When will MCPS adopt an evidence-based early reading curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

If you want phonics, teach your child yourself. Actually, you should teach your child to read either way. Not all kids learn with phonics. Some do better with phonics, some do better with sight reading so a multi-approach is best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

If you want phonics, teach your child yourself. Actually, you should teach your child to read either way. Not all kids learn with phonics. Some do better with phonics, some do better with sight reading so a multi-approach is best.

Actually, not true. “Sight reading” is not reading, and misunderstanding that fact is part of the problem. Ask me how I know — teachers telling me for years DC was a “sight reader” until we finally paid of out pocket for a private eval and discovered they had dyslexia.

[Anonymous]

I will say that the elementary ELA office has had a lot of turnover the last few years. Their newest supervisor is very talented but she's inherited an utter shit show with Benchmark. I feel bad for her because I don't know that central office will let her switch curriculums considering the $$$$$$$$$ the system spent on Benchmark. I support teachers K - 5 with instruction and I haven't met anyone who likes Benchmark. K - 2 really needs more time spent on foundational skills so that students are ready to handle complex text.

[Anonymous]

I've not met a single teacher in this country who is prepared to teach children to read - only retired teachers who considered it a part of their job.

My kids are in HS so this is not a recent discovery. When each of them were in K-5 it was all about "testing" their reading, not teaching it. That was considered to be parent's work. So we did it at home, like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid went through 2.0 from beginning to end. I hated it, but she came out just fine. Your kids will too.

Oh, what a terrible argument in defense of an inept leadership team in our school district.

My kid went through 2.0 and we worked hard to get her up to speed once we realized how terrible 2.0 was. Some kids were left behind and just stayed there. Not all kids are like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the teachers I know hate Benchmark too, but unfortunately I think MCPS will stick with it to save face, they don't want to admit they chose the wrong curriculum. They stayed with 2.0 a ridiculously long time too.

But it's mind boggling that they continue to F this up over and over. I REALLY want to know if anyone in central office received a kickback for choosing Benchmark because there are no sensible reasons for selecting such a poor curriculum.

I wonder this ALL the time about so many things. So many craptastic initiatives that do nothing for our kids.

And there is no oversight of this corrupt school district, so taxpayers will never know.

[Anonymous]

I taught my K kid with phonics and syllables in another language and she can decide easily there. English is so much harder with phonics. Very many phonemes with varied spellings. Shes doing much better doing whole word. But that means needing a much larger vocabulary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the teachers I know hate Benchmark too, but unfortunately I think MCPS will stick with it to save face, they don't want to admit they chose the wrong curriculum. They stayed with 2.0 a ridiculously long time too.

But it's mind boggling that they continue to F this up over and over. I REALLY want to know if anyone in central office received a kickback for choosing Benchmark because there are no sensible reasons for selecting such a poor curriculum.

I wonder this ALL the time about so many things. So many craptastic initiatives that do nothing for our kids.

And there is no oversight of this corrupt school district, so taxpayers will never know.

What system should MCPS use?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any teachers or experts out there have a recommended alternative to benchmark?

When they were choosing curricula, there were 5 or so that they were considering for ES ELA. Only one of them was recommended by the nonprofit Wd Reports. People assumed they would go with that. But nope, they went with one that was not recommended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the teachers I know hate Benchmark too, but unfortunately I think MCPS will stick with it to save face, they don't want to admit they chose the wrong curriculum. They stayed with 2.0 a ridiculously long time too.

But it's mind boggling that they continue to F this up over and over. I REALLY want to know if anyone in central office received a kickback for choosing Benchmark because there are no sensible reasons for selecting such a poor curriculum.

I wonder this ALL the time about so many things. So many craptastic initiatives that do nothing for our kids.

And there is no oversight of this corrupt school district, so taxpayers will never know.

What system should MCPS use?

In CO, school districts must choose from a list of evidence-based programs:
https://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/advisorylistofinstructionalprogramming2020

The 2021 version of Benchmark Advance apparently has made the cut after several revisions but there appear to be better options:
https://co.chalkbeat.org/platform/amp/2020/12/14/22164235/denver-benchmark-reading-curriculum-english-learners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

To the Board of Education and MCPS.

BOE:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Hana_O'[e-mail]
Soon there will also be a new disrict 3 member, but he's not yet listed on the website

MCPS:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

In addition to writing individual emails, you might ask for a meeting to discuss your concerns.

This is really great- thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

If you want phonics, teach your child yourself. Actually, you should teach your child to read either way. Not all kids learn with phonics. Some do better with phonics, some do better with sight reading so a multi-approach is best.

Actually, not true. “Sight reading” is not reading, and misunderstanding that fact is part of the problem. Ask me how I know — teachers telling me for years DC was a “sight reader” until we finally paid of out pocket for a private eval and discovered they had dyslexia.

Your child had a reading disorder. That's very different. My child learned to read early and did it all through sight reading. You cannot say no child can learn through sight reading because yours did not. Kids learn different ways and that is why the one fit all approach doesn't work. And, you should have known if your child was reading and gotten an evaluation/help earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid went through 2.0 from beginning to end. I hated it, but she came out just fine. Your kids will too.

Oh, what a terrible argument in defense of an inept leadership team in our school district.

My kid went through 2.0 and we worked hard to get her up to speed once we realized how terrible 2.0 was. Some kids were left behind and just stayed there. Not all kids are like yours.

Agree, we had to heavily supplement in elementary school to make sure ours got a good foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

If you want phonics, teach your child yourself. Actually, you should teach your child to read either way. Not all kids learn with phonics. Some do better with phonics, some do better with sight reading so a multi-approach is best.

Actually, not true. “Sight reading” is not reading, and misunderstanding that fact is part of the problem. Ask me how I know — teachers telling me for years DC was a “sight reader” until we finally paid of out pocket for a private eval and discovered they had dyslexia.

Your child had a reading disorder. That's very different. My child learned to read early and did it all through sight reading. You cannot say no child can learn through sight reading because yours did not. Kids learn different ways and that is why the one fit all approach doesn't work. And, you should have known if your child was reading and gotten an evaluation/help earlier.

NP. Phonics is absolutely essential for most kids to learn how to read fluently. Balanced literacy approaches often don’t contain enough explicit phonics instruction. Benchmark in particular is criticized for this. Why MCPS felt that Benchmark was a good curriculum is anyone’s guess.

This is a good article on what the science shows about how best to teach reading:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/balanced-literacy-phonics-teaching-reading-evidence/amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to MoCo, and my kid is still in daycare (4). Where should I be expressing my concern regarding the lack of phonics-based instruction?

If you want phonics, teach your child yourself. Actually, you should teach your child to read either way. Not all kids learn with phonics. Some do better with phonics, some do better with sight reading so a multi-approach is best.

Actually, not true. “Sight reading” is not reading, and misunderstanding that fact is part of the problem. Ask me how I know — teachers telling me for years DC was a “sight reader” until we finally paid of out pocket for a private eval and discovered they had dyslexia.

Your child had a reading disorder. That's very different. My child learned to read early and did it all through sight reading. You cannot say no child can learn through sight reading because yours did not. Kids learn different ways and that is why the one fit all approach doesn't work. And, you should have known if your child was reading and gotten an evaluation/help earlier.

The science of how children learn to read is well documented:

Reading scientists have known for decades that the hallmark of being a skilled reader is the ability to instantly and accurately recognize words.33 If you're a skilled reader, your brain has gotten so good at reading words that you process the word "chair" faster than you process a picture of a chair.34 You know tens of thousands of words instantly, on sight. How did you learn to do that?

It happens through a process called "orthographic mapping."35 This occurs when you pay attention to the details of a written word and link the word's pronunciation and meaning with its sequence of letters.36 A child knows the meaning and pronunciation of "pony." The word gets mapped to his memory when he links the sounds /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ to the written word "pony."

That requires an awareness of the speech sounds in words and an understanding of how those sounds are represented by letters.37 In other words, you need phonics skills.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading