Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The big issue is that math is limited this year to 2 choices: either math 4 or math 4/5. This is unacceptable. Some of these kids are ready and able to do so much more but their math options are artificially limited. It is about 2.0 dumbing down HHS curriculum.
I attended a meeting with MCPS high school teachers who discussed the fact that many of their students were not ready for the highest level math and had missed developing a strong number sense. They all agreed on what they were seeing in the classroom. I'm not disagreeing that some kids are math prodigies but it's a small percentage. If your kid is in 4/5 math this year, they'll take Algebra I in 7th grade. That hardly seems remedial. Are you a mathematician? Just wondering why everybody is in such a hurry for Differential Equations in high school. If your child needs college level math in HS, they can be bussed to MC.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Kudos to MCPS for agreeing to revert to the old curriculum when it became apparent the new curriculum was not as enriched/rigorous. It is unusual for such a big school system to make adjustments in mid-course and I applaud them for putting the kids ahead of politics and/or inertia.
While I agree it's good that they recognized their mistake, is it too much to expect that they would have done the upfront work to avoid the mistake to begin with? For over 2 years, parents have been saying that C2.0 isn't as challenging as MCPS is promising. Last year, MCPS took away the accelerated math options for all MCPS students and said C2.0 would be rigorous enough. Parents complained all year and this year, MCPS was forced to reinstate a compacted option that would get kids to Algebra in 7th grade. During the year, many parents expressed concerns about the HGC and C2.0. So, MCPS should have been on notice that C2.0 would not cut it for the HGC.
As a parent and taxpayer, I am honestly tired of the crappy rollout of C2.0. Nothing has been beta-tested before providing to our kids. There is no evidence that this curriculum will result in better outcomes. Materials are literally coming out moments before the teachers need them.
I don't think MCPS really deserves "applause" for recognizing a mistake that many people foresaw and they choose to willfully ignore.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Looks like Differential Equations IS offered at MCPS high schools. Seems reasonable to me.
Which MCPS high schools offer Differential Equations, and how many students take it?
Anonymous wrote:Looks like Differential Equations IS offered at MCPS high schools. Seems reasonable to me.
Anonymous wrote:The big issue is that math is limited this year to 2 choices: either math 4 or math 4/5. This is unacceptable. Some of these kids are ready and able to do so much more but their math options are artificially limited. It is about 2.0 dumbing down HHS curriculum.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My child reports that his 4th grade HGC class feels like a regular class. I wonder if that will change next semester.
What else should it feel like?
It doesn't feel accelerated.
It's not accelerated. It is enriched.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My child reports that his 4th grade HGC class feels like a regular class. I wonder if that will change next semester.
What else should it feel like?
It doesn't feel accelerated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My child reports that his 4th grade HGC class feels like a regular class. I wonder if that will change next semester.
What else should it feel like?
Anonymous wrote:My child reports that his 4th grade HGC class feels like a regular class. I wonder if that will change next semester.
Anonymous wrote: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.