No More Reading Levels in Grades 3 - 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an educator and a parent and I for one think this is a fantastic change. I don't think reading levels ever belonged on a report card. Our students think of themselves as a level instead of as a reader. Could you imagine thinking you can only read certain books? I don't know about you, but sometimes I want to read dumb beach reads and other times books that really challenge me. Taking the levels off the report card helps our children become readers not levels. Teachers should ALWAYS communicate their level to the parent. However, levels were created to help us teach children, not to dictate what a child reads. What difference does it make if your child is reading one level above or a year above, they are above grade level readers. I also think that good teaching is teaching the love of reading not the love of reading leveled books.

When I go to the library with my daughter she picks books based on her interest not based on the reading level on her report card. I haven't heard of anybody denying their child access to a book based on the child reading level. On the other hand, reading level is a very good information for the parents. I think it should stay on the report card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

You seem to believe that teachers don't have any other way to interact with children other than individual assessment and MAP testing.

No, not what I am saying at all, but I have seen with my own eyes how little a teacher with a large class can understand about the nuances of a child’s ability when they rely heavily on computer testing instead of sitting down one-on-one. I saw this while volunteering in a very large second grade that used a lot of math apps and testing. The admin was very data-driven and the teacher spent a lot of time reviewing app and testing scores. The teacher asked me to do math facts with the kids and there were a few surprises in kids who were doing pretty badly on the Fast Math computer stuff but clearly knew their math facts well and showed that when they worked on paper with me. It was definitely an additional level of information for the teacher. There was one child who was getting very stressed by all the testing and showing a truly alarming amount of anxiety about it when I sat down with her. By computer testing standards, she was in the bottom third of the class. One-on-one, with a little reassurance and calm, she showed higher mastery than most of the class. This was a highly experienced and generally excellent teacher. Class discussions and group work do show a lot, but also obscure the abilities and needs of some children. A little individual time can go a long way to reveal whether a child is really struggling, or almost has it, or is flying on a subject.
So I am not at all advocating for this particular kind of assessment, but I am concerned that some kind of individual assessment is once again getting replaced by computer testing.

Was the teacher surprised by your observation? Or she already knew from her own experience with her class that some students were more proficient than their test results showed?

[Anonymous]

In my experience, most MCPS teachers were not adequately trained or had time to properly perform the reading assessments. I strongly believe a computerized test will do a better overall job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, most MCPS teachers were not adequately trained or had time to properly perform the reading assessments. I strongly believe a computerized test will do a better overall job.

And what is your experience and how did you get to test most MCPS teachers to figure out how well they are trained? How do you know what adequate training is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

You seem to believe that teachers don't have any other way to interact with children other than individual assessment and MAP testing.

No, not what I am saying at all, but I have seen with my own eyes how little a teacher with a large class can understand about the nuances of a child’s ability when they rely heavily on computer testing instead of sitting down one-on-one. I saw this while volunteering in a very large second grade that used a lot of math apps and testing. The admin was very data-driven and the teacher spent a lot of time reviewing app and testing scores. The teacher asked me to do math facts with the kids and there were a few surprises in kids who were doing pretty badly on the Fast Math computer stuff but clearly knew their math facts well and showed that when they worked on paper with me. It was definitely an additional level of information for the teacher. There was one child who was getting very stressed by all the testing and showing a truly alarming amount of anxiety about it when I sat down with her. By computer testing standards, she was in the bottom third of the class. One-on-one, with a little reassurance and calm, she showed higher mastery than most of the class. This was a highly experienced and generally excellent teacher. Class discussions and group work do show a lot, but also obscure the abilities and needs of some children. A little individual time can go a long way to reveal whether a child is really struggling, or almost has it, or is flying on a subject.
So I am not at all advocating for this particular kind of assessment, but I am concerned that some kind of individual assessment is once again getting replaced by computer testing.

Was the teacher surprised by your observation? Or she already knew from her own experience with her class that some students were more proficient than their test results showed?

I’m not sure, since her job wasn’t to tell me about her thoughts on the kids in the class. But I would guess that she asked me to do it because she suspected there was a discrepancy and didn’t have the time to do individual analysis (huge class). So if I had to say, I would guess that she suspected but didn’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

You seem to believe that teachers don't have any other way to interact with children other than individual assessment and MAP testing.

No, not what I am saying at all, but I have seen with my own eyes how little a teacher with a large class can understand about the nuances of a child’s ability when they rely heavily on computer testing instead of sitting down one-on-one. I saw this while volunteering in a very large second grade that used a lot of math apps and testing. The admin was very data-driven and the teacher spent a lot of time reviewing app and testing scores. The teacher asked me to do math facts with the kids and there were a few surprises in kids who were doing pretty badly on the Fast Math computer stuff but clearly knew their math facts well and showed that when they worked on paper with me. It was definitely an additional level of information for the teacher. There was one child who was getting very stressed by all the testing and showing a truly alarming amount of anxiety about it when I sat down with her. By computer testing standards, she was in the bottom third of the class. One-on-one, with a little reassurance and calm, she showed higher mastery than most of the class. This was a highly experienced and generally excellent teacher. Class discussions and group work do show a lot, but also obscure the abilities and needs of some children. A little individual time can go a long way to reveal whether a child is really struggling, or almost has it, or is flying on a subject.
So I am not at all advocating for this particular kind of assessment, but I am concerned that some kind of individual assessment is once again getting replaced by computer testing.

Was the teacher surprised by your observation? Or she already knew from her own experience with her class that some students were more proficient than their test results showed?

I’m not sure, since her job wasn’t to tell me about her thoughts on the kids in the class. But I would guess that she asked me to do it because she suspected there was a discrepancy and didn’t have the time to do individual analysis (huge class). So if I had to say, I would guess that she suspected but didn’t know.

Computer testing designed by experts who are actually qualified is so much better than a teacher who lacks the necessary time to fully assess each student.

[Anonymous]

Come on, guys.

MCPS isn't making this change so kids won't feel limited in what books they can read for pleasure!

MCPS is doing this to effectively get rid of any data that makes them look bad. It's far easier to get most kids reading "on level". It's challenging to sustain a significant cohort reading significantly above level. As the county's demographics continue to change, this becomes even more difficult. Rather than continue to see the numbers of T level 2nd graders dwindle, they'll simply abandon that data collection.

Remember: everything mcps does is to make the system look better on paper. This is how our educators reach their goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, guys.

MCPS isn't making this change so kids won't feel limited in what books they can read for pleasure!

MCPS is doing this to effectively get rid of any data that makes them look bad. It's far easier to get most kids reading "on level". It's challenging to sustain a significant cohort reading significantly above level. As the county's demographics continue to change, this becomes even more difficult. Rather than continue to see the numbers of T level 2nd graders dwindle, they'll simply abandon that data collection.

Remember: everything mcps does is to make the system look better on paper. This is how our educators reach their goals.

DCUM (when there were reading levels on the report cards): My kid's reading level on the report card is all wrong! It's useless information! They only put it on there out of nefarious intent!
DCUM (now that MCPS is getting rid of reading levels on the report cards): The reading level on the report card provides vital information! They're only taking it off out of nefarious intent!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, guys.

MCPS isn't making this change so kids won't feel limited in what books they can read for pleasure!

MCPS is doing this to effectively get rid of any data that makes them look bad. It's far easier to get most kids reading "on level". It's challenging to sustain a significant cohort reading significantly above level. As the county's demographics continue to change, this becomes even more difficult. Rather than continue to see the numbers of T level 2nd graders dwindle, they'll simply abandon that data collection.

Remember: everything mcps does is to make the system look better on paper. This is how our educators reach their goals.

This is false. The data isn't going away. Children are required to take the MAP-R 3 times a year. Their score on this test does relate to a reading level. This test seems to be more in-depth and consistently administered than the one they're eliminating.