Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps you should move away from Bethesda/Potomac? I read more complaints about Bethesda/Potomac schools on DCUM than about schools anywhere else in MCPS. My children go to unregarded MCPS elementary and middle schools, and I am very happy with the education they've received so far.

Are you highly educated? Bethesda is home to the most highly educated population in the nation; we're very picky about the schools. I'm sure if Bethesdans lived in your cluster, they'd complain too. The curriculum is the same throughout MCPS - we are just more aware of its shortcomings.

Hello -- on my short block in Silver Spring are three Ph.Ds, three lawyers (one Biglaw), and out of the remaining 20 or so adults, all have college degrees and 12 that I know of have Masters degrees. One lobbyist pulls in the big bucks but he doesn't have graduate degrees.

We llive her for quality of life reasons and because we've chosen professions that aren't as highly paid, but it doesn't make us any less educated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is highly regarded in the country and "W" cluster schools are highest performing schools within MCPS. This is a fact.

Many people in DMV area are highly educated. Many more are are from other countries where curriculum, rigor, expectations in top-notch schools are far above and beyond the "W" cluster schools in MCPS. People from other countries (including me) expected that school education will be far more superior in the US than in our own home countries. When we have found that it is not so - we have deemed MCPS to be a big fail.

The truth is that school education in the US is a big fail with a few spots of excellence here and there. This excellence has also come about with private tutoring and coaching and not with what the schools have taught.

MCPS is doing ok as compared to the rest of the nation. Private schools in US are also no better. Any student who is excelling - it is because of enrichment and tutoring outside of school.

And I think the point has been made that given the level of college readiness among MoCo grads, your child is on a track to attend a highly competitive or Ivy League. Great! Nothing will ever satisfy your child's needs in MoCo. So saves some money, get some tutors or go private. That is how the game is played.

Yes, that's what my mother told me in the 70s and what her mother told her in the 40s. What you teach at home matters much more than you think. You cannot depend on a school to do all the instruction.

Absolutely. And enrichment doesn't always take the form of summers in Costa Rica or involvement in the Math club. What really makes a difference is taking ordinary stuff that comes home and enriching it. Every teacher in the county will tell you that's what they would LOVE for every parent to do. There's no way they can do that by themselves. It has to be a partnership. Along the way, you develop your child's quest for knowledge, and when they are old enough, they'll seek enrichment on their own. That is when real learning occurs.

Of course. But there is a huge difference between this and having to fill in large gaps in the curriculum wholesale at home in the children's limited free time. That takes away from the enrichment you are talking about, and from what precious little time children have for physical fitness, practicing an instrument, chilling out.

Thank you for saying that. My kids are in magnet programs and have always exposed them to enrichment outside of school. However, since 2.0 I have actually had to fill in the gaps in the curriculum. This has required considerable time, effort, energy and money on the part of my family. How many MCPS families can afford to do this?

My kids are not preparing to compete against a person from Alabama. They are competing against students from other countries who are far ahead of the game.

Great! If being college-ready is not enough for your child, MoCo may not be the best fit. Best to play the game like other elitists. Get a tutor, go private and save A LOT of money for college tuition.

Wow. Not pp, but I expect my kids to be educated to their potential. Not some basic "college readiness" standard. That doesn't make me elitist. It means I love my kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

A very small percentage of kids graduating from MoCo are accepted to Ivys. There's been years at some of the W's where the acceptance rate has been zero, and that's with upwards of 60-70 applicants. So if you're looking for Ivy League preparation, Moco may not be the best fit for your child. It is very reasonable to look at where moco falls overall by looking up, down, around, etc. The county is highly regarded across the country. It may not be up to your standards, but it's pretty darn good.

Again, that's pathetic. My kids may or may not be Ivy material. I don't care. What I expect is that this supposedly good school district teach to their ability levels and encourage their learning. Not just quit challenging them at the minimum bar level.

And you will never be convinced that is not happening. I am completely satisfied with the rigor in my child's classes, and I have a pretty smart kid. Are there classes that are not as stimulating as others? Yes. Is every teacher the best of the best? No. And I can also say that for the two highly regarded colleges I attended. Is the county failing our child while swimming in mediocrity? That has not been our experience.

Ah and because it hasn't been your experience, that means that if it is happening in someone else's experience at another school, that must mean that person is just elitist. Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

A very small percentage of kids graduating from MoCo are accepted to Ivys. There's been years at some of the W's where the acceptance rate has been zero, and that's with upwards of 60-70 applicants. So if you're looking for Ivy League preparation, Moco may not be the best fit for your child. It is very reasonable to look at where moco falls overall by looking up, down, around, etc. The county is highly regarded across the country. It may not be up to your standards, but it's pretty darn good.

Again, that's pathetic. My kids may or may not be Ivy material. I don't care. What I expect is that this supposedly good school district teach to their ability levels and encourage their learning. Not just quit challenging them at the minimum bar level.

And you will never be convinced that is not happening. I am completely satisfied with the rigor in my child's classes, and I have a pretty smart kid. Are there classes that are not as stimulating as others? Yes. Is every teacher the best of the best? No. And I can also say that for the two highly regarded colleges I attended. Is the county failing our child while swimming in mediocrity? That has not been our experience.

Anonymous wrote:

But there's no evidence that the old curriculum didn't provide necessary critical thinking skills, is there? There's also no evidence the new 2.0 will improve CR skills either. Did I miss something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2.0 is supposed to focus more on critical thinking. The jobs in the future will require more critical thinking. Whether the ES kids today actually are better prepared for such jobs of the future is TBD obviously, but learning how to spell words in ES isn't going to help towards critical thinking skills. That's probably why the curriculum isn't focusing so much on spelling. Although, I do find my kids' papers corrected when there are spelling errors.

I'm not saying people shouldn't know how to spell. But every parent is screaming that our schools aren't preparing our kids for the future job market. Here, MCPS is trying something to address this issue by implementing a curriculum that emphasizes these skills, ie critical thinking.

I'm no 2.0 rah rah cheerleader, but people who have this attitude of "the sky is falling" regarding 2.0 and our kids education are a bit paranoid. Of course, as parents we should be concerned with our kids' education, but sometimes I feel like people around here, or especially on this forum, are helicopter parents who think they know better how to educate kids for the future. I would really love to see these parents try to teach 25+ kids in each class with varying abilities and backgrounds and prepare them for the future.

Current and future jobs require way more critical thinking, problem solving skills vs. white collar jobs in the 20th century that was all about sitting at a desk and shuffling paper, or blue color jobs working at a manufacturing plant. This is what the 20th century school curriculum was designed for. Today, we need creative, ingenious, bold, outside the box thinkers. I don't think the old curriculum, which focuses more on rote than critical thinking skills in ES level, helps produce these types of people. Whether 2.0 does so remains to be seen, but certainly the old ways won't.

HS kids today are actually the limbo generation where the curriculum they went through was designed for the 20th century, but the kids are going into a 21st century, technology driven job market. Those people that started the tech revolution may have been educated the old way, but these innovators are few and far between, and I think such people would excel no matter what kind of curriculum they studied under. To generate more such people, we need a curriculum that will foster more critical, outside the box thinking, and we need to start early, like in ES.

2.0 isn't perfect, but it's a start, which hopefully will lead to something better than we had before. 2.0 needs an overhaul. Teachers need to be given better training and more time to develop lesson plans.

BTW - I'm not a teacher or educator. I'm a parent that is just as worried about my kids' futures as every other parent here. What I do know is that the old way of learning in school isn't going to help their future.

But there's no evidence that the old curriculum didn't provide necessary critical thinking skills, is there? There's also no evidence the new 2.0 will improve CR skills either. Did I miss something?

Anonymous wrote:2.0 is supposed to focus more on critical thinking. The jobs in the future will require more critical thinking. Whether the ES kids today actually are better prepared for such jobs of the future is TBD obviously, but learning how to spell words in ES isn't going to help towards critical thinking skills. That's probably why the curriculum isn't focusing so much on spelling. Although, I do find my kids' papers corrected when there are spelling errors.

I'm not saying people shouldn't know how to spell. But every parent is screaming that our schools aren't preparing our kids for the future job market. Here, MCPS is trying something to address this issue by implementing a curriculum that emphasizes these skills, ie critical thinking.

I'm no 2.0 rah rah cheerleader, but people who have this attitude of "the sky is falling" regarding 2.0 and our kids education are a bit paranoid. Of course, as parents we should be concerned with our kids' education, but sometimes I feel like people around here, or especially on this forum, are helicopter parents who think they know better how to educate kids for the future. I would really love to see these parents try to teach 25+ kids in each class with varying abilities and backgrounds and prepare them for the future.

Current and future jobs require way more critical thinking, problem solving skills vs. white collar jobs in the 20th century that was all about sitting at a desk and shuffling paper, or blue color jobs working at a manufacturing plant. This is what the 20th century school curriculum was designed for. Today, we need creative, ingenious, bold, outside the box thinkers. I don't think the old curriculum, which focuses more on rote than critical thinking skills in ES level, helps produce these types of people. Whether 2.0 does so remains to be seen, but certainly the old ways won't.

HS kids today are actually the limbo generation where the curriculum they went through was designed for the 20th century, but the kids are going into a 21st century, technology driven job market. Those people that started the tech revolution may have been educated the old way, but these innovators are few and far between, and I think such people would excel no matter what kind of curriculum they studied under. To generate more such people, we need a curriculum that will foster more critical, outside the box thinking, and we need to start early, like in ES.

2.0 isn't perfect, but it's a start, which hopefully will lead to something better than we had before. 2.0 needs an overhaul. Teachers need to be given better training and more time to develop lesson plans.

BTW - I'm not a teacher or educator. I'm a parent that is just as worried about my kids' futures as every other parent here. What I do know is that the old way of learning in school isn't going to help their future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

A very small percentage of kids graduating from MoCo are accepted to Ivys. There's been years at some of the W's where the acceptance rate has been zero, and that's with upwards of 60-70 applicants. So if you're looking for Ivy League preparation, Moco may not be the best fit for your child. It is very reasonable to look at where moco falls overall by looking up, down, around, etc. The county is highly regarded across the country. It may not be up to your standards, but it's pretty darn good.

Again, that's pathetic. My kids may or may not be Ivy material. I don't care. What I expect is that this supposedly good school district teach to their ability levels and encourage their learning. Not just quit challenging them at the minimum bar level.

Anonymous wrote:2.0 is supposed to focus more on critical thinking. The jobs in the future will require more critical thinking. Whether the ES kids today actually are better prepared for such jobs of the future is TBD obviously, but learning how to spell words in ES isn't going to help towards critical thinking skills. That's probably why the curriculum isn't focusing so much on spelling. Although, I do find my kids' papers corrected when there are spelling errors.

I'm not saying people shouldn't know how to spell. But every parent is screaming that our schools aren't preparing our kids for the future job market. Here, MCPS is trying something to address this issue by implementing a curriculum that emphasizes these skills, ie critical thinking.

I'm no 2.0 rah rah cheerleader, but people who have this attitude of "the sky is falling" regarding 2.0 and our kids education are a bit paranoid. Of course, as parents we should be concerned with our kids' education, but sometimes I feel like people around here, or especially on this forum, are helicopter parents who think they know better how to educate kids for the future. I would really love to see these parents try to teach 25+ kids in each class with varying abilities and backgrounds and prepare them for the future.

Current and future jobs require way more critical thinking, problem solving skills vs. white collar jobs in the 20th century that was all about sitting at a desk and shuffling paper, or blue color jobs working at a manufacturing plant. This is what the 20th century school curriculum was designed for. Today, we need creative, ingenious, bold, outside the box thinkers. I don't think the old curriculum, which focuses more on rote than critical thinking skills in ES level, helps produce these types of people. Whether 2.0 does so remains to be seen, but certainly the old ways won't.

HS kids today are actually the limbo generation where the curriculum they went through was designed for the 20th century, but the kids are going into a 21st century, technology driven job market. Those people that started the tech revolution may have been educated the old way, but these innovators are few and far between, and I think such people would excel no matter what kind of curriculum they studied under. To generate more such people, we need a curriculum that will foster more critical, outside the box thinking, and we need to start early, like in ES.

2.0 isn't perfect, but it's a start, which hopefully will lead to something better than we had before. 2.0 needs an overhaul. Teachers need to be given better training and more time to develop lesson plans.

BTW - I'm not a teacher or educator. I'm a parent that is just as worried about my kids' futures as every other parent here. What I do know is that the old way of learning in school isn't going to help their future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

A very small percentage of kids graduating from MoCo are accepted to Ivys. There's been years at some of the W's where the acceptance rate has been zero, and that's with upwards of 60-70 applicants. So if you're looking for Ivy League preparation, Moco may not be the best fit for your child. It is very reasonable to look at where moco falls overall by looking up, down, around, etc. The county is highly regarded across the country. It may not be up to your standards, but it's pretty darn good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of different opinions here. What is considered to be good instruction is subjective. A parent with Ivy League goals and comfort around making kids miserable and stressed will always say instruction is not on par. When you have a moment, compare MoCo's test scores with a few counties in Mississippi or Alabama. Boy, do we forget how good we have it here.

Yeah, this is a great idea. Why look UP when you can look DOWN, right?

I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Elitist and social climbers should never, ever look down. My apologies for making the suggestion.

Wait, I'm an elitist and social climber because I went to an ivy? You're bizarre. I am smart, hardworking, and loved learning. That's why I ended up at an ivy. I want my kids to love learning and learn to their fullest ability. Saying "well, it's ok because there are worse school districts" isn't good enough. That's not elitist (and social climbing is so far off it's funny). You just want us to settle for mediocrity and try to shame people who don't want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps you should move away from Bethesda/Potomac? I read more complaints about Bethesda/Potomac schools on DCUM than about schools anywhere else in MCPS. My children go to unregarded MCPS elementary and middle schools, and I am very happy with the education they've received so far.

Are you highly educated? Bethesda is home to the most highly educated population in the nation; we're very picky about the schools. I'm sure if Bethesdans lived in your cluster, they'd complain too. The curriculum is the same throughout MCPS - we are just more aware of its shortcomings.