For Teachers: How was your PD Day Today

[Anonymous]

I had a colonoscopy and after texting some teacher friends, it sounds like my day was the most productive of all of us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary was on the science of learning. Everything was great- much better way to teach. Only problem is that our curriculum doesn’t align at all with the science! Teaching us to meet the kids where they are- great- then MCPS, let us!

As an ES parent, I am curious in what ways you feel like the curriculum doesn't align with the science of learning? Which subjects? We're probably stuck with CKLA for awhile but they are apparently about to replace Eureka so I would be very curious about your perspective on whether it aligns with the science or what could be different in a new curriculum that we could advocate for...

DP but the skills portion inadequately teaches decoding and phonemic awareness. RGR was much better.

We also move on too quickly and throw too much at students at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Did y'all learn how to be mandatory reporters just so your admin can retaliate on you when you report.

[Anonymous]

HS teacher here- We also had a training on the science of learning.it was just ok. That was an hour long and the rest of the day was planning time with PLCs and/or individually. It wasn’t a waste of time for me because I actually got through a long to-do list. I’m grateful for these days. We had a lot of teachers take leave. Many of them would have been the ones to complain no maters what we did, so I’m glad they weren’t there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HS teacher here- We also had a training on the science of learning.it was just ok. That was an hour long and the rest of the day was planning time with PLCs and/or individually. It wasn’t a waste of time for me because I actually got through a long to-do list. I’m grateful for these days. We had a lot of teachers take leave. Many of them would have been the ones to complain no maters what we did, so I’m glad they weren’t there.

That sounds good. At my HS, they spent two hours on the science of learning. It was fine but all the content could have been covered in 30 min. Then we got a 30 min lunch break followed by another 2h pd on strategies to scaffold assignments for EML learners. No one ever answers where we should find the time to modify all assignments to fit multiple different levels of EML learners. And also IEP and 504 students. And also be incorporating science of learning ideas into all our plans. It just felt like a whole bunch of stuff thrown at us. And we also had to listen to an hour presentation on attendance and tardiness issues which apparently are the fault of teachers for not being friendly and welcoming enough to all students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary was on the science of learning. Everything was great- much better way to teach. Only problem is that our curriculum doesn’t align at all with the science! Teaching us to meet the kids where they are- great- then MCPS, let us!

As an ES parent, I am curious in what ways you feel like the curriculum doesn't align with the science of learning? Which subjects? We're probably stuck with CKLA for awhile but they are apparently about to replace Eureka so I would be very curious about your perspective on whether it aligns with the science or what could be different in a new curriculum that we could advocate for...

DP - where did you read they are replacing Eureka?

.

They've mentioned it a few times lately including at the Board meeting yesterday: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMEQEB68EB75/$file/Curriculum%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

I'm not sure that they are replacing Eureka as much as there will be an evaluation of if it meets and aligns with the revised standards and/or if there is something else that does so better AND would be better to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a math teacher, Eureka is actually fine. What are they doing? Teachers are going to keep quitting having to constantly relearn curriculum, especially non-departmentalized elementary teachers.

I think they said they have to change it due to the new state math changes?

But also, the most recent OSA evaluation found that while most teachers felt the Eureka curriculum worked for kids on grade level, it did not do a good job of meeting the needs of kids below or above grade level, EMLs, or kids with IEPs and did not include sufficient materials to support students struggling with math or needing math enrichment or not proficient in English. Given that, I was excited to hear they're looking to change to something better. But is that not your experience?

The problem is not inherently the curriculum, its the idea that one curriculum off the shelf will meet the needs of all groups. At best it will have resources to help support, but even with that, a teacher/para/or someone is going to have to determine which resources to bring in for which group or which student. And none of that works when the pacing has to stay the same for everyone.

Math is as close to a universal language as we have. Many EMLs are not struggling the with actual math concepts at a greater number than any other group. They are trying to learn English. This is why it helps to have the materials in their native AND have someone who can teach in that language. This way they can keep up in math while they work on English. Similarly a kids with an IEP for dyscalculia is going to need a lot more time and attention to be able to grasp all the concepts, especially as a kid who is still gathering all the basics and learning how to control their emotional response and anxiety. A new curriculum may help them, or what they need may just be additional resources to break things down further and more time. But the classroom isn't setup to allow for that student to have more time without them missing out on something else or other students actively waiting and not moving on to something new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a math teacher, Eureka is actually fine. What are they doing? Teachers are going to keep quitting having to constantly relearn curriculum, especially non-departmentalized elementary teachers.

I think they said they have to change it due to the new state math changes?

But also, the most recent OSA evaluation found that while most teachers felt the Eureka curriculum worked for kids on grade level, it did not do a good job of meeting the needs of kids below or above grade level, EMLs, or kids with IEPs and did not include sufficient materials to support students struggling with math or needing math enrichment or not proficient in English. Given that, I was excited to hear they're looking to change to something better. But is that not your experience?

The problem is not inherently the curriculum, its the idea that one curriculum off the shelf will meet the needs of all groups. At best it will have resources to help support, but even with that, a teacher/para/or someone is going to have to determine which resources to bring in for which group or which student. And none of that works when the pacing has to stay the same for everyone.

Math is as close to a universal language as we have. Many EMLs are not struggling the with actual math concepts at a greater number than any other group. They are trying to learn English. This is why it helps to have the materials in their native AND have someone who can teach in that language. This way they can keep up in math while they work on English. Similarly a kids with an IEP for dyscalculia is going to need a lot more time and attention to be able to grasp all the concepts, especially as a kid who is still gathering all the basics and learning how to control their emotional response and anxiety. A new curriculum may help them, or what they need may just be additional resources to break things down further and more time. But the classroom isn't setup to allow for that student to have more time without them missing out on something else or other students actively waiting and not moving on to something new.

This exactly. There is no one curriculum that can fit the needs of all the different groups of students. They need to stop constantly trying out new curriculums. Adapt as needed and supplement certain areas. It’s almost like the folks in central need to keep bringing in new stuff to justify their jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a math teacher, Eureka is actually fine. What are they doing? Teachers are going to keep quitting having to constantly relearn curriculum, especially non-departmentalized elementary teachers.

I think they said they have to change it due to the new state math changes?

But also, the most recent OSA evaluation found that while most teachers felt the Eureka curriculum worked for kids on grade level, it did not do a good job of meeting the needs of kids below or above grade level, EMLs, or kids with IEPs and did not include sufficient materials to support students struggling with math or needing math enrichment or not proficient in English. Given that, I was excited to hear they're looking to change to something better. But is that not your experience?

The problem is not inherently the curriculum, its the idea that one curriculum off the shelf will meet the needs of all groups. At best it will have resources to help support, but even with that, a teacher/para/or someone is going to have to determine which resources to bring in for which group or which student. And none of that works when the pacing has to stay the same for everyone.

Math is as close to a universal language as we have. Many EMLs are not struggling the with actual math concepts at a greater number than any other group. They are trying to learn English. This is why it helps to have the materials in their native AND have someone who can teach in that language. This way they can keep up in math while they work on English. Similarly a kids with an IEP for dyscalculia is going to need a lot more time and attention to be able to grasp all the concepts, especially as a kid who is still gathering all the basics and learning how to control their emotional response and anxiety. A new curriculum may help them, or what they need may just be additional resources to break things down further and more time. But the classroom isn't setup to allow for that student to have more time without them missing out on something else or other students actively waiting and not moving on to something new.

This exactly. There is no one curriculum that can fit the needs of all the different groups of students. They need to stop constantly trying out new curriculums. Adapt as needed and supplement certain areas. It’s almost like the folks in central need to keep bringing in new stuff to justify their jobs

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary was on the science of learning. Everything was great- much better way to teach. Only problem is that our curriculum doesn’t align at all with the science! Teaching us to meet the kids where they are- great- then MCPS, let us!

As an ES parent, I am curious in what ways you feel like the curriculum doesn't align with the science of learning? Which subjects? We're probably stuck with CKLA for awhile but they are apparently about to replace Eureka so I would be very curious about your perspective on whether it aligns with the science or what could be different in a new curriculum that we could advocate for...

DP - where did you read they are replacing Eureka?

.

They've mentioned it a few times lately including at the Board meeting yesterday: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMEQEB68EB75/$file/Curriculum%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

I'm not sure that they are replacing Eureka as much as there will be an evaluation of if it meets and aligns with the revised standards and/or if there is something else that does so better AND would be better to teach.

Eureka also has a newer edition that isn't what MCPS purchased. I'd be really shocked if they didn't renew the Eureka contract, because it's a pretty decent curriculum that's evidence based. My guess is we'd be switching to the newer version, not getting something new entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elementary was on the science of learning. Everything was great- much better way to teach. Only problem is that our curriculum doesn’t align at all with the science! Teaching us to meet the kids where they are- great- then MCPS, let us!

As an ES parent, I am curious in what ways you feel like the curriculum doesn't align with the science of learning? Which subjects? We're probably stuck with CKLA for awhile but they are apparently about to replace Eureka so I would be very curious about your perspective on whether it aligns with the science or what could be different in a new curriculum that we could advocate for...

DP - where did you read they are replacing Eureka?

.

They've mentioned it a few times lately including at the Board meeting yesterday: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMEQEB68EB75/$file/Curriculum%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

I'm not sure that they are replacing Eureka as much as there will be an evaluation of if it meets and aligns with the revised standards and/or if there is something else that does so better AND would be better to teach.

Eureka also has a newer edition that isn't what MCPS purchased. I'd be really shocked if they didn't renew the Eureka contract, because it's a pretty decent curriculum that's evidence based. My guess is we'd be switching to the newer version, not getting something new entirely.

We have to switch from Eureka to a new curriculum because MSDE is rolling out new math standards for the state that no curriculum currently addresses. Personally, I like Eureka and wish we had the newest version that isn't as language heavy in its content. I don't know what all the counties in MD are going to do from a curriculum standpoint in order to teach the new standards. Hopefully not go back to writing our own with that C 2.0 mess.

[Anonymous]

I used sick leave and spent the day outside with my kids. Don’t regret it at all. Heard it was a total waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HS teacher here- We also had a training on the science of learning.it was just ok. That was an hour long and the rest of the day was planning time with PLCs and/or individually. It wasn’t a waste of time for me because I actually got through a long to-do list. I’m grateful for these days. We had a lot of teachers take leave. Many of them would have been the ones to complain no maters what we did, so I’m glad they weren’t there.

Ours was four hours of leadership reading off slides full of typos and bizarre sentence structures. We were confused, but so were our facilitators.

No one was allowed to have a device or any paper other than a capture sheet that was provided. The capture sheet sometimes aligned with the slides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used sick leave and spent the day outside with my kids. Don’t regret it at all. Heard it was a total waste of time.

Did ILT warn you that you have to make it up?

Two years ago, my mom was rushed to the ER on the DWPL day. I had to make it up afterschool the following week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Went to Ocean City with other teachers and got drunk after a few "educational" meeting.

Sounds like you might get paid for only part of that time since you had to sign attendance at every session.

Good luck!