Wonderful website, thank You !!
??? http://www.beefruit.net/

So the state of Maryland was granted a waiver from meeting the requirement of No Child Left Behind. Instead the Maryland state's new initiative is "Maryland's Race to the Top."

http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/race_to_the_top

An excerpt from the link above:
"On August 24, 2010, Maryland was awarded one of the federal government’s coveted Race to the Top grants in the amount of $250 million over four years. The RTTT program is aimed at boosting student achievement, reducing gaps in achievement among student subgroups, turning around struggling schools, and improving the teaching profession."


One way to boost student achievement and reducing gaps in achievement among student subgroups is too make the curriculum less challenging, so everyone can achieve the same level. One size fits all is Curriculum 2.0.

I am afraid that you are misinformed.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/2.0/faq.aspx

Why is MCPS making changes to the curriculum?

Under the federal No Child Left Behind law, educators and parents have been rightly concerned that content areas outside the core, tested subjects of reading and mathematics have not received sufficient instruction time. Curriculum 2.0 addresses this concern head on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely. No Child Left Behind = No Child Running Ahead.

In the legislation passed in 2001, in SEC 1001, it states explicitly that closing the gap between high- and low-performance groups is a target. To close the gap, one good way is to make sure that there is no one ahead.

Anonymous wrote:I think this says it all (NCLB= No Child Left Behind), excerpt taken from Wikipedia-->

"Gifted students

NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. There are no incentives to improve students' achievements beyond the bare minimum. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.

In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[39] Federal funding of gifted education decreased by a third over the law's first five years.[39] While NCLB is silent on the education of academically gifted students, some states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the act became law.[39] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

I'm not sure what the point of this is... the current administration has neutralized NCLB

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely. No Child Left Behind = No Child Running Ahead.

In the legislation passed in 2001, in SEC 1001, it states explicitly that closing the gap between high- and low-performance groups is a target. To close the gap, one good way is to make sure that there is no one ahead.

Anonymous wrote:I think this says it all (NCLB= No Child Left Behind), excerpt taken from Wikipedia-->

"Gifted students

NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. There are no incentives to improve students' achievements beyond the bare minimum. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.

In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[39] Federal funding of gifted education decreased by a third over the law's first five years.[39] While NCLB is silent on the education of academically gifted students, some states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the act became law.[39] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

I'm not sure what the point of this is... the current administration has neutralized NCLB

We are interested in the detail of curriculum 2.0. Not the FAQ stuff but the little detail. If you are a teacher, could you pls help?

Myself is a PhD graduated within 10 years. We have a group of ~100 parents who are interested in understanding what is happening. We will be grateful for your help.

Btw, I am not the author of the long comment.




[quote=Anonymous]meaning?

Your "degree" could be 20 years old. With your "credentials," do you think you could step into a class and analyze the curriculum and how it's implemented?

I highly doubt it.

[quote=Anonymous]My responses for the MCPS teacher in post 23:21 -

You may be the best teacher in the county or you may have it easier than most because you are at a Title 1 school with smaller class sizes than the rest of the schools have. But the reality, from a parent's perspective of the classroom at my children's school is this:

How can 1 teacher adequately differentiate to all individual levels of 32 students in the classroom particularly in the lower grades if those classrooms are not already differentiated by skill ability (ie. have a high, middle, and low skill classes)? You are trying to say, you have the ability to come up with 32 individualized lesson plans and help each child with every situation? BS.

[b]I have an education background[/b] and I am the mother of two children needing special education services. Before my children were identified and could receive Special Education services, the general education teacher had a list of 20 things to do for just my child that was given to the teacher by the EMT and IEP teams as a way to measure the "Response to Intervention". It was absolutely impossible for the teacher to supply my child's needs on top of all the other unique needs in the classroom, but when the classrooms were divided based on skill level, the teacher at least had a narrower gap in abilities to focus on.

I currently have 1 child caught up in the 2.0 nightmare. The teacher admitted to me in October the extensions had not been provided to her yet so there was nothing more challenging for her to give my child. My child is bored and hates school under the 2.0 curriculum. This wasn't the case under the previous system.[/quote][/quote]

meaning?

Your "degree" could be 20 years old. With your "credentials," do you think you could step into a class and analyze the curriculum and how it's implemented?

I highly doubt it.

[quote=Anonymous]My responses for the MCPS teacher in post 23:21 -

You may be the best teacher in the county or you may have it easier than most because you are at a Title 1 school with smaller class sizes than the rest of the schools have. But the reality, from a parent's perspective of the classroom at my children's school is this:

How can 1 teacher adequately differentiate to all individual levels of 32 students in the classroom particularly in the lower grades if those classrooms are not already differentiated by skill ability (ie. have a high, middle, and low skill classes)? You are trying to say, you have the ability to come up with 32 individualized lesson plans and help each child with every situation? BS.

[b]I have an education background[/b] and I am the mother of two children needing special education services. Before my children were identified and could receive Special Education services, the general education teacher had a list of 20 things to do for just my child that was given to the teacher by the EMT and IEP teams as a way to measure the "Response to Intervention". It was absolutely impossible for the teacher to supply my child's needs on top of all the other unique needs in the classroom, but when the classrooms were divided based on skill level, the teacher at least had a narrower gap in abilities to focus on.

I currently have 1 child caught up in the 2.0 nightmare. The teacher admitted to me in October the extensions had not been provided to her yet so there was nothing more challenging for her to give my child. My child is bored and hates school under the 2.0 curriculum. This wasn't the case under the previous system.[/quote]

Absolutely. No Child Left Behind = No Child Running Ahead.

In the legislation passed in 2001, in SEC 1001, it states explicitly that closing the gap between high- and low-performance groups is a target. To close the gap, one good way is to make sure that there is no one ahead.

Anonymous wrote:I think this says it all (NCLB= No Child Left Behind), excerpt taken from Wikipedia-->

"Gifted students

NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. There are no incentives to improve students' achievements beyond the bare minimum. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.

In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[39] Federal funding of gifted education decreased by a third over the law's first five years.[39] While NCLB is silent on the education of academically gifted students, some states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the act became law.[39] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

I think this says it all (NCLB= No Child Left Behind), excerpt taken from Wikipedia-->

"Gifted students

NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. There are no incentives to improve students' achievements beyond the bare minimum. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.

In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[39] Federal funding of gifted education decreased by a third over the law's first five years.[39] While NCLB is silent on the education of academically gifted students, some states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the act became law.[39] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

The scope of NCLB covers both elementary and secondary schools. Therefore, IMHO, the "success" of Curriculum 2.0 will find its own place in middle schools.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if this Curriculum 2.0 will be implemented in the middle and high school levels?

Does anyone know if this Curriculum 2.0 will be implemented in the middle and high school levels?

There is a petition against 2.0 http://www.change.org/petitions/no-time-to-waste-3

OP here, wow, this thread as taken a winding path.

My responses for the MCPS teacher in post 23:21 -

You may be the best teacher in the county or you may have it easier than most because you are at a Title 1 school with smaller class sizes than the rest of the schools have. But the reality, from a parent's perspective of the classroom at my children's school is this:

How can 1 teacher adequately differentiate to all individual levels of 32 students in the classroom particularly in the lower grades if those classrooms are not already differentiated by skill ability (ie. have a high, middle, and low skill classes)? You are trying to say, you have the ability to come up with 32 individualized lesson plans and help each child with every situation? BS.

I have an education background and I am the mother of two children needing special education services. Before my children were identified and could receive Special Education services, the general education teacher had a list of 20 things to do for just my child that was given to the teacher by the EMT and IEP teams as a way to measure the "Response to Intervention". It was absolutely impossible for the teacher to supply my child's needs on top of all the other unique needs in the classroom, but when the classrooms were divided based on skill level, the teacher at least had a narrower gap in abilities to focus on.

I currently have 1 child caught up in the 2.0 nightmare. The teacher admitted to me in October the extensions had not been provided to her yet so there was nothing more challenging for her to give my child. My child is bored and hates school under the 2.0 curriculum. This wasn't the case under the previous system.

Anonymous wrote:

To the PP: Many folks criticized MCPS in the past for pushing kids along too quickly with math without teaching a solid foundation of the basics. So while a kid might be able to rattle off a few multiplication facts, they might not really understand the concept. That's one of the reasons they began 2.0. And my point is that even with 2.0, kids are still being challenged appropriately (ie: my first grade nephew who is doing 2nd grade math).

I disagree on both fronts. Curriculum 2.0 is about raising the MSA test scores. The only assessment that accelerated kids were moving to quickly was from analyzing the standardized test results across the populations. Curriculum 2.0 tries to address this by significantly increasing the amount of repetition across all levels in hopes to raise test scores. The removal of acceleration is about money and test scores. Differenting in class requires teacher aides (costs money) or splits the teacher's focus. Without differention, the teacher can focus solely on bringing everyone up to the bar that the MSA requires.

As long as the MSA is upheld as the only valid measurement of a teacher's success, the principal's success, and the school district's success then there is no incentive to do anything beyond focus on ways to raise the overall test scores. It does not matter if your child is challenged or not. Basic economic and human behavior shows that people will put their resources toward what propogates their own survival.

I don't think that constant repetition is going to raise test scores in higher achieving students. It may raise some test scores for kids toward the bottom and middle as the teacher's attention would not be split. However, I suspect that MCPOS will find that repetition alone doesn't solve their initial problem. Many kids toward the bottom need more than just repetition and repeated instruction at the large group level. They need more individualized attention which 2.0 still doesn't address in any meaningful way. High achieving kids do worse with more repetition rather than better. You also have the dynamic that many high achieving kids may not test well as they speed through answers and make careless mistkaes. No amount of repetition or going slow is going to solve that issue, its about the fit between the test format and the individual being assessed.

Not true. Do you know that MCPS students won't be taking the MSA for much longer? (A year or two more...that's it. Of course, standardized testing is everywhere so it will be replaced by some other test).
Differentiating in class does NOT require a teacher's aide (BTW they're called para-educators in MCPS). I do it every day, in every subject. It takes time to modify materials, but it's simply good teaching.

~An MCPS teacher

14:23 nailed it.