Reading groups being slowed down?

[Anonymous]

^^^whoops, sorry, I assumed that you are the PP who says that nobody is learning anything, but you are actually a different PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the PP, but please see my post above at 14:18.

Have you ever volunteered? There is no shortage of other work to be done.

Yes, I have volunteered. As you say, there is no shortage of other work to be done.

Which then leads to the question: if (as you say) nobody is learning anything, then where does all of this no-shortage-of-other-work-to-be-done work come from?

Nobody is saying that 'nobody is learning anything'. Go back and re-read the complaints.

The complaint is that the kids who have already met benchmarks (eg. K kids at Level 6 or above in reading) are not getting enough direct instruction time because the teacher has to meet the needs of the other kids in the class. That is what bothers some parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I volunteer too and see the same thing. There is so much unproductive time. Even during parent observation hour which you would think would be a display of more engaging activities the kids are bored to death and the parents try not to fall asleep in the chairs. The 1st grade teacher was demonstrating things that my kids did early in preschool. Their second year of preschool for ages 4-5 was more advanced than what the teacher was doing.

OMG! You do realize that there is a lot of repetition, going back over material, laying down the foundation ...that is a lot what goes on in K-1st grade. Not only that, but those early years is a lot about teaching kids HOW TO LEARN. Teaching them to focus, be in a classroom setting, getting organized, plus a lot of the fundamental facts they will need to build on in the later grades.
Some of you people are a trip, if your little 4-5 yr old is such a genius and wayyyyy beyond the scope of K-1 in MCPS, why the freak didn't you just test them into 3rd grade.
Get a grip!

Do you actually have a kid in MCPS? MCPS does NOT like kids to skip grades AT ALL. They don't even like you do to EEK. It is not easy to have your kid skip a grade.

...there is a big difference between reading to kids, helping someone with their vocabulary words, answering questions about 2 +2 and "teaching" new concepts, providing direct and only instruction in any particular subject. NO, I will not be introducing my kid's class to phonics, but if I am volunteering and I see a kid or a group needs help, with the teacher's permission, I can provide some assistance.
If someone claims to volunteer so much and sees so little learning, you would think they would be a bit more proactive instead of just complaining on DCUM. And if they had volunteered to do more, they should have said so in their original post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not the PP, but please see my post above at 14:18.

Have you ever volunteered? There is no shortage of other work to be done.

Yes, I have volunteered. As you say, there is no shortage of other work to be done.

Which then leads to the question: if (as you say) nobody is learning anything, then where does all of this no-shortage-of-other-work-to-be-done work come from?

Nobody is saying that 'nobody is learning anything'. Go back and re-read the complaints.

The complaint is that the kids who have already met benchmarks (eg. K kids at Level 6 or above in reading) are not getting enough direct instruction time because the teacher has to meet the needs of the other kids in the class. That is what bothers some parents.

You skipped some posts. 17:54 says there is 'very little learning' going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well since my one child is in 6th and my other in 1st, I guess all 8 teachers I have witnessed have poor classroom management. Wait, I take that back. How can a teacher TEACH to a class if she spends 1.5hrs of the day, pulling aside a few kids at a time. Oh, wait she can't, especially when she has 25-32 kids in a class. It is not the teacher, it is the style of teaching MCPS wants to have. Trying to be politically correct and blend the kids. Kids who are reading at 2-3 grade levels above and kids who can't read or don't even speak English. Neither group of kids are getting the direct teaching/learning they deserve.

Maybe they do all have poor classroom management. Or maybe you have unrealistic expectations. Because it actually is possible to teach kids reading without separating them into different classes.

Parents on DCUM like to assert that MCPS is doing within-class differentiation because of "political correctness". (Whatever that means.) An alternative explanation is that MCPS is doing within-class differentiation because that's what works best for the most children, with the resources MCPS has.

Can you explain this further? (we're new to MCPS)

I know that the ES we're zoned for has 4 K classes with about 20 students each. Why wouldn't they just separate out the kids based on reading ability at the beginning of the year? It would use the same amount of 'resources', right? Same teachers. Same classroom. What is the down side?
[/quote

How do they sort? Reading? Math? What if a child excels in one area and not in another? What if a child has a leap of ability during the year and goes from "the bottom" to "the top"? Or what if a child stagnates and goes from being advanced to average? Do you reorder the classes throughout the year to accommodate these changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I know that the ES we're zoned for has 4 K classes with about 20 students each. Why wouldn't they just separate out the kids based on reading ability at the beginning of the year? It would use the same amount of 'resources', right? Same teachers. Same classroom. What is the down side?

How do they sort? Reading? Math? What if a child excels in one area and not in another? What if a child has a leap of ability during the year and goes from "the bottom" to "the top"? Or what if a child stagnates and goes from being advanced to average? Do you reorder the classes throughout the year to accommodate these changes?

Fair points.

I've heard repeatedly (maybe not be true?) that K - 2nd grade is all about making sure the kids know how to read. And, then after 3rd grade, they being to 'read to learn'.

So, grouping the kids by reading ability (versus math) might make more sense in K-2. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to reorder the classes throughout the year since part of K/1st grade is socialization. But, if the kids start at similar reading levels, won't they increase similarly as well, if all being taught the same?

And, more importantly, how would that be any worse than having the 5 different reading levels all in the same class? Even just making it so that there are 2 different reading groups would seem to be an improvement, so that the teacher can give each group a half-hour or instruction (versus 10 minutes or no time at all, in some cases).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Fair points.

I've heard repeatedly (maybe not be true?) that K - 2nd grade is all about making sure the kids know how to read. And, then after 3rd grade, they being to 'read to learn'.

So, grouping the kids by reading ability (versus math) might make more sense in K-2. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to reorder the classes throughout the year since part of K/1st grade is socialization. But, if the kids start at similar reading levels, won't they increase similarly as well, if all being taught the same?

And, more importantly, how would that be any worse than having the 5 different reading levels all in the same class? Even just making it so that there are 2 different reading groups would seem to be an improvement, so that the teacher can give each group a half-hour or instruction (versus 10 minutes or no time at all, in some cases).

There is actually empirical research about these questions. If you look it up, you can find out more.

[Anonymous]

No, K readers do not all improve in their reading together. Some kids who do not know how to read when they enter may catch on quickly and move to high reading levels faster than their peers. I think this is a very fluid age group.

[Anonymous]

That would be called tracking..is that really what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are ridiculously obsessed with reading levels. Reading level is only a small piece of the puzzle. It is what you do with the reading that counts--and that can be taught at grade level.

Well, this particular thread is about reading groups (says that in the title!).

But, no, I'm not obsessed with reading levels. It's more just that I'd like my kid to actually be improving/learning for the 30 hours/week she's at school.

I'm actually quite concerned about math also, but that's a whole different thread.

DC has been in top group all year. The group NEVER meets as far as I can squeeze out my child. In spite of this DC jumped a whole grade in one marking period. Again I wouldn't stress too much over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all are ridiculously obsessed with reading levels. Reading level is only a small piece of the puzzle. It is what you do with the reading that counts--and that can be taught at grade level.

Well, this particular thread is about reading groups (says that in the title!).

But, no, I'm not obsessed with reading levels. It's more just that I'd like my kid to actually be improving/learning for the 30 hours/week she's at school.

I'm actually quite concerned about math also, but that's a whole different thread.

DC has been in top group all year. The group NEVER meets as far as I can squeeze out my child. In spite of this DC jumped a whole grade in one marking period. Again I wouldn't stress too much over it.

I'm a PP.

I'm not worried about her increasing her level. I'm more worried about the fact that she never actually gets to read WITH the teacher! So, the lack of direct instruction (in school) is what bugs me.

[Anonymous]

It seems that my MontCo 1st grader's class had 6 weeks off reading group (from winter break 'til this week) so the teacher could assess all the kids individually. This week, however, the group met twice. Hurrah! I think that gap in reading instruction is horrid, but the class size is huge, so I'm not sure what else the teacher can do. Especially with the bad weather. Fortunately, my DC is an avid reader at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've heard repeatedly (maybe not be true?) that K - 2nd grade is all about making sure the kids know how to read. And, then after 3rd grade, they being to 'read to learn'.

So, grouping the kids by reading ability (versus math) might make more sense in K-2. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to reorder the classes throughout the year since part of K/1st grade is socialization. But, if the kids start at similar reading levels, won't they increase similarly as well, if all being taught the same?

And, more importantly, how would that be any worse than having the 5 different reading levels all in the same class? Even just making it so that there are 2 different reading groups would seem to be an improvement, so that the teacher can give each group a half-hour or instruction (versus 10 minutes or no time at all, in some cases).

Do you trust teachers to manage splitting the class for math abilities during K-2, or do you just ignore math or teach math to one particular level and every other child will cope or not?

No, children do not progress together. Children mature differently. Some children are ready to read at 4, some 5, and so on. There are children who are at very different levels at the beginning of the year (e.g. an emerging reader and a fluent reader), and by the end of the year reading on the same level.

If you're going to accept that you're going to have to account for teaching children at different levels (which given reality, you're going to have to), why sort children initially? There seems to be minimal benefit and there are significant drawbacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you're going to accept that you're going to have to account for teaching children at different levels (which given reality, you're going to have to), why sort children initially? There seems to be minimal benefit and there are significant drawbacks.

Can you talk more about what exactly the drawbacks are?

The kids are sorted anyway (within the classroom). How is this any worse than sorting the kids into separate classrooms?