Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP@9:44, it sounds to me as though the problem last year was the teachers, not the curriculum. Which HGC was this?

(Also, "BCR" was a term for the MSAs. No more BCRs under Curriculum 2.0. Hooray!)

There are BCRs under C2.0. In fact, there are more of them and they are everywhere, even in math. Everytime C2.0 asks a child to "explain your answer," it's effectively a BCR. But, now the new "explanation questions" do not come with any rubric or instruction to kids about how to structure the answers, so many kids have no real understanding of what kind of "explanation" is desired. Yes, they can now draw pictures to "explain" in math, but it is not at all clear what kind of answer is being sought.

Yes, there are BCRs under Curriculum 2.0, if you call any short written response to a question a BCR. But why would you do that?

Because a "short explanation" is the same as a "brief constructed response" (except the short answer doesn't come with any transparency in the grading process like the BCR does).

Why did some people want to call "torture" "enhanced interrogation" instead? Because they want to avoid the stigma of the initial name without really changing what they're doing while at the same time doing away with the protections built into the prior process.

Of course, a BCR is not "torture" (well, maybe to students it is). But, my point is that when people change the name of something they are often seeking to avoid a problem without really solving it.

Witness in ed policy the change from "tracking" to differentiation". "Tracking" came to be synonymous with racial differences in participation in advanced tracks. That was untenable, and rightly so. But, now we call it "differentiation," which really hasn't solved the underlying racial disparities in performance but sounds a lot nicer. "Differentiation" had the added benefit of taking away any transparency in what exactly was being taught in differentiation and to whom it was being taught, so the transparency that was embedded in the tracking process was lost.

This does not make sense to me. MCPS used call it a "BCR". Now they call it what it is: a short, written explanation. They are going from obfuscation ("enhanced interrogation") to clarity ("torture"), not the other way around.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP@9:44, it sounds to me as though the problem last year was the teachers, not the curriculum. Which HGC was this?

(Also, "BCR" was a term for the MSAs. No more BCRs under Curriculum 2.0. Hooray!)

There are BCRs under C2.0. In fact, there are more of them and they are everywhere, even in math. Everytime C2.0 asks a child to "explain your answer," it's effectively a BCR. But, now the new "explanation questions" do not come with any rubric or instruction to kids about how to structure the answers, so many kids have no real understanding of what kind of "explanation" is desired. Yes, they can now draw pictures to "explain" in math, but it is not at all clear what kind of answer is being sought.

Yes, there are BCRs under Curriculum 2.0, if you call any short written response to a question a BCR. But why would you do that?

Because a "short explanation" is the same as a "brief constructed response" (except the short answer doesn't come with any transparency in the grading process like the BCR does).

Why did some people want to call "torture" "enhanced interrogation" instead? Because they want to avoid the stigma of the initial name without really changing what they're doing while at the same time doing away with the protections built into the prior process.

Of course, a BCR is not "torture" (well, maybe to students it is). But, my point is that when people change the name of something they are often seeking to avoid a problem without really solving it.

Witness in ed policy the change from "tracking" to differentiation". "Tracking" came to be synonymous with racial differences in participation in advanced tracks. That was untenable, and rightly so. But, now we call it "differentiation," which really hasn't solved the underlying racial disparities in performance but sounds a lot nicer. "Differentiation" had the added benefit of taking away any transparency in what exactly was being taught in differentiation and to whom it was being taught, so the transparency that was embedded in the tracking process was lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Now under C2.0, there appears to be only 1 point in time to get on the acceleration train and that is between 3 and 4th grade, and a student can only be accelerate 1year (unless, maybe, they go to summer school in high school to get ahead). I think this is bad education policy.

Last year was the first year of compacted math. Maybe give it a few more years before concluding that compacted math in fourth grade is the only opportunity for math acceleration throughout a student's whole time in MCPS?

No..as previously stated they are still moving kids up in MS.

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum wasn't the problem in the old system. The problem was that MCPS didn't require rigorous enough tests and the instruction in math has always been hit or miss. In 2..0, the biggest problem is the curriculum. It is the most dull, uninspiring, boring and remedial approach one could have ever imagined.

My first grader and his friends call it baby math. The older kids have the same disdain for it. The kids think its a joke. Its either ridiculously easy or ridiculously convoluted and stupid. Its easy to regurgitate and ironically builds more of the dreaded "rote" memorization than actually memorizing calculation patterns (which is useful).

I am wondering whether they learned this from their parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision made in 3 rd grade impacts your kids through high school with the new math tracking - so I would fight for getting my kids in the compact classes.

NP here. My kid was in compacted Math 4/5 last year in HGC.

It was the biggest disappointment ever. I do not care if my kid is accelerated or not, but I expect mastery of concepts at grade level. The teaching was so damn spotty, the teachers so ill-prepared and clueless, the process, curriculum not at all transparent, that these kids learned NOTHING. Now most of the HGC parents are taking outside help, not because these kids cannot handle the math that is being taught - but because we want them to actually ignore what is being taught and actually learn grade level Math of previous years.

Frankly - Math has been a pile of horse manure for the past year in HGC. I do not understand why you would fight tooth and nail to get your kids into the compacted Math? Sit with a textbook and teach them Math - and then also teach them to write BCR explaining the process of arriving at the solution - so that they can handle the MCPS requirements.

As it is US schools were lagging behind in Math - now they are even further behind. Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"!

I agree the MCPS math for 4 and 5th grade is bad ( both at HGC and home schools). However, the point is that if a child is not in the Compacted Math starting in 4/5 grade then they will not be taking IM in 6th, Algebra in 7th etc as it tracks forward through high school. - they will never be able to "catch up" and be placed in the with the more advanced math kids in their grade. Not all kids are math focused but for those that are focused on Stem, the 3rd grade selection process really sets the tracking through high school.

But pre 2.0, wasn't tracking done then, too, even earlier? So wasn't this a problem pre 2.0 as well?

No, "missing the train" wasn't a problem in preC2.0 acceleration opportunities.

Under the pre2.0 system there were more opportunities to "change tracks". If you look at the old "math pathways" pamphlet that MCPS put out (see here http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/redlandms/academics/math/Pathways.pdf) there were MANY different acceleration options starting as young as K, lasting up to 8th grade, and including 2 yr acceleration (which no longer exists under C2.0). This allowed the math curriculum to fit the student. Some kids were ready to skip 2 years in K, some skipped one year early and another year later. It also allowed kids who came into the system from the outside to have access to accelerated math.

Under pre C2.0 curriculum, choices for acceleration were expanded even further by allowing school to teach a class "with acceleration". In other words, the 3rd grade teacher would teach 3rd grade math plus 4th grade math. The 4th grade math was treated as "challenge." Unit tests included graded test questions for both 3rd and 4th grade math, with 4th grade Qs clearly labelled as challenge. The grade for the year was based on the on grade level test questions only. Students were pre in the beginning of each year. Students unit tests showed clearly what math skills they had mastered from the on grade level material as well as the above grade level material. Some students could complete 2 years of math in one year this way and, thus, skip appropriately.

Now under C2.0, there appears to be only 1 point in time to get on the acceleration train and that is between 3 and 4th grade, and a student can only be accelerate 1year (unless, maybe, they go to summer school in high school to get ahead). I think this is bad education policy.

The curriculum wasn't the problem in the old system. The problem was that MCPS didn't require rigorous enough tests and the instruction in math has always been hit or miss. In 2..0, the biggest problem is the curriculum. It is the most dull, uninspiring, boring and remedial approach one could have ever imagined.

My first grader and his friends call it baby math. The older kids have the same disdain for it. The kids think its a joke. Its either ridiculously easy or ridiculously convoluted and stupid. Its easy to regurgitate and ironically builds more of the dreaded "rote" memorization than actually memorizing calculation patterns (which is useful).

Still seems to be lots of skipping once you get to Middle School. Lots of kids are taking algebra in 7 this year that were never in the top class before. I don;t know what the criteria is but I assume it will continue.

Anonymous wrote:

It was the biggest disappointment ever. I do not care if my kid is accelerated or not, but I expect mastery of concepts at grade level. The teaching was so damn spotty, the teachers so ill-prepared and clueless, the process, curriculum not at all transparent, that these kids learned NOTHING. Now most of the HGC parents are taking outside help, not because these kids cannot handle the math that is being taught - but because we want them to actually ignore what is being taught and actually learn grade level Math of previous years.

This X100! Math is a disaster in 2.0. and a real shame. Accelerated poo is just more poo.

I remember a lot of complaining about math under the previous curriculum.

It was the biggest disappointment ever. I do not care if my kid is accelerated or not, but I expect mastery of concepts at grade level. The teaching was so damn spotty, the teachers so ill-prepared and clueless, the process, curriculum not at all transparent, that these kids learned NOTHING. Now most of the HGC parents are taking outside help, not because these kids cannot handle the math that is being taught - but because we want them to actually ignore what is being taught and actually learn grade level Math of previous years.

This X100! Math is a disaster in 2.0. and a real shame. Accelerated poo is just more poo.

Anonymous wrote:

But pre 2.0, wasn't tracking done then, too, even earlier? So wasn't this a problem pre 2.0 as well?

Yup. My pre-2.0 child started math acceleration in second grade. That's one of the common complaints on DCUM about Curriculum 2.0 math, in fact -- "Tracking doesn't start until 4th grade! That's too late!!!"

Anonymous wrote:


I agree the MCPS math for 4 and 5th grade is bad ( both at HGC and home schools). However, the point is that if a child is not in the Compacted Math starting in 4/5 grade then they will not be taking IM in 6th, Algebra in 7th etc as it tracks forward through high school. - they will never be able to "catch up" and be placed in the with the more advanced math kids in their grade. Not all kids are math focused but for those that are focused on Stem, the 3rd grade selection process really sets the tracking through high school.

Instead of taking Algebra I in 7th grade and Calculus I in 11th grade, they will take Algebra I in 8th grade and Calculus I in 12th grade. I don't think that this is a disaster, even for a STEM-focused kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision made in 3 rd grade impacts your kids through high school with the new math tracking - so I would fight for getting my kids in the compact classes.

NP here. My kid was in compacted Math 4/5 last year in HGC.

It was the biggest disappointment ever. I do not care if my kid is accelerated or not, but I expect mastery of concepts at grade level. The teaching was so damn spotty, the teachers so ill-prepared and clueless, the process, curriculum not at all transparent, that these kids learned NOTHING. Now most of the HGC parents are taking outside help, not because these kids cannot handle the math that is being taught - but because we want them to actually ignore what is being taught and actually learn grade level Math of previous years.

Frankly - Math has been a pile of horse manure for the past year in HGC. I do not understand why you would fight tooth and nail to get your kids into the compacted Math? Sit with a textbook and teach them Math - and then also teach them to write BCR explaining the process of arriving at the solution - so that they can handle the MCPS requirements.

As it is US schools were lagging behind in Math - now they are even further behind. Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"!

I agree the MCPS math for 4 and 5th grade is bad ( both at HGC and home schools). However, the point is that if a child is not in the Compacted Math starting in 4/5 grade then they will not be taking IM in 6th, Algebra in 7th etc as it tracks forward through high school. - they will never be able to "catch up" and be placed in the with the more advanced math kids in their grade. Not all kids are math focused but for those that are focused on Stem, the 3rd grade selection process really sets the tracking through high school.

But pre 2.0, wasn't tracking done then, too, even earlier? So wasn't this a problem pre 2.0 as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decision made in 3 rd grade impacts your kids through high school with the new math tracking - so I would fight for getting my kids in the compact classes.

NP here. My kid was in compacted Math 4/5 last year in HGC.

It was the biggest disappointment ever. I do not care if my kid is accelerated or not, but I expect mastery of concepts at grade level. The teaching was so damn spotty, the teachers so ill-prepared and clueless, the process, curriculum not at all transparent, that these kids learned NOTHING. Now most of the HGC parents are taking outside help, not because these kids cannot handle the math that is being taught - but because we want them to actually ignore what is being taught and actually learn grade level Math of previous years.

Frankly - Math has been a pile of horse manure for the past year in HGC. I do not understand why you would fight tooth and nail to get your kids into the compacted Math? Sit with a textbook and teach them Math - and then also teach them to write BCR explaining the process of arriving at the solution - so that they can handle the MCPS requirements.

As it is US schools were lagging behind in Math - now they are even further behind. Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy"!

I agree the MCPS math for 4 and 5th grade is bad ( both at HGC and home schools). However, the point is that if a child is not in the Compacted Math starting in 4/5 grade then they will not be taking IM in 6th, Algebra in 7th etc as it tracks forward through high school. - they will never be able to "catch up" and be placed in the with the more advanced math kids in their grade. Not all kids are math focused but for those that are focused on Stem, the 3rd grade selection process really sets the tracking through high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP@9:44, it sounds to me as though the problem last year was the teachers, not the curriculum. Which HGC was this?

(Also, "BCR" was a term for the MSAs. No more BCRs under Curriculum 2.0. Hooray!)

There are BCRs under C2.0. In fact, there are more of them and they are everywhere, even in math. Everytime C2.0 asks a child to "explain your answer," it's effectively a BCR. But, now the new "explanation questions" do not come with any rubric or instruction to kids about how to structure the answers, so many kids have no real understanding of what kind of "explanation" is desired. Yes, they can now draw pictures to "explain" in math, but it is not at all clear what kind of answer is being sought.

Yes, there are BCRs under Curriculum 2.0, if you call any short written response to a question a BCR. But why would you do that?