PARCC monitoring student's social media, wants schools to "punish" them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where did you get the 10% from? Let's discuss real numbers, not hypotheticals.

Guesstimate--based on experience.

Please provide the research that says that the standards are developmentally appropriate. While you are at it, please provide the names of people on the committee who were Early Childhood specialists. We have already established that there were not any Early Childhood teachers.

Would you want First grade teachers setting the standards for Algebra? Why should college math professors set the standards for K? The Early Childhood standards were not written by teachers--or experts. But, then, we really don't know how they were developed, do we?

No, we've been through this. You're the one saying that the standards are developmentally inappropriate. You provide the research to support this.

By the way, 93% of kindergarteners in Montgomery County finished the year as at least emergent readers in 2008, so I think that would be a good number to use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012901638.html

[Anonymous]

By the way, 93% of kindergarteners in Montgomery County finished the year as at least emergent readers in 2008, so I think that would be a good number to use.

LOL! This.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-montgomery-schools-achievement-gap-widens-in-some-areas-drawing-criticism/2013/03/12/0d253d1c-8b37-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

By the way, 93% of kindergarteners in Montgomery County finished the year as at least emergent readers in 2008, so I think that would be a good number to use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...008/01/29/AR2008012901638.html

What happened after 2008? Do you think maybe, just maybe, those emergent reader scores may not have been accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/in-montgomery-schools-achievement-gap-widens-in-some-areas-drawing-criticism/2013/03/12/0d253d1c-8b37-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

By the way, 93% of kindergarteners in Montgomery County finished the year as at least emergent readers in 2008, so I think that would be a good number to use.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...008/01/29/AR2008012901638.html

What happened after 2008? Do you think maybe, just maybe, those emergent reader scores may not have been accurate?

This is what happened after 2008:

"In 2013, more than 90% of kindergarten students met or exceeded the grade level benchmark at Text Level 4, which was consistent with percentages from the two previous years...73.6% of kindergarteners attained proficiency at Text Level 6 in 2013."

http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2013/13.10.01%20ES%20Prin%20Memo%202013%20APPR.pdf

So I'm feeling pretty good about the number. But if you'd prefer to use 90% instead of 93%, we can do that.

[Anonymous]

Please explain the big drop off after Kindergarten. And, FWIW, Montgomery County is not your average socio-economic group.

[Anonymous]

You do know that Montgomery county is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please explain the big drop off after Kindergarten. And, FWIW, Montgomery County is not your average socio-economic group.

We are talking about the kindergarten standards. We are talking about what is developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners. 90+% of kindergarteners in MCPS are emergent readers by the end of kindergarten. If 90+% of kindergarteners can do it, it's not developmentally inappropriate.

As for Montgomery County, perhaps you haven't looked at the demographics lately?

Demographics (2014-2015)

White: 31%
Hispanic/Latino: 28.5%
Black or African American: 21.5%
Asian: 14.2%
Two or more races: ? 5.0%
American Indian or Alaskan Native: ? 5.0%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: ? 5.0%

Services (2014-2015)

Students receiving free & reduced-price meals (FARMS): 35.2%
Students ever receiving FARMS: 43.3%
English for speakers of other languages (ESOL): 13.9%
Students receiving special education services: 11.7%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do know that Montgomery county is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation?

43% of students in MCPS currently receive free/reduced meals or have received free/reduced meals in the past.

[Anonymous]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/07/30/the-most-educated-places-in-america-in-2014/

And, where do you think are the best educated in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/07/30/the-most-educated-places-in-america-in-2014/

And, where do you think are the best educated in the US?

Should I post the demographics of MCPS again?

[Anonymous]

Lots more on MCPS demographics:

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/demographicpdfs/Demo_UpdateOnEnrollmentAndCIP.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain the big drop off after Kindergarten. And, FWIW, Montgomery County is not your average socio-economic group.

We are talking about the kindergarten standards. We are talking about what is developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners. 90+% of kindergarteners in MCPS are emergent readers by the end of kindergarten. If 90+% of kindergarteners can do it, it's not developmentally inappropriate.

As for Montgomery County, perhaps you haven't looked at the demographics lately?

Demographics (2014-2015)

White: 31%
Hispanic/Latino: 28.5%
Black or African American: 21.5%
Asian: 14.2%
Two or more races: ? 5.0%
American Indian or Alaskan Native: ? 5.0%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: ? 5.0%

Services (2014-2015)

Students receiving free & reduced-price meals (FARMS): 35.2%
Students ever receiving FARMS: 43.3%
English for speakers of other languages (ESOL): 13.9%
Students receiving special education services: 11.7%

BOOM! I step away from this thread for a couple of days and somebody NAILS IT. Well done. +100,000%

The evidence to refute "reading by the end of k is developmentally inappropriate" is pretty damn solid.

Sorry, but you need to strike "developmentally inappropriate" off of the talking points list. That one is TOAST.

[Anonymous]

I question that 90% statistic. And, it appears that it is not holding longitudinally.

And, the research does show that it is better to wait.

My observation and experience supports that philosophy.

That does not mean that if kids are ready to read that they should not. If they are ready and have a strong program, they will read. No one can stop them. However, to have a standard that encourages pushing academics for which many kids are not ready, is wrong. I have seen what happens. It is not learning--it is training. There is a difference. But, if you want to push kids who would benefit from a slower approach and more time to develop rich vocabularies, then go ahead. I guess you cannot convince someone who has not seen it themselves.

Once more, how many kids have you taught to read?

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/01/13/report-requiring-kindergartners-to-read-as-common-core-does-may-harm-some/

One more time. It is just not worth it. It doesn't pay off in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I question that 90% statistic. And, it appears that it is not holding longitudinally.

And, the research does show that it is better to wait.

My observation and experience supports that philosophy.

That does not mean that if kids are ready to read that they should not. If they are ready and have a strong program, they will read. No one can stop them. However, to have a standard that encourages pushing academics for which many kids are not ready, is wrong. I have seen what happens. It is not learning--it is training. There is a difference. But, if you want to push kids who would benefit from a slower approach and more time to develop rich vocabularies, then go ahead. I guess you cannot convince someone who has not seen it themselves.

Once more, how many kids have you taught to read?

You question the data based on what? Your belief that it's developmentally inappropriate to expect a child to be an emergent reader by the end of kindergarten? I.e., it's developmentally inappropriate to expect a child to be an emergent reader by the end of kindergarten, therefore the numbers must be wrong, because it's developmentally inappropriate to expect a child to be an emergent reader by the end of kindergarten?

If you know of research that shows that it is better to wait, please post links. None of the research previously linked has showed this.