Literacy in DC Public Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

OP was criticizing the DCPS curricula from a science of reading/phonics perspective, which is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is 69% of students reading below grade level. In 2015 DCPS was in the news for revamping their curricula to teach dramatically more knowledge. They also were using Fundations to teach phonics (along with guided reading). This was all before "science of reading" became a buzzword and legislation began to pass. Sounds like they had the right evidence-based ingredients to have some success, but that hasn't been the case. Whether it's the curriculum or the teacher training, something isn't adding up. No achievement gaps have closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

We used to have a trainer come out to give feedback on instruction. That ended years ago. New teachers go to a quick training, but it isn't sufficient to teach the content well. They also say teach with fidelity but tell teachers to squeeze a 30 minute lesson into 15 minutes and to also do a series of isolated phonological awareness activities unsupported by current research (Heggerty). When I did it as a new teacher I couldn't teach certain components because I didn't have a complete set. I rarely had students building words using manipulative tiles because my sets were missing many letters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

We used to have a trainer come out to give feedback on instruction. That ended years ago. New teachers go to a quick training, but it isn't sufficient to teach the content well. They also say teach with fidelity but tell teachers to squeeze a 30 minute lesson into 15 minutes and to also do a series of isolated phonological awareness activities unsupported by current research (Heggerty). When I did it as a new teacher I couldn't teach certain components because I didn't have a complete set. I rarely had students building words using manipulative tiles because my sets were missing many letters.

What research supports this? Just curious. I have only seen the opposite. I usually do PA activities in small group. They take 2 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

We used to have a trainer come out to give feedback on instruction. That ended years ago. New teachers go to a quick training, but it isn't sufficient to teach the content well. They also say teach with fidelity but tell teachers to squeeze a 30 minute lesson into 15 minutes and to also do a series of isolated phonological awareness activities unsupported by current research (Heggerty). When I did it as a new teacher I couldn't teach certain components because I didn't have a complete set. I rarely had students building words using manipulative tiles because my sets were missing many letters.

What research supports this? Just curious. I have only seen the opposite. I usually do PA activities in small group. They take 2 minutes.

To improve phonemic awareness, focus on quickly connecting phonemes to graphemes. The suite of phonological awareness activities may be less useful past prek and mid K. This article (https://www.nomanis.com.au/single-post/i-think-i-was-wrong-about-phonemic-awareness) and Tim Shanahan's writing (https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/rip-to-advanced-phonemic-awareness) discuss this in detail. Most kids don't require advanced phonemic awareness work; it's mainly beneficial for kids with phonological processing issues. Short segmenting and blending warm-ups like in UFLI or a targeted small group lesson linking words to upcoming content are more effective and should only take a few minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

We used to have a trainer come out to give feedback on instruction. That ended years ago. New teachers go to a quick training, but it isn't sufficient to teach the content well. They also say teach with fidelity but tell teachers to squeeze a 30 minute lesson into 15 minutes and to also do a series of isolated phonological awareness activities unsupported by current research (Heggerty). When I did it as a new teacher I couldn't teach certain components because I didn't have a complete set. I rarely had students building words using manipulative tiles because my sets were missing many letters.

What research supports this? Just curious. I have only seen the opposite. I usually do PA activities in small group. They take 2 minutes.

To improve phonemic awareness, focus on quickly connecting phonemes to graphemes. The suite of phonological awareness activities may be less useful past prek and mid K. This article (https://www.nomanis.com.au/single-post/i-think-i-was-wrong-about-phonemic-awareness) and Tim Shanahan's writing (https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/rip-to-advanced-phonemic-awareness) discuss this in detail. Most kids don't require advanced phonemic awareness work; it's mainly beneficial for kids with phonological processing issues. Short segmenting and blending warm-ups like in UFLI or a targeted small group lesson linking words to upcoming content are more effective and should only take a few minutes.

Heggerty is mainly used in PK & K,where the above suggests they are in fact useful. Our Heggerty lessons are also like 2-5 minutes tops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

OP was criticizing the DCPS curricula from a science of reading/phonics perspective, which is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is 69% of students reading below grade level. In 2015 DCPS was in the news for revamping their curricula to teach dramatically more knowledge. They also were using Fundations to teach phonics (along with guided reading). This was all before "science of reading" became a buzzword and legislation began to pass. Sounds like they had the right evidence-based ingredients to have some success, but that hasn't been the case. Whether it's the curriculum or the teacher training, something isn't adding up. No achievement gaps have closed.

I don’t think a persistent achievement gap is a Fundations problem. I think it’s a school attendance problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fundations is a Science of Reading-aligned curriculum that the Sold a Story podcast would support, FYI. It is explicit phonics instruction intended to be used on a whole class basis — exactly the sort of thing the podcast talks about going on in the Florida classroom she fawns over.

Yes - but no one is certified in it.

The school may have purchased the program - but not the next step of getting teachers certified in the program. They send 1 or 2 people from each school to a DCPS training session that is for 2 days - and those people are supposed to train all the other teachers.

OP was criticizing the DCPS curricula from a science of reading/phonics perspective, which is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is 69% of students reading below grade level. In 2015 DCPS was in the news for revamping their curricula to teach dramatically more knowledge. They also were using Fundations to teach phonics (along with guided reading). This was all before "science of reading" became a buzzword and legislation began to pass. Sounds like they had the right evidence-based ingredients to have some success, but that hasn't been the case. Whether it's the curriculum or the teacher training, something isn't adding up. No achievement gaps have closed.

I don’t think a persistent achievement gap is a Fundations problem. I think it’s a school attendance problem.

+1

OP and others are ascribing the test results to choice of curriculum when in DCPS, the primary problem is getting kids into the classroom and actually engaging with the curriculum on a regular basis. If a child misses 5-8 days a month of kindergarten (which is common in DC), you could have the very best curriculum taught by a literal expert in it and the child would still not be reading at grade level unless they are getting lots of support at home (which a kid missing 25-40% of their school year is not likely getting).

I was actually surprised by how good DCPS's reading curriculum is because based on what I knew of the district, I expected them to be way behind the curve in terms of pedagogy. They aren't. Also, DCPS teachers are, on average, extremely well qualified as compared to other districts. If every student in DCPS was middle or UM class, I think our reading scores would be phenomenal.

I have bigger questions about the math curriculum, and I think kids are not doing enough writing and there is an over-reliance on app-based programs. But those issues would also apply to many of the suburban school districts. If you have a kid without special needs who has good support at home, they will likely do well with DCPS's curriculum. If changes are needed, that's not where they are. Likely we need more outreach/support for at risk kids, additional tutoring resources via after school programs, and a better intervention program that identifies kids who are falling behind and gets them the resources they need. But we actually have all that, it just doesn't always work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m more concerned with the middle school curriculum which is absolutely terrible.

What is being used in middle school?

They read excerpts of a few books but only whole books if the kids choose to do so. The teachers have next to no input in what is chosen. Downtown picks the list so it is standardized across schools.

Yes, can someone please explain why middle schoolers read so few books? Is it purportedly for lack of funds to buy books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m more concerned with the middle school curriculum which is absolutely terrible.

What is being used in middle school?

They read excerpts of a few books but only whole books if the kids choose to do so. The teachers have next to no input in what is chosen. Downtown picks the list so it is standardized across schools.

Yes, can someone please explain why middle schoolers read so few books? Is it purportedly for lack of funds to buy books?

They are not required to read any whole books at all. It’s likely because so many middle schoolers are unable to read at the middle school level and even if books are assigned, won’t read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m more concerned with the middle school curriculum which is absolutely terrible.

What is being used in middle school?

They read excerpts of a few books but only whole books if the kids choose to do so. The teachers have next to no input in what is chosen. Downtown picks the list so it is standardized across schools.

Yes, can someone please explain why middle schoolers read so few books? Is it purportedly for lack of funds to buy books?

They are not required to read any whole books at all. It’s likely because so many middle schoolers are unable to read at the middle school level and even if books are assigned, won’t read them.

At Hardy they read whole books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m more concerned with the middle school curriculum which is absolutely terrible.

What is being used in middle school?

They read excerpts of a few books but only whole books if the kids choose to do so. The teachers have next to no input in what is chosen. Downtown picks the list so it is standardized across schools.

Yes, can someone please explain why middle schoolers read so few books? Is it purportedly for lack of funds to buy books?

Fiction novels are just one part of the ELA curriculum. There's also nonfiction reading and writing skills, persuasive writing, plays and poetry, etc.

[Anonymous]

I have an idea!
Let's get LeBron James to sponsor a school.
The current promise school he sponsors had every single 8th grade student fail the state math proficiency exam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I don’t think a persistent achievement gap is a Fundations problem. I think it’s a school attendance problem.


+1

OP and others are ascribing the test results to choice of curriculum when in DCPS, the primary problem is getting kids into the classroom and actually engaging with the curriculum on a regular basis. If a child misses 5-8 days a month of kindergarten (which is common in DC), you could have the very best curriculum taught by a literal expert in it and the child would still not be reading at grade level unless they are getting lots of support at home (which a kid missing 25-40% of their school year is not likely getting).

I was actually surprised by how good DCPS's reading curriculum is because based on what I knew of the district, I expected them to be way behind the curve in terms of pedagogy. They aren't. Also, DCPS teachers are, on average, extremely well qualified as compared to other districts. If every student in DCPS was middle or UM class, I think our reading scores would be phenomenal.

I have bigger questions about the math curriculum, and I think kids are not doing enough writing and there is an over-reliance on app-based programs. But those issues would also apply to many of the suburban school districts. If you have a kid without special needs who has good support at home, they will likely do well with DCPS's curriculum. If changes are needed, that's not where they are. Likely we need more outreach/support for at risk kids, additional tutoring resources via after school programs, and a better intervention program that identifies kids who are falling behind and gets them the resources they need. But we actually have all that, it just doesn't always work.

Yep. Remember that 45% of the kids attending DCPS are "at risk"---which is defined as homeless, in foster care, or on public assistance or a year older than grade. "At Risk" is a high poverty metric. So additional factors:

Grammatically correct English not being spoken in the home
No English at all being spoken in the home
No exposure to books or reading of any kind in the home.
Food insecurity. Housing insecurity.
No regularity to sleep schedules.
Endless exposure to TV and screens
Exposure to violence and other traumas

There is SO SO much more at play in those literacy percentages than the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Fundations selections for my kid in 3rd grade were super boring.

It's not true that DCPS didn't buy Geodes. My kid's Title 1 school had a set. Not sure who got to use it.

I second the poster who said a major problem is attendance/engagement. I think there are also problems with fetal alcohol syndrome, trauma and lack of sleep that contribute to not being ready to learn when in the seat.

At our Ward 5 title 1 school, 75% at risk, 4% got a 4 or 5 in reading on PARCC (out of approx 90 kids across 3rd-5th grades)
fwiw, 6% got a 4 in math, none got a 5.

The same year as those scores (21/22 school year)

17% had 21 or more unexcused absences
18% had 11-20 unexcused absences
18% had 6-10 unexcused absences

There are elementary schools with 33%, 39%, 40%, 42% 45%, 50% of kids having 21 or more missed days a year!!

[Anonymous]

My kid started Hyde last year for 1st grade barely on kindergarten level. Preemie with many delays. Ended 1st grade at the beginning of 2nd grade level which was considered above grade level. Not Ward 3 but whatever they do, it works!