Benchmark is awful - what can be done

[Anonymous]

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.

Kids have foundational gaps due to the 14 months of virtual learning. I think it's unfair to blame the curriculum for that

[Anonymous]

All of the issues people are experiencing with Benchmark were called out prior to the selection, but, you know, Central office knows best.

As a parent, I recall doing the online survey before the curriculum was acquired and specifically replying to the survey that Benchmark did no have enough reading materials for advanced learners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the issues people are experiencing with Benchmark were called out prior to the selection, but, you know, Central office knows best.

As a parent, I recall doing the online survey before the curriculum was acquired and specifically replying to the survey that Benchmark did no have enough reading materials for advanced learners.

Just like Curriculum 2.0. Parents flagged that drivel within 6 months. MCPS kept it for 10 years. It’s a feature not a bug!

[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.

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

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

Why are you defending this curriculum? That report shows it’s a mediocre curriculum at BEST. The word phonics is not mentioned a single time in the K-2 analysis. Do you work for the company or something?

[Anonymous]

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.

Kids have foundational gaps due to the 14 months of virtual learning. I think it's unfair to blame the curriculum for that

Right but a kindergarten curriculum needs to meet all learners where they are, from ELLS who speak no English to children who are fluent native English speakers. It needs to be able to support kids who are coming in with no early childhood experiences and kids who are reading and have had multiple years of high quality early childhood.

And to the poster who thinks Tik Tok can’t have valid information, you’re incorrect. The evidence on how kids learn to read is really, really clear. It’s through phonics. A quick Google search would tell you that. If you care at all about equity for our kids you would demand our public schools use evidence and research backed curriculum.

I have tutored kids who are in older grades (3rd, 4th) who never mastered letter recognition, letter sounds, phonics, and who could not read. It was heartbreaking to see. These kids have such low self esteem, they hate school, they have behavior problems, they think they are stupid, and pay the price for the rest of their lives.

“And for the last few decades, the research has been clear: Teaching young kids how to crack the code—teaching systematic phonics—is the most reliable way to make sure that they learn how to read words.”

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-do-kids-learn-to-read-what-the-science-says/2019/10

What do you PPs get out of defending an indefensible, lousy curriculum? Clearly you don’t care about children, their educational outcomes, or
equity and inclusion at all.

[Anonymous]

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.

Kids have foundational gaps due to the 14 months of virtual learning. I think it's unfair to blame the curriculum for that

Right but a kindergarten curriculum needs to meet all learners where they are, from ELLS who speak no English to children who are fluent native English speakers. It needs to be able to support kids who are coming in with no early childhood experiences and kids who are reading and have had multiple years of high quality early childhood.

And to the poster who thinks Tik Tok can’t have valid information, you’re incorrect. The evidence on how kids learn to read is really, really clear. It’s through phonics. A quick Google search would tell you that. If you care at all about equity for our kids you would demand our public schools use evidence and research backed curriculum.

I have tutored kids who are in older grades (3rd, 4th) who never mastered letter recognition, letter sounds, phonics, and who could not read. It was heartbreaking to see. These kids have such low self esteem, they hate school, they have behavior problems, they think they are stupid, and pay the price for the rest of their lives.

“And for the last few decades, the research has been clear: Teaching young kids how to crack the code—teaching systematic phonics—is the most reliable way to make sure that they learn how to read words.”

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-do-kids-learn-to-read-what-the-science-says/2019/10

What do you PPs get out of defending an indefensible, lousy curriculum? Clearly you don’t care about children, their educational outcomes, or
equity and inclusion at all.

While it's true some kids who checked out during virtual have gaps, those that took it seriously shouldn't be penalized. Also, it sounds like Benchmark isn't the problem, but a scape goatfor slack parents who checked out during DL.

[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.

Kids have foundational gaps due to the 14 months of virtual learning. I think it's unfair to blame the curriculum for that

Right but a kindergarten curriculum needs to meet all learners where they are, from ELLS who speak no English to children who are fluent native English speakers. It needs to be able to support kids who are coming in with no early childhood experiences and kids who are reading and have had multiple years of high quality early childhood.

And to the poster who thinks Tik Tok can’t have valid information, you’re incorrect. The evidence on how kids learn to read is really, really clear. It’s through phonics. A quick Google search would tell you that. If you care at all about equity for our kids you would demand our public schools use evidence and research backed curriculum.

I have tutored kids who are in older grades (3rd, 4th) who never mastered letter recognition, letter sounds, phonics, and who could not read. It was heartbreaking to see. These kids have such low self esteem, they hate school, they have behavior problems, they think they are stupid, and pay the price for the rest of their lives.

“And for the last few decades, the research has been clear: Teaching young kids how to crack the code—teaching systematic phonics—is the most reliable way to make sure that they learn how to read words.”

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-do-kids-learn-to-read-what-the-science-says/2019/10

What do you PPs get out of defending an indefensible, lousy curriculum? Clearly you don’t care about children, their educational outcomes, or
equity and inclusion at all.

While it's true some kids who checked out during virtual have gaps, those that took it seriously shouldn't be penalized. Also, it sounds like Benchmark isn't the problem, but a scape goatfor slack parents who checked out during DL.

You’re missing my entire point - this thread was about Benchmark in kindergarten. Those kids did not do DL during COVID. In fact many child care centers and preschools were open so your whole point about slacker parents during DL is not welcome here. Also, how horrible to blame parents who were trying to manage, in many cases, full time jobs on top of DL and to blame them for educational losses. It’s entirely unfair to make it the fault of parents. It is an unsprisong and expected outcome for a society who prioritized opening bars over schools. But sure, blame parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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

Why are you defending this curriculum? That report shows it’s a mediocre curriculum at BEST. The word phonics is not mentioned a single time in the K-2 analysis. Do you work for the company or something?

So I read though this and the Ppp is correct. K-2 list phonic and phonological awareness in the indicators and criterion (K0-KR). Same for first and second. And its not listed as mediocore. Also have taken a look over the year at the upper ES materials and they indeed provide phonics lessons, vocabulary/word study, close reading and understanding of how to read and understand/analysis a text and lots of opportunities for writing. There’s also daily practice items(which they don’t send home as homework nor do they bring the book home each day which is questionable) could be done. As a package its a solid grade level curriculum particular as it also contains many things for ESOL students.

Now if we're just talking about books for reading well I don’t know that I expect a teacher to do novel study with 5 groups. I mean choosing a novel that the majority of the class would enjoy and not have read would be trying enough. Then add in having to do all the same ELA skills from above, plus get everyone to keep up with the reading at the same speed. That sounds draining, and if I were a teacher would only do 1-2x a year AFTER I’d already taught the relevant language skills.

[Anonymous]

I didn't realize MCPS was using Benchmark. I think our teacher must have just ditched it.

[Anonymous]

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.

Kids have foundational gaps due to the 14 months of virtual learning. I think it's unfair to blame the curriculum for that

NP here. It's possible for virtual learning to have resulted in gaps (it did), and for the curriculum to also be inadequate (it is). It might be true that Benchmark's phonics were stronger than that of the competing curricula, but it's not strong. The EdReports "Moderate" rating should have been a red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't realize MCPS was using Benchmark. I think our teacher must have just ditched it.

What grade is your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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

Why are you defending this curriculum? That report shows it’s a mediocre curriculum at BEST. The word phonics is not mentioned a single time in the K-2 analysis. Do you work for the company or something?

Probably for central office and feels compelled to defend the selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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

Why are you defending this curriculum? That report shows it’s a mediocre curriculum at BEST. The word phonics is not mentioned a single time in the K-2 analysis. Do you work for the company or something?

So I read though this and the Ppp is correct. K-2 list phonic and phonological awareness in the indicators and criterion (K0-KR). Same for first and second. And its not listed as mediocore. Also have taken a look over the year at the upper ES materials and they indeed provide phonics lessons, vocabulary/word study, close reading and understanding of how to read and understand/analysis a text and lots of opportunities for writing. There’s also daily practice items(which they don’t send home as homework nor do they bring the book home each day which is questionable) could be done. As a package its a solid grade level curriculum particular as it also contains many things for ESOL students.

Now if we're just talking about books for reading well I don’t know that I expect a teacher to do novel study with 5 groups. I mean choosing a novel that the majority of the class would enjoy and not have read would be trying enough. Then add in having to do all the same ELA skills from above, plus get everyone to keep up with the reading at the same speed. That sounds draining, and if I were a teacher would only do 1-2x a year AFTER I’d already taught the relevant language skills.

This right here is why benchmark was selected- not because it was good overall, but because there were ESOL materials. That is not always the case.

[Anonymous]

it sucks my qeustions suck

[Anonymous]

Benchmark sucks