New elementary language arts curricula

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I'm happy to hear that is the curriculum that we are adopting. It should teach more content (science/social studies) and I've heard good things about it. My question is are we keeping Really Great Reading?

Why is a reading curriculum teaching content? Shouldn’t it be teaching things like decoding, spelling, and other reading skills?

Science and SS content should be taught in those classes. MCPS is such a joke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I'm happy to hear that is the curriculum that we are adopting. It should teach more content (science/social studies) and I've heard good things about it. My question is are we keeping Really Great Reading?

Why is a reading curriculum teaching content? Shouldn’t it be teaching things like decoding, spelling, and other reading skills?

Science and SS content should be taught in those classes. MCPS is such a joke

Because it gives kids things to write and read about. How often at work do you have to write an essay with zero content? You don't. You write about facts and ideas. So in CKLA they introduce ideas that the kids read about (reading comprehension + vocab), analyze, and the write about (composition + spelling).

[Anonymous]

Amplify has a phonics program they use a lot of total body learning so for example kids might be practicing segmenting sounds using different body movements or hopping three times for each sound

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I'm happy to hear that is the curriculum that we are adopting. It should teach more content (science/social studies) and I've heard good things about it. My question is are we keeping Really Great Reading?

Why is a reading curriculum teaching content? Shouldn’t it be teaching things like decoding, spelling, and other reading skills?

Science and SS content should be taught in those classes. MCPS is such a joke

I noticed they both benchmark and amplify both have a a balance between fiction and non-fiction and when they are not fiction text they tend to focus on science and social studies texts. I think the idea from the curriculum writers is that it helps kids build their background knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I'm happy to hear that is the curriculum that we are adopting. It should teach more content (science/social studies) and I've heard good things about it. My question is are we keeping Really Great Reading?

Amplify has a phonics program so I'm not sure if they need to pay for both

[Anonymous]

Every teacher I know, myself included, really love being able to use Really Great Reading for our phonics program. I really don't want to let that program go even though Amplify has it's own program. Then again, so does Benchmark and we saw how wonderful that was for kids .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

Thanks. A concern would be if MCPS sees on-level enrichments (deeper instead of accelerated, like their tiered elementary Math enrichment outside of Math 4/5 & 5/6) as adequate, notes the cost savings of built-in versus keeping the various additional ELC elements, and tries to shut down the latter. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some in central office looking to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I'm happy to hear that is the curriculum that we are adopting. It should teach more content (science/social studies) and I've heard good things about it. My question is are we keeping Really Great Reading?

Why is a reading curriculum teaching content? Shouldn’t it be teaching things like decoding, spelling, and other reading skills?

Science and SS content should be taught in those classes. MCPS is such a joke

You obviously have no sense of reading research. Decoding keeps kids at an equal pace for a little while, but soon, lack of basic content knowledge holds back their comprehension of new words (why proficiency levels goes down as the cohort ages). I believe the research says that kids need to understand about 80% of words before they can move forward.

Kids have to read something when they are learning to read. Instead of inane AI generated stories, how about actual content?

Why don't you learn something about Core Knowledge before calling it a "joke"?
https://www.coreknowledge.org/research-studies/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/D3ASBR71CEAB/$file/English%20Language%20Arts%20Curriculum%20Adoption%20240319.pdf

On the board's agenda for Tuesday March 19th: the adoption of Amplify: Core Knowledge Language Arts for elementary ELA and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt ¡Arriba la lectura! for elementary Spanish immersion programs.

Anyone have opinions about these?

You mean Wireless Generation. MCPS invested in them years ago in a royalty deal. Is MCPS getting royalties off of this curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Amplify makes the DIBELS reading assessment that we use in K-2 for all students and 3 - 5 for struggling readers. I like that assessment and progress monitoring components so I'm remaining hopeful that this curriculum will be better than Benchmark.
I think the bigger issue is that the Common Core standards are so rigorous that textbook companies try and race through content to cover all of the standards. Students need a LOT more time than their given to master the basics before moving on to more complex skills like comparing and contrasting two texts.
Benchmark claimed to do this by spiraling back to skills all year but all that happened was we threw a bunch of *hit at the wall and hoped it stuck before rushing on to the next skill. Many students never felt confident in what they were learning because they were rushed on to the next skill. As a teacher, it's painful to move on knowing half of the class understands. The curriculum office just tells us to trust the process of spiraling back. It simply doesn't work. Kids need to feel confident and show mastery before taking on the next big challenge.
Rant over...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

That makes sense because MCPS is only focused on the bottom 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amplify makes the DIBELS reading assessment that we use in K-2 for all students and 3 - 5 for struggling readers. I like that assessment and progress monitoring components so I'm remaining hopeful that this curriculum will be better than Benchmark.
I think the bigger issue is that the Common Core standards are so rigorous that textbook companies try and race through content to cover all of the standards. Students need a LOT more time than their given to master the basics before moving on to more complex skills like comparing and contrasting two texts.
Benchmark claimed to do this by spiraling back to skills all year but all that happened was we threw a bunch of *hit at the wall and hoped it stuck before rushing on to the next skill. Many students never felt confident in what they were learning because they were rushed on to the next skill. As a teacher, it's painful to move on knowing half of the class understands. The curriculum office just tells us to trust the process of spiraling back. It simply doesn't work. Kids need to feel confident and show mastery before taking on the next big challenge.
Rant over...

Agree with this completely. Will add that the writing program in benchmark is awful. We need an explicit and systematic approach to writing. Hoping Amplify has something close to that but I’m doubtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

That makes sense because MCPS is only focused on the bottom 20%.

How is that a focus on the bottom 20% if the curriculum is at grade-level?