Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can claim the track is "projected" on average to be ahead by one year but it still does not benefit the smart kids. You are no longer allowed to take Algebra I in 6th grade. They dumb down the curriculum in elementary school so you can not make that pathway.

If you're saying that the entire math curriculum has been "dumbed down" because a very small number of students who previously would have taken Algebra I in 6th grade and calculus in 10th grade now must take Algebra I in 7th grade and calculus in 11th grade -- well, ok. But I disagree with you.

It is dumbed down for the smarter kids, yes. And at my daughter's ES school there were over 20 of 97 kids that went on to Algebra 1 years ago. It wasn't that small of a number. There are just many more uneducated children coming into the MCPS system these days and shrinking the percentage of these kids. Not the actual number but percentage. But that is not those kid's fault but yet they have to pay that price.

That's rare.

When my son was at Westland, I was in the office one day and happened to see the clipboard of kids who rode the bus to BCC in Algebra 2 (the kids who would have taken Algebra 1 in 6th). The list was maybe 12 kids, or about 1% of the student body. Now, there might have been more kids who took Algebra 1 in sixth and repeated a class along the way somewhere, but of kids who started on that track, and stayed on that track, there were 12 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a PP in IT, and I totally agree with the bolded. I see this a lot in the many developers I work with. And this is because the old way of teaching math in a lot of the Asian countries were just rote, memorize the formula and plug in the numbers. But even they have started to change how they teach math. They now include more critical thinking in their math curriculum as well.

Critical thinking has ALWAYS been a part of the American system, just like the other poster explained in that post the PP quoted. Math instruction was not so broken that you had to revert to dumbing it down and putting all abilities into one homogeneous class.

Did you read the thread about the teacher not understanding the new math? Unfortunately, many adults, including teachers, have a weak understanding of math. I don't think the issue is 2.0 math.

This is part of the problem with the way math used to be taught. As long as you could come up with the right answer, you could pass. You didn't have to really understand why something was done the way it was. I remember formulas that I learned and the steps, but I don't remember why that formula works because we spent most of the time rote learning rather than understanding why it was done the way it was - explaining in depth why the answer was right. This is how math used to be taught, for the most part.

I'm pretty impressed by my 4th grader when DC can explain why 1/4 is less than 1/3. There are adults in the US who were educated here that can't answer why 1/4 < 1/3.

Math minded people will do well no matter how it's taught. For the rest, not explaining why the answer is xyz doesn't help them understand math.

I guess I don't really understand what kind of explanation would be appropriate for the 1/4 vs 1/3 question. I mean, I could draw a picture that would show it. Or if I had to do it verbally, I'd say "because if you cut something into 4 equal pieces those pieces will be smaller than if you cut it into 3 pieces". Is that a sufficient answer?
I am a parent, and I was definitely a "math" kid. I'm also very verbal, so that part doesn't scare me. But it does seem like they've injected a lot of "edu-speak" into the "new math" that makes it unnecessarily inaccessible to parents (and it looks like some teachers as well).

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a PP in IT, and I totally agree with the bolded. I see this a lot in the many developers I work with. And this is because the old way of teaching math in a lot of the Asian countries were just rote, memorize the formula and plug in the numbers. But even they have started to change how they teach math. They now include more critical thinking in their math curriculum as well.

Critical thinking has ALWAYS been a part of the American system, just like the other poster explained in that post the PP quoted. Math instruction was not so broken that you had to revert to dumbing it down and putting all abilities into one homogeneous class.

Did you read the thread about the teacher not understanding the new math? Unfortunately, many adults, including teachers, have a weak understanding of math. I don't think the issue is 2.0 math.

This is part of the problem with the way math used to be taught. As long as you could come up with the right answer, you could pass. You didn't have to really understand why something was done the way it was. I remember formulas that I learned and the steps, but I don't remember why that formula works because we spent most of the time rote learning rather than understanding why it was done the way it was - explaining in depth why the answer was right. This is how math used to be taught, for the most part.

I'm pretty impressed by my 4th grader when DC can explain why 1/4 is less than 1/3. There are adults in the US who were educated here that can't answer why 1/4 < 1/3.

Math minded people will do well no matter how it's taught. For the rest, not explaining why the answer is xyz doesn't help them understand math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have two children in MCPS. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Curriculum 2.0 is a dumbed-down version of the Common Core standards? I.e., that if students taught under this curriculum will not meet the standards?

sigh... read the whole thread... I'm not going to regurgitate what has been debated ad nauseam, although maybe this is why you think the curriculum is okay... just a repeating of the same simple facts over and over again.

I've read the whole thread. My summary of the thread is "MCPS MATH IS TERRIBLE!!!" (on the one side) and "Actually not everything is terrible, and some things are better than they used to be" (on the other side). Or is that the summary of the other thread currently about the terribleness of math in MCPS? I can't remember.

In any case, what I'm asking is whether you think that Curriculum 2.0 is "dumbed down" but the Common Core standards are ok, or whether you think they're both "dumbed down"?

Not PP but to answer your question: 2.0 is the curriculum that MCPS is using to meet CC standards.

1. 2.0 math is "dumbed down" to those who want their kids to be accelerated in math because 2.0 forces kids to repeat the basics until they know it inside out. It takes things slowly, lots of repetitive worksheets
2. 2.0 math is too hard for kids that are not verbal since it requires them to have to explain in writing how they got to the answer and why the answer is correct
3. 2.0 math is dumbed down because it doesn't cover the same breadth of subject matter that the math curriculum used to - related to #1
4. 2.0 math tracking expects most kids to take algebra 1 by 8th grade - ok, that's not dumbed down. That actually exceeds most states' standards.

If a kid is not going into a STEM field, then I think 2.0 math actually will benefit these kids because they will have a really good basic understanding of math, which I think is sorely lacking even in most adults today.

If a kid is going into a STEM field, it is also important for the kid to have a really good foundation. However, the kid may be at a disadvantage compared to kids from other countries who have probably been taught more advanced math earlier on. But, that doesn't mean that these foreign students that have been doing more advanced math understands the concepts any better. This is key. It's great if someone can do advanced math, but what good is it in the real world if you don't know how to apply it?

Anonymous wrote:

I have two children in MCPS. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Curriculum 2.0 is a dumbed-down version of the Common Core standards? I.e., that if students taught under this curriculum will not meet the standards?

sigh... read the whole thread... I'm not going to regurgitate what has been debated ad nauseam, although maybe this is why you think the curriculum is okay... just a repeating of the same simple facts over and over again.

I've read the whole thread. My summary of the thread is "MCPS MATH IS TERRIBLE!!!" (on the one side) and "Actually not everything is terrible, and some things are better than they used to be" (on the other side). Or is that the summary of the other thread currently about the terribleness of math in MCPS? I can't remember.

In any case, what I'm asking is whether you think that Curriculum 2.0 is "dumbed down" but the Common Core standards are ok, or whether you think they're both "dumbed down"?

I have two children in MCPS. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Curriculum 2.0 is a dumbed-down version of the Common Core standards? I.e., that if students taught under this curriculum will not meet the standards?

sigh... read the whole thread... I'm not going to regurgitate what has been debated ad nauseam, although maybe this is why you think the curriculum is okay... just a repeating of the same simple facts over and over again.

^^^...that students taught under this curriculum will not meet the standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Which of the Common Core standards involve "dumbing down"? Can you provide some examples, please?

The way MCPS is implementing CC is a dumbed down version, if you have a child in MCPS you would see that.

I have two children in MCPS. But I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Curriculum 2.0 is a dumbed-down version of the Common Core standards? I.e., that if students taught under this curriculum will not meet the standards?

Which of the Common Core standards involve "dumbing down"? Can you provide some examples, please?

The way MCPS is implementing CC is a dumbed down version, if you have a child in MCPS you would see that.

Anonymous wrote:

OK first, your standard examples:

1. CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1 - Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.
2. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1 - Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

#1 sound easy enough but tell me how this wasn’t being done pre CC? #2 this sounds easy too, answer a question to determine knowledge… hmmm I think pre CC math did this too. The problem isn’t necessarily the standard as written, its enacting the standard. The devil is in the detail here. For these standards to be ‘standardized’, regulations are required to explain exactly how #1 and especially #2 are to be performed. Thousands of pages of written requirements will dictate how to accomplish. If schools do not rigidly adhere, they will not receive the federal monies, thus schools will rigidly adhere. But the catch is… Please show me the peer reviewed scientific literature showing randomized double blinded controlled studies proving the application of these standards per the regulatory component works. Hint, there isn’t any.

So the Common Core standards are revolutionary and require 20 years of randomized double-blind controlled studies, plus they were already being done anyway. Got it.

By the way, a double-blind study means that neither the researcher nor the study subject knows which treatment the study subject is getting. Please explain how this would be possible in a study of the effectiveness of a curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a PP in IT, and I totally agree with the bolded. I see this a lot in the many developers I work with. And this is because the old way of teaching math in a lot of the Asian countries were just rote, memorize the formula and plug in the numbers. But even they have started to change how they teach math. They now include more critical thinking in their math curriculum as well.

Critical thinking has ALWAYS been a part of the American system, just like the other poster explained in that post the PP quoted. Math instruction was not so broken that you had to revert to dumbing it down and putting all abilities into one homogeneous class.

Which of the Common Core standards involve "dumbing down"? Can you provide some examples, please?

Also, within-class differentiation vs. tracking is a separate issue, which has been controversial for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Look we have 100 years of evidence showing how we teach math works. We know it works for those who 1) attend school, 2) are interested in school, and 3) will do the work school requires of them.

No, we don't. We have 100 years of evidence showing that how we teach math works well enough, for some people. I think that we should aim higher.

Also, the Common Core math standards are not revolutionary. They just aren't. Basically, they call for teaching the students how to do the problems, and making sure that they understand what they're doing.

I'm a PP in IT, and I totally agree with the bolded. I see this a lot in the many developers I work with. And this is because the old way of teaching math in a lot of the Asian countries were just rote, memorize the formula and plug in the numbers. But even they have started to change how they teach math. They now include more critical thinking in their math curriculum as well.

Critical thinking has ALWAYS been a part of the American system, just like the other poster explained in that post the PP quoted. Math instruction was not so broken that you had to revert to dumbing it down and putting all abilities into one homogeneous class.

Anonymous wrote:

I think this is why Americans are so bad at math and come up with things like 2.0. There is a general disinterest in anything that is difficult. Everything should be easy. Everyone should get an A or B. If you need to work hard in school then something must be wrong with the school.

I am the Computer Engineer that posted above and I could not agree with you more! Seriously, someone could hold a gun to my head and say agree more, and I'd be like "impossible, I can't". I will disagree with one (minor) point, many of the foreign students did not do as well because while they could do the math, they could not apply the concepts. Some how under the old bad system we managed have the knowledge to be superior to every other country in the world with our designs and innovations. The mantra of everyone in the world is better than us was common back then to, but I just don't think it is true.

I'm a PP in IT, and I totally agree with the bolded. I see this a lot in the many developers I work with. And this is because the old way of teaching math in a lot of the Asian countries were just rote, memorize the formula and plug in the numbers. But even they have started to change how they teach math. They now include more critical thinking in their math curriculum as well.

Anonymous wrote:20 years? You want a curriculum to be tested for 20 years before somebody puts it into practice?

And meanwhile everybody will be using the old curricula, which have been researched, independently verified, and tested -- well, how, exactly?

Also, I am wondering which "academic theories" the Common Core standards are based on. This standard, for example:

CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.

Or this standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1
Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

(sorry in advance for the long answer)

OK first, your standard examples:

1. CCSS.Math.Content.3.NBT.A.1 - Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.
2. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.3.1 - Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.

#1 sound easy enough but tell me how this wasn’t being done pre CC? #2 this sounds easy too, answer a question to determine knowledge… hmmm I think pre CC math did this too. The problem isn’t necessarily the standard as written, its enacting the standard. The devil is in the detail here. For these standards to be ‘standardized’, regulations are required to explain exactly how #1 and especially #2 are to be performed. Thousands of pages of written requirements will dictate how to accomplish. If schools do not rigidly adhere, they will not receive the federal monies, thus schools will rigidly adhere. But the catch is… Please show me the peer reviewed scientific literature showing randomized double blinded controlled studies proving the application of these standards per the regulatory component works. Hint, there isn’t any.

So to answer your question; 20 years? Yes.

You need 20 years of proof. How else are you going to prove a revolutionary pervasive K-12 education system is valid? I offer nothing novel here. You know women used to get hormone replacement routinely but after review of 20-30 years evidence, physicians were able to determine hormone replacement was potentially harmful. That type of evidence could not be ascertained overnight. Long surveillance durations are necessary.

Look we have 100 years of evidence showing how we teach math works. We know it works for those who 1) attend school, 2) are interested in school, and 3) will do the work school requires of them.

Many students are failing not because teaching math is broken but because these students are remiss in 1), 2), and 3). The other students are doing fine. CC is not going to fix 1), 2), and 3), because diminished 1,2,3s are a societal issue. So I posit if we are going to fundamentally change math education, it best be an evidence based change. Else we risk providing our 1,2,3 no problem students a poorer education.