Benchmark is awful - what can be done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS doing its MCPS thing. Listen it has been bad for YEARS in curriculum decision-making. Hubris made them think they could write their own curricula with Pearson: Benchmark sounds like flat out corruption. How many former MCPS employees are on Benchmark’s pitch team? THIS is why MCPS needs an Inspector General. Got tired of all the tutoring needed to support basic blocking and tackling - left a w district during the pandemic. Other places aren’t as dumb!

I agree that Benchmark is probably awful (I'm a PP who posted about my 6th grade students complaining about it) BUT, I was there at the pitch day (for elementary and middle school) and the Benchmark presenter was a little old lady. It was the least 'polished' presentation compared to the other giant companies who presented. So in *this* case I don't think corruption. I didn't like StudySync that day at the presentation, and now after being forced to 'teach' with it for a few years, I loathe it.

Thanks for chiming in- why do you think MCPS picked it then? It seems like every ES teacher I’ve talked to about it doesn’t understand the selection of benchmark.

I honestly have NO idea. The day was so not what I was expecting/hoping for. It was in a huge room with a bunch of parents, students, and staff/teachers. We saw the presentations, completed a survey to share our thoughts, and that was it. No discussion, no follow up,etc. I have no idea what (if anything) they actually did with the surveys. I 'voted' for a different middle school curriculum that they didn't pick (but honestly I've heard bad things about that one, too, since then!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you so much PP. My kindergartener has brought home numerous packets of homework from Benchmark and I am absolutely horrified by the daily assignments. It’s literally the same assignment over and over again since the beginning of school. There is a short story (a few sentences) the child is somehow supposed to “read” but it is written at about a 2nd grade level. Then the same questions are asked (again, that a child who likely is still learning basic letters and sounds and sight words is supposed to “read”). The questions are: circle a word with the letter ____ in it, draw a smiley face next to your favorite part, and draw a picture to respond to the story. It’s the same thing, over and over. My kid spends more time drawing than learning anything!

I’m no Piaget or Montessori, but I took a few early childhood classes in college and substitute taught for a year and have done some volunteer work in K-5 and worked at a literacy nonprofit, and I can see clearly how lousy this curriculum is. I cannot believe any thinking human being with a modicum of intelligence and understanding of how children learn to read would knowingly select this garbage curriculum. It is absolute crap.

If a K student isn’t reading, then its implied that someone will read the instructions to them. Also note its a ELA curriculum, not a reading curriculum. Which means its going to cover more than just reading. Also, many of the K cans in the area already know basic letters, sounds, and sight words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS doing its MCPS thing. Listen it has been bad for YEARS in curriculum decision-making. Hubris made them think they could write their own curricula with Pearson: Benchmark sounds like flat out corruption. How many former MCPS employees are on Benchmark’s pitch team? THIS is why MCPS needs an Inspector General. Got tired of all the tutoring needed to support basic blocking and tackling - left a w district during the pandemic. Other places aren’t as dumb!

I agree that Benchmark is probably awful (I'm a PP who posted about my 6th grade students complaining about it) BUT, I was there at the pitch day (for elementary and middle school) and the Benchmark presenter was a little old lady. It was the least 'polished' presentation compared to the other giant companies who presented. So in *this* case I don't think corruption. I didn't like StudySync that day at the presentation, and now after being forced to 'teach' with it for a few years, I loathe it.

Thanks for chiming in- why do you think MCPS picked it then? It seems like every ES teacher I’ve talked to about it doesn’t understand the selection of benchmark.

I honestly have NO idea. The day was so not what I was expecting/hoping for. It was in a huge room with a bunch of parents, students, and staff/teachers. We saw the presentations, completed a survey to share our thoughts, and that was it. No discussion, no follow up,etc. I have no idea what (if anything) they actually did with the surveys. I 'voted' for a different middle school curriculum that they didn't pick (but honestly I've heard bad things about that one, too, since then!)

I think this is the point PP. There is no curriculum that every parent is going to be happy with, so they try to select one that seems to have the requirements and benefits they seek and do a pilot. We have to acknowledge MCPS was in a tough predicament. Getting rid of 2.0, piloting a new curriculum, and in the middle of the pilot a pandemic breaks out causing all schools to be virtual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS doing its MCPS thing. Listen it has been bad for YEARS in curriculum decision-making. Hubris made them think they could write their own curricula with Pearson: Benchmark sounds like flat out corruption. How many former MCPS employees are on Benchmark’s pitch team? THIS is why MCPS needs an Inspector General. Got tired of all the tutoring needed to support basic blocking and tackling - left a w district during the pandemic. Other places aren’t as dumb!

I agree that Benchmark is probably awful (I'm a PP who posted about my 6th grade students complaining about it) BUT, I was there at the pitch day (for elementary and middle school) and the Benchmark presenter was a little old lady. It was the least 'polished' presentation compared to the other giant companies who presented. So in *this* case I don't think corruption. I didn't like StudySync that day at the presentation, and now after being forced to 'teach' with it for a few years, I loathe it.

Thanks for chiming in- why do you think MCPS picked it then? It seems like every ES teacher I’ve talked to about it doesn’t understand the selection of benchmark.

I honestly have NO idea. The day was so not what I was expecting/hoping for. It was in a huge room with a bunch of parents, students, and staff/teachers. We saw the presentations, completed a survey to share our thoughts, and that was it. No discussion, no follow up,etc. I have no idea what (if anything) they actually did with the surveys. I 'voted' for a different middle school curriculum that they didn't pick (but honestly I've heard bad things about that one, too, since then!)

I think this is the point PP. There is no curriculum that every parent is going to be happy with, so they try to select one that seems to have the requirements and benefits they seek and do a pilot. We have to acknowledge MCPS was in a tough predicament. Getting rid of 2.0, piloting a new curriculum, and in the middle of the pilot a pandemic breaks out causing all schools to be virtual.

Most parents are not knowledgeable enough in ELA curriculums to really judge what will be good or not. I agree the best solution for MCPS was to choose the one that best fulfilled the desired benefits and requirements, but I question the judgement of those who thought Benchmark did so.

Glad there will be a new phonics program for K-2 at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you so much PP. My kindergartener has brought home numerous packets of homework from Benchmark and I am absolutely horrified by the daily assignments. It’s literally the same assignment over and over again since the beginning of school. There is a short story (a few sentences) the child is somehow supposed to “read” but it is written at about a 2nd grade level. Then the same questions are asked (again, that a child who likely is still learning basic letters and sounds and sight words is supposed to “read”). The questions are: circle a word with the letter ____ in it, draw a smiley face next to your favorite part, and draw a picture to respond to the story. It’s the same thing, over and over. My kid spends more time drawing than learning anything!

I’m no Piaget or Montessori, but I took a few early childhood classes in college and substitute taught for a year and have done some volunteer work in K-5 and worked at a literacy nonprofit, and I can see clearly how lousy this curriculum is. I cannot believe any thinking human being with a modicum of intelligence and understanding of how children learn to read would knowingly select this garbage curriculum. It is absolute crap.

If a K student isn’t reading, then its implied that someone will read the instructions to them. Also note its a ELA curriculum, not a reading curriculum. Which means its going to cover more than just reading. Also, many of the K cans in the area already know basic letters, sounds, and sight words.

PP here. Yes but the text should be grade level appropriate, and second grade level is not for kindergarten. They should be using basic decidable texts with words like (hot, cat, bag) etc. so kids can learn to sound out words. And I’m sorry, I don’t care if they bought it just because it is ELA, it literally does not follow the science of how kids learn to read, which is through phonics. I have spoken with many parents in my daughters class and there are a handful of kids who came into K reading because they were taught in preschool or at home but the vast majority are not reading yet and many parents like me are frustrated at the lack of our children’s progression and inability to sound out basic words. Benchmark seems to be teaching them to just guess. There’s a huge jump
Between knowing letters and then knowing and being able to manipulate sounds and blend sounds to sound out words and actually read. Somehow this curriculum is expecting the kids to ride the bike with no training wheels without ever having taught them to balance.

[Anonymous]

Decodable not decidable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you so much PP. My kindergartener has brought home numerous packets of homework from Benchmark and I am absolutely horrified by the daily assignments. It’s literally the same assignment over and over again since the beginning of school. There is a short story (a few sentences) the child is somehow supposed to “read” but it is written at about a 2nd grade level. Then the same questions are asked (again, that a child who likely is still learning basic letters and sounds and sight words is supposed to “read”). The questions are: circle a word with the letter ____ in it, draw a smiley face next to your favorite part, and draw a picture to respond to the story. It’s the same thing, over and over. My kid spends more time drawing than learning anything!

I’m no Piaget or Montessori, but I took a few early childhood classes in college and substitute taught for a year and have done some volunteer work in K-5 and worked at a literacy nonprofit, and I can see clearly how lousy this curriculum is. I cannot believe any thinking human being with a modicum of intelligence and understanding of how children learn to read would knowingly select this garbage curriculum. It is absolute crap.

If a K student isn’t reading, then its implied that someone will read the instructions to them. Also note its a ELA curriculum, not a reading curriculum. Which means its going to cover more than just reading. Also, many of the K cans in the area already know basic letters, sounds, and sight words.

PP here. Yes but the text should be grade level appropriate, and second grade level is not for kindergarten. They should be using basic decidable texts with words like (hot, cat, bag) etc. so kids can learn to sound out words. And I’m sorry, I don’t care if they bought it just because it is ELA, it literally does not follow the science of how kids learn to read, which is through phonics. I have spoken with many parents in my daughters class and there are a handful of kids who came into K reading because they were taught in preschool or at home but the vast majority are not reading yet and many parents like me are frustrated at the lack of our children’s progression and inability to sound out basic words. Benchmark seems to be teaching them to just guess. There’s a huge jump
Between knowing letters and then knowing and being able to manipulate sounds and blend sounds to sound out words and actually read. Somehow this curriculum is expecting the kids to ride the bike with no training wheels without ever having taught them to balance.

That's a good analogy. DP who also has a kindergartener who is coming home with decoding worksheets that seem way above the level where she is at right now. And she's been scored as "proficient" during all marking periods so I have to think she is not the only one. I have no idea how she's expected to sound out things like "She is fast and helps the Jets win" and "She had fun with the quiz" (these are real examples from the worksheets).

[Anonymous]

Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Most kids learn the sounds when they learn to talk so the next step was to learn the letters. Benchmark does follow the science fine. It seems like you just don't like anything MCPS does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Most kids learn the sounds when they learn to talk so the next step was to learn the letters. Benchmark does follow the science fine. It seems like you just don't like anything MCPS does.

You’re incorrect. The curriculum does not follow the science of how children learn to read. It is not research backed or evidence based. People aren’t against the county, they are against poor curriculum selection that does not serve students and harms their educational outcomes. If MCPS cares about equity and serving all students they would have selected a high quality, evidence and research-based early literacy curriculum. That did not happen. Our kids deserve better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Most kids learn the sounds when they learn to talk so the next step was to learn the letters. Benchmark does follow the science fine. It seems like you just don't like anything MCPS does.

You’re incorrect. The curriculum does not follow the science of how children learn to read. It is not research backed or evidence based. People aren’t against the county, they are against poor curriculum selection that does not serve students and harms their educational outcomes. If MCPS cares about equity and serving all students they would have selected a high quality, evidence and research-based early literacy curriculum. That did not happen. Our kids deserve better.

This. The good news is that higher quality, research-based early literacy curricula exist. At least we have moved on from the days when MCPS was arrogant enough to think it could create its own curriculum (2.0). Now if they could use a sound method for choosing the next one, the county will be better off for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Most kids learn the sounds when they learn to talk so the next step was to learn the letters. Benchmark does follow the science fine. It seems like you just don't like anything MCPS does.

You’re incorrect. The curriculum does not follow the science of how children learn to read. It is not research backed or evidence based. People aren’t against the county, they are against poor curriculum selection that does not serve students and harms their educational outcomes. If MCPS cares about equity and serving all students they would have selected a high quality, evidence and research-based early literacy curriculum. That did not happen. Our kids deserve better.

https://www.edreports.org/reports/overview/benchmark-advance-2018

Reporting says otherwise. This shows that phonics is included in Benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Most kids learn the sounds when they learn to talk so the next step was to learn the letters. Benchmark does follow the science fine. It seems like you just don't like anything MCPS does.

You’re incorrect. The curriculum does not follow the science of how children learn to read. It is not research backed or evidence based. People aren’t against the county, they are against poor curriculum selection that does not serve students and harms their educational outcomes. If MCPS cares about equity and serving all students they would have selected a high quality, evidence and research-based early literacy curriculum. That did not happen. Our kids deserve better.

This. The good news is that higher quality, research-based early literacy curricula exist. At least we have moved on from the days when MCPS was arrogant enough to think it could create its own curriculum (2.0). Now if they could use a sound method for choosing the next one, the county will be better off for it.

I don’t think MCPS is going to be trading out Benchmark just yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Benchmark does NOT follow the science of reading. Children should be taught the sounds that letters make before actually memorizing the letters themselves. Search #scienceofreading on IG, TikTok, etc. You will find some excellent activities to do at home with your kids that really help them pick up reading faster.

Because IG and TikTok are such bastions of good science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS doing its MCPS thing. Listen it has been bad for YEARS in curriculum decision-making. Hubris made them think they could write their own curricula with Pearson: Benchmark sounds like flat out corruption. How many former MCPS employees are on Benchmark’s pitch team? THIS is why MCPS needs an Inspector General. Got tired of all the tutoring needed to support basic blocking and tackling - left a w district during the pandemic. Other places aren’t as dumb!

I agree that Benchmark is probably awful (I'm a PP who posted about my 6th grade students complaining about it) BUT, I was there at the pitch day (for elementary and middle school) and the Benchmark presenter was a little old lady. It was the least 'polished' presentation compared to the other giant companies who presented. So in *this* case I don't think corruption. I didn't like StudySync that day at the presentation, and now after being forced to 'teach' with it for a few years, I loathe it.

Thanks for chiming in- why do you think MCPS picked it then? It seems like every ES teacher I’ve talked to about it doesn’t understand the selection of benchmark.

Here is the presentation Niki Hazel gave to the BOE when they recommended Benchmark:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B9FENM50A5A2/$file/Apprv%20Curr%20Inst%20Mat%20Pre-K-5%20Elem%20Lit%20190212%20PPT.pdf

Based on this sounds like it was enthusiastically supported. Also seems like it does (or should have) contained Phonics. Given this I can see why they are trying to work with w/ Benchmark. Particularly if Benchmark has made some changes for more explicit phonics instruction and if MCPS or principals are going to invest more in the using the associated reading texts.

I also wonder how much the pandemic has had an impact on the implementation/training of this?

Benchmark's phonics component is so lackluster that MCPS K - 2 teachers will be using Really Great Reading's phonics program next year with their students. The phonics lessons from the Benchmark curriculum will not be taught. Really Great Reading is an excellent program. Other school systems use it for their core phonics curriculum (Frederick County), but up until now MCPS has only used it for kids requiring intervention. Perhaps if we had been using Really Great Reading all along we wouldn't have as many foundational gaps. I'm a 3rd grade teacher and my sister is a reading specialist. We both hate Benchmark.

Will all MCPS be using Really Great Reading with all students next year, or is it being piloted only? Thx!

RGR will be used with all students in K - 2. Teachers will omit the phonics lessons from the Benchmark curriculum.

This is great news!

Not sure if it's an improvement or not. My school was using Orton Gillingham for phonics and now we have to drop it. It's stressful when mcps is making teachers adopt new programs every year and then they abandon them after a few years.