Extended School Year Approved for 2 MoCo Elementary Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the issues I have observed from the one year-round school in APS) it was a pilot program, but never expanded to other schools and has not shown results in the short-term as test s ore have actually gone down; as far as I know APS has not collected any longitudinal data to show a long-term benefit for the students as they move through secondary schools).

MC and UMC families opted out. It's a pain to manage two different calendars, so unless all the other schools in MoCo move to this calendar, people with agency will leave. It will also keep new MC and UMC families from moving into the boundaries with this calendar unless their kids are already enrolled in a private or magnet school with a traditional calendar.

It is more challenging to attract teachers. You've limited your potential pool of candidates to those who don't have children of school age.

MC and UMC families want summers, maybe not all 12 weeks, but more than 4. They would rather have their kids doing at least a few camps with the kind of enrichment activities that public schools rarely provide, and summer activities like swim and tennis. They don't want their kids doing test prep and work sheets for an extra two months out of the year, they might be okay with RSM or Kumon, but not two extra months basic stuff. They will opt out of the calendar, especially if the calendar is just implemented in a high poverty neighborhood school. Make it a lottery school, and maybe it has legs.

Low information families will accidentally opt out of the calendar. They won't realize school has been in session when they show up in September. This has happened every year for almost two decades at the one year-round school in APS. Or, they go visit their families for months at a time in another country and disregard the concept of year-round school to do that, even when their children are the intended targets of the extra time in school.

I don't think the answer is to do nothing, rather target the resources better. Instead of giving poor kids a different calendar, try to recreate what families with better resources and understanding of education routinely provide. That means free preschool at age 3. Provide free parenting classes and affinity/support groups for their parents. Obviously not all can or will avail themselves of this resource, but there are many parents who want the best for their kids but have no idea how to provide it because nobody ever taught them. Explicitly teach parents that they are their children's first and most important teacher. Then show them, explicitly, how to do it. Offer full-day enrichments camps and provide meals and bus service for income-qualified students during the summer. And do everything possible to desegregate schools by SES.

These are good points, but most obstacles seem to stem from the 'pilot' nature of the program rather than the program, itself. After a few years, the extended year would become the new norm. And if other schools adopted the same system, you wouldn't have the issue with multiple calendars (which, indeed, seems to be a big problem).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it doesn't. It answers a different question

Q: How can schools close the gap?
A: They can't.

So, what can close the gap, and how?

Having all parents understand that education starts at home and doesn't just occur during the school day once a child turns 5. We get kids who arrive in Kindergarten not knowing the names of colors, shapes, how to count to 5, how to recognize their own name in print, how to toilet themselves, or how to hold a pencil or scissors. It also takes them a while to acclimate to how to be in school and that expectations in school are different than at home. No, it doesn't mean preschool is necessary for everyone, but for some kids coming to school is completely brand new on every level.

By the time these kids learn these skills they are already way behind. The curriculum is written assuming children have background knowledge they don't have. Yes, there are interventions but when it takes them two marking periods to learn the skills listed above, they're already way behind. They are spending their time and energy learning those skills, so all of the skills being taught above and beyond those aren't sinking in, so when the same skills are spiraled in later meant as reinforcement these kids are learning them for the first time and aren't building upon them as designed--they're experiencing them for the first time. This cycle builds and builds until there are gaping holes that just can't be filled in the time they're in school.

Some of this is on the preschools and day cares for not teaching as well. It is a parenting issue as many parents, even wealthy don't teach their kids this.

My kid doesn't do summer camps. We do workbooks during the summer but not all kids do summer camps due to cost.

These kids for the most part aren't in preschools or day cares. They spend time with extended family or babysitters in the neighborhood. They're not being paid to teach them anything--many end up in front of the TV all day and they're not watching Sesame Street or anything of that sort and they're around lots of adult activities throughout the day because it isn't a child focused arrangement.

None of the preschools or day cares we looked at but 1 really did heavy academics at age 4. We only found one and went. It made a huge difference in preparing my and all the kids for school. I know plenty of wealthy parents who don't teach the foundation.

It is not heavy academics to teach kids the colors and how to hold a crayon.

[Anonymous]

Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

I would be down for this.

[Anonymous]

This closes the gap - https://www.edutopia.org/profile/dana-mccauley

But central office would never agree to this, as any successes at the school - true success that builds academic stamina in children - would threaten their jobs. It's easier to find an obstacle and capitalize on it by forming a "team of experts" to address it. Then, when it doesn't work, blame can be placed on the teachers for not following through.

With regard to Crellin ES, the principal is a TEACHING principal who follows David Sobel's Place-Based educational framework. How many principals teach in MCPS? Yes, it can be done.

Stephen Sugg, who ran for MCPS BOE, wrote his dissertation on Crellin ES, which is one of the poorest schools in Maryland. But apparently, Sugg made too much sense for Mo Co. Here's an article on Sugg - https://redmaryland.com/2018/04/candidate-survey-stephen-sugg-montgomery-county-board-education/

Here is his dissertation - http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Research/S0200F230-0200F2F2

THIS is community support. Don't make kids ashamed of their community. Put them IN the community to help build respect and trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the issues I have observed from the one year-round school in APS) it was a pilot program, but never expanded to other schools and has not shown results in the short-term as test s ore have actually gone down; as far as I know APS has not collected any longitudinal data to show a long-term benefit for the students as they move through secondary schools).

MC and UMC families opted out. It's a pain to manage two different calendars, so unless all the other schools in MoCo move to this calendar, people with agency will leave. It will also keep new MC and UMC families from moving into the boundaries with this calendar unless their kids are already enrolled in a private or magnet school with a traditional calendar.

It is more challenging to attract teachers. You've limited your potential pool of candidates to those who don't have children of school age.

MC and UMC families want summers, maybe not all 12 weeks, but more than 4. They would rather have their kids doing at least a few camps with the kind of enrichment activities that public schools rarely provide, and summer activities like swim and tennis. They don't want their kids doing test prep and work sheets for an extra two months out of the year, they might be okay with RSM or Kumon, but not two extra months basic stuff. They will opt out of the calendar, especially if the calendar is just implemented in a high poverty neighborhood school. Make it a lottery school, and maybe it has legs.

Low information families will accidentally opt out of the calendar. They won't realize school has been in session when they show up in September. This has happened every year for almost two decades at the one year-round school in APS. Or, they go visit their families for months at a time in another country and disregard the concept of year-round school to do that, even when their children are the intended targets of the extra time in school.

I don't think the answer is to do nothing, rather target the resources better. Instead of giving poor kids a different calendar, try to recreate what families with better resources and understanding of education routinely provide. That means free preschool at age 3. Provide free parenting classes and affinity/support groups for their parents. Obviously not all can or will avail themselves of this resource, but there are many parents who want the best for their kids but have no idea how to provide it because nobody ever taught them. Explicitly teach parents that they are their children's first and most important teacher. Then show them, explicitly, how to do it. Offer full-day enrichments camps and provide meals and bus service for income-qualified students during the summer. And do everything possible to desegregate schools by SES.

These are good points, but most obstacles seem to stem from the 'pilot' nature of the program rather than the program, itself. After a few years, the extended year would become the new norm. And if other schools adopted the same system, you wouldn't have the issue with multiple calendars (which, indeed, seems to be a big problem).

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

This would never happen because all of the poor kids would be at the bottom and many of them are minorities so people would call this racist practices. Maybe we should go back to the day when there were zero expectations for a child when they showed up in KG. It's okay that students can't ______________. Now, if a kid shows up in KG and isn't on reading behaviors, they are already below grade level. I've had some interesting conversations with parents at mt Title 1 school when they learn that their child who just started school is already below grade level. Most of them had no idea that they were "supposed" to do anything to prepare them for KG. They don't know how much school has changed since they were there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

This would never happen because all of the poor kids would be at the bottom and many of them are minorities so people would call this racist practices. Maybe we should go back to the day when there were zero expectations for a child when they showed up in KG. It's okay that students can't ______________. Now, if a kid shows up in KG and isn't on reading behaviors, they are already below grade level. I've had some interesting conversations with parents at mt Title 1 school when they learn that their child who just started school is already below grade level. Most of them had no idea that they were "supposed" to do anything to prepare them for KG. They don't know how much school has changed since they were there.

Not understanding your point. This is the way it is now. When my kid was in K, she was bored out of her mind (along with some other kids in the classroom) because they were waiting for the other kids who didn't know their colors, numbers, shapes, etc. to catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

This would never happen because all of the poor kids would be at the bottom and many of them are minorities so people would call this racist practices. Maybe we should go back to the day when there were zero expectations for a child when they showed up in KG. It's okay that students can't ______________. Now, if a kid shows up in KG and isn't on reading behaviors, they are already below grade level. I've had some interesting conversations with parents at mt Title 1 school when they learn that their child who just started school is already below grade level. Most of them had no idea that they were "supposed" to do anything to prepare them for KG. They don't know how much school has changed since they were there.

Not understanding your point. This is the way it is now. When my kid was in K, she was bored out of her mind (along with some other kids in the classroom) because they were waiting for the other kids who didn't know their colors, numbers, shapes, etc. to catch up.

Then there wasn't enough differentiation in the instruction. My son entered K reading on level 10 and was reading on a level K at the end of the year. He had small group guided reading instruction most days even though he was far above grade level. He was engaged in learning and his teacher challenged him and didn't let him be lazy. Nobody should be waiting around for other kids to catch up. This is why teaching elementary is so difficult--classes are not homogenous in any way and the teacher needs to find a way to meet the needs of every student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the issues I have observed from the one year-round school in APS) it was a pilot program, but never expanded to other schools and has not shown results in the short-term as test s ore have actually gone down; as far as I know APS has not collected any longitudinal data to show a long-term benefit for the students as they move through secondary schools).

MC and UMC families opted out. It's a pain to manage two different calendars, so unless all the other schools in MoCo move to this calendar, people with agency will leave. It will also keep new MC and UMC families from moving into the boundaries with this calendar unless their kids are already enrolled in a private or magnet school with a traditional calendar.

It is more challenging to attract teachers. You've limited your potential pool of candidates to those who don't have children of school age.

MC and UMC families want summers, maybe not all 12 weeks, but more than 4. They would rather have their kids doing at least a few camps with the kind of enrichment activities that public schools rarely provide, and summer activities like swim and tennis. They don't want their kids doing test prep and work sheets for an extra two months out of the year, they might be okay with RSM or Kumon, but not two extra months basic stuff. They will opt out of the calendar, especially if the calendar is just implemented in a high poverty neighborhood school. Make it a lottery school, and maybe it has legs.

Low information families will accidentally opt out of the calendar. They won't realize school has been in session when they show up in September. This has happened every year for almost two decades at the one year-round school in APS. Or, they go visit their families for months at a time in another country and disregard the concept of year-round school to do that, even when their children are the intended targets of the extra time in school.

I don't think the answer is to do nothing, rather target the resources better. Instead of giving poor kids a different calendar, try to recreate what families with better resources and understanding of education routinely provide. That means free preschool at age 3. Provide free parenting classes and affinity/support groups for their parents. Obviously not all can or will avail themselves of this resource, but there are many parents who want the best for their kids but have no idea how to provide it because nobody ever taught them. Explicitly teach parents that they are their children's first and most important teacher. Then show them, explicitly, how to do it. Offer full-day enrichments camps and provide meals and bus service for income-qualified students during the summer. And do everything possible to desegregate schools by SES.

These are good points, but most obstacles seem to stem from the 'pilot' nature of the program rather than the program, itself. After a few years, the extended year would become the new norm. And if other schools adopted the same system, you wouldn't have the issue with multiple calendars (which, indeed, seems to be a big problem).

Do you really think they're going to move all schools to the calendar? I don't. It will only be Title 1 or Focus schools, for the same reason they never moved forward in APS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Close the achievement gap by making the curriculum linear rather than age-based. Each child must meet certain milestones and then is moved to the next level. Obviously, the first level will involve skills that are typically learned before school. We don't freak out if more kids of color or immigrants are in those more basic classes. It is not enlightened or compassionate to move kids up through the grades without basic skills. Test and move kids up frequently. Obviously we will need some divisions by age groupings but EVERYONE starts with the basic level and then moves through the curriculum. If a kid moves here with no skills at 14, they enter a vocational program, not the college track. Extensively use parent or community volunteers to provide one on one teaching to kids in the lower level. All hands on deck to help as many kids as possible.

This would never happen because all of the poor kids would be at the bottom and many of them are minorities so people would call this racist practices. Maybe we should go back to the day when there were zero expectations for a child when they showed up in KG. It's okay that students can't ______________. Now, if a kid shows up in KG and isn't on reading behaviors, they are already below grade level. I've had some interesting conversations with parents at mt Title 1 school when they learn that their child who just started school is already below grade level. Most of them had no idea that they were "supposed" to do anything to prepare them for KG. They don't know how much school has changed since they were there.

Not understanding your point. This is the way it is now. When my kid was in K, she was bored out of her mind (along with some other kids in the classroom) because they were waiting for the other kids who didn't know their colors, numbers, shapes, etc. to catch up.

No, it isn't in my district. Kids are tested at the beginning of KG (the first month or so of school). The benchmark for the BOY is reading behaviors which includes the ability to orient a book correctly, know where you would begin reading, understanding that the print tells a story, turns page correctly, retells a story using illustrations, etc. If a child is unable to demonstrate these behaviors, they are below grade level. You would be shocked by how many students come into KG below grade level. There is an expectation that they know this prior to entering school. Someone has to teach them this. In most cases, parents and preschools teach these basic skills. If parents don't do it and the child didn't attend preschool, they have a lot of catching up today. Many children are showing up to their first day of school already behind. This is why I am a big believer in universal pre-k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are the issues I have observed from the one year-round school in APS) it was a pilot program, but never expanded to other schools and has not shown results in the short-term as test s ore have actually gone down; as far as I know APS has not collected any longitudinal data to show a long-term benefit for the students as they move through secondary schools).

MC and UMC families opted out. It's a pain to manage two different calendars, so unless all the other schools in MoCo move to this calendar, people with agency will leave. It will also keep new MC and UMC families from moving into the boundaries with this calendar unless their kids are already enrolled in a private or magnet school with a traditional calendar.

It is more challenging to attract teachers. You've limited your potential pool of candidates to those who don't have children of school age.

MC and UMC families want summers, maybe not all 12 weeks, but more than 4. They would rather have their kids doing at least a few camps with the kind of enrichment activities that public schools rarely provide, and summer activities like swim and tennis. They don't want their kids doing test prep and work sheets for an extra two months out of the year, they might be okay with RSM or Kumon, but not two extra months basic stuff. They will opt out of the calendar, especially if the calendar is just implemented in a high poverty neighborhood school. Make it a lottery school, and maybe it has legs.

Low information families will accidentally opt out of the calendar. They won't realize school has been in session when they show up in September. This has happened every year for almost two decades at the one year-round school in APS. Or, they go visit their families for months at a time in another country and disregard the concept of year-round school to do that, even when their children are the intended targets of the extra time in school.

I don't think the answer is to do nothing, rather target the resources better. Instead of giving poor kids a different calendar, try to recreate what families with better resources and understanding of education routinely provide. That means free preschool at age 3. Provide free parenting classes and affinity/support groups for their parents. Obviously not all can or will avail themselves of this resource, but there are many parents who want the best for their kids but have no idea how to provide it because nobody ever taught them. Explicitly teach parents that they are their children's first and most important teacher. Then show them, explicitly, how to do it. Offer full-day enrichments camps and provide meals and bus service for income-qualified students during the summer. And do everything possible to desegregate schools by SES.

These are good points, but most obstacles seem to stem from the 'pilot' nature of the program rather than the program, itself. After a few years, the extended year would become the new norm. And if other schools adopted the same system, you wouldn't have the issue with multiple calendars (which, indeed, seems to be a big problem).

Do you really think they're going to move all schools to the calendar? I don't. It will only be Title 1 or Focus schools, for the same reason they never moved forward in APS.

Then you get into the issue of Focus schools that have CES programs.

[Anonymous]

There is a poster on another DCUM thread asking what gift to get for her rising 1st grade kid’s summer reading tutor (75$/hr, 3 sessions a week). How will that kid perform compared to a kid whose parent has had him watching TV most of the day so they can go to work? Summer slide is a real thing, particularly for low income kids and I think this pilot is a great way to test whether extended year schooling could help improve educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

There will always be a bell curve. Some will be at the top, most will be somwhere in the middle, and some will be at the bottom. No matter what programs are put into place this will always be the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be a bell curve. Some will be at the top, most will be somwhere in the middle, and some will be at the bottom. No matter what programs are put into place this will always be the case.

No one is disputing that. But where that curve lies is up to our school system. All kids need to be minimally competent in certain areas to function in society.