is happening need extra encouragement/support. But, to treat the entire country as if the performance was similar across the board ignores the truth and obscures the areas where need exists.

Nowhere in the Common Core does it say that students are only allowed to be able to do the things in the Common Core standards and are forbidden from doing anything more. If states want to add more, then they are free to add more -- as far as I know.

Let's assume you're right )that individual states can add not to the cc standards. In practice that simply wouldn't work b/c there are only do many hours in the school day. If your school must cover x,y and z under the cc standards, that is where the time must be spent. The lessons will be written to support those standards, tests will cover the standards, etc. So, even if not prohibited from doing more, the reality is that schools won't be able to do more.

The HGC was not the adjustment that I expected it to be. The homework is very manageable. I wonder if this will change next semester when they revert to last years curriculum or if our HGC just has less homework than others.

Anonymous wrote:
Excellent point! The issue with Common Core is that, on some level, it ignores this reality and approaches curriculum standards as if students across the country were all performing at the "average point" when plenty are excelling (your Cambridge, MA example). Areas where excellence is happening need to be encouraged (and, perhaps even more rigor could be added), areas where sub-par performance is happening need extra encouragement/support. But, to treat the entire country as if the performance was similar across the board ignores the truth and obscures the areas where need exists.

Nowhere in the Common Core does it say that students are only allowed to be able to do the things in the Common Core standards and are forbidden from doing anything more. If states want to add more, then they are free to add more -- as far as I know.