Please tell me this means MCPS is getting rid of Benchmark for next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone should be held accountable for the costly mistake with Benchmark.

The working group of educators who reviewed the various options did not support Benchmark. So who made the decision to go against the recommendation?

Big, expensive mistake that negatively impacted students.

Where’s the accountability?

It makes me wonder if someone got a kickback for selecting Benchmark because otherwise it makes no sense. Has anyone investigated this?

They essentially selected Benchmark because it had the most materials available in Spanish translation. They told this to the board at the time, explaining why they didn't choose a higher-rated curriculum.

I recall this too. Not really sure how they will navigate this because the ideal- a highly rated curriculum also available in Spanish, is a unicorn that doesn't exist. And now they are rolling out even more dual-immersion programs (which overall I think is a good thing! they just seem to have put the cart before the horse).

This seems so weird. How hard is it to translate a different curriculum into Spanish?

Why does it need to be the same? Somehow Spanish speaking countries teach kids to read with their own curriculums. Why don’t we get the best English reading curriculum for when we are teaching in English and the best Spanish reading curriculum for when we are teaching in Spanish? Having a curriculum that’s equally bad in both languages doesn’t seem to be an advantage.

Is MCPS considering this? Would make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone should be held accountable for the costly mistake with Benchmark.

The working group of educators who reviewed the various options did not support Benchmark. So who made the decision to go against the recommendation?

Big, expensive mistake that negatively impacted students.

Where’s the accountability?

It makes me wonder if someone got a kickback for selecting Benchmark because otherwise it makes no sense. Has anyone investigated this?

They essentially selected Benchmark because it had the most materials available in Spanish translation. They told this to the board at the time, explaining why they didn't choose a higher-rated curriculum.

I recall this too. Not really sure how they will navigate this because the ideal- a highly rated curriculum also available in Spanish, is a unicorn that doesn't exist. And now they are rolling out even more dual-immersion programs (which overall I think is a good thing! they just seem to have put the cart before the horse).

This seems so weird. How hard is it to translate a different curriculum into Spanish?

Why does it need to be the same? Somehow Spanish speaking countries teach kids to read with their own curriculums. Why don’t we get the best English reading curriculum for when we are teaching in English and the best Spanish reading curriculum for when we are teaching in Spanish? Having a curriculum that’s equally bad in both languages doesn’t seem to be an advantage.

Is MCPS considering this? Would make sense.

PP here - Sorry if my post was misleading, I was speaking only of my personal opinion. I have no idea what MCPS is considering, but their views on curriculum seldom coincide with mine.

From what little I’ve gleaned from DCUM, it seems like they may be starting to prioritize content with a larger emphasis on phonics and the expansion of tge foreign language immersion programs. I view these as positive signs, so maybe there’s hope they’ll choose better curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone should be held accountable for the costly mistake with Benchmark.

The working group of educators who reviewed the various options did not support Benchmark. So who made the decision to go against the recommendation?

Big, expensive mistake that negatively impacted students.

Where’s the accountability?

It makes me wonder if someone got a kickback for selecting Benchmark because otherwise it makes no sense. Has anyone investigated this?

They essentially selected Benchmark because it had the most materials available in Spanish translation. They told this to the board at the time, explaining why they didn't choose a higher-rated curriculum.

I recall this too. Not really sure how they will navigate this because the ideal- a highly rated curriculum also available in Spanish, is a unicorn that doesn't exist. And now they are rolling out even more dual-immersion programs (which overall I think is a good thing! they just seem to have put the cart before the horse).

This seems so weird. How hard is it to translate a different curriculum into Spanish?

Why does it need to be the same? Somehow Spanish speaking countries teach kids to read with their own curriculums. Why don’t we get the best English reading curriculum for when we are teaching in English and the best Spanish reading curriculum for when we are teaching in Spanish? Having a curriculum that’s equally bad in both languages doesn’t seem to be an advantage.

Is MCPS considering this? Would make sense.

Wouldn't that be twice as expensive? Maybe just teach everyone in one language. I'm not into a tax hike to cover these extravagances.

[Anonymous]

The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone should be held accountable for the costly mistake with Benchmark.

The working group of educators who reviewed the various options did not support Benchmark. So who made the decision to go against the recommendation?

Big, expensive mistake that negatively impacted students.

Where’s the accountability?

They opened the curriculum choice up to anyone at the time who was willing to review a long powerpoint; I voted against Benchmark, too, but none of the options on the table were super. This makes me wonder who did support Benchmark, though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

You'd also need a team to evaluate and piece all of these different pieces together, no? Even if it makes sense, I don't trust MCPS to handle anything that complicated.

Was Benchmark cheaper than the "expensive" curricula? I admittedly have no idea how expensive these things are relative to their overall budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

You'd also need a team to evaluate and piece all of these different pieces together, no? Even if it makes sense, I don't trust MCPS to handle anything that complicated.

Was Benchmark cheaper than the "expensive" curricula? I admittedly have no idea how expensive these things are relative to their overall budget.

I’m not aware of the price vs others that were in the running. Benchmark was chosen because it had a component for preschool that could be used in Head Start and PreKindergarten classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

But. But Larla needs the very bestest!!

[Anonymous]

I heard my principal say this week that they are definitely getting rid of Benchmark. Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard my principal say this week that they are definitely getting rid of Benchmark. Hooray!

Hooray? I just wasted the last three summers in Benchmark training. Now time to learn yet another new curriculum? Nope. MCPS is just continually failing both staff members and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard my principal say this week that they are definitely getting rid of Benchmark. Hooray!

Hooray? I just wasted the last three summers in Benchmark training. Now time to learn yet another new curriculum? Nope. MCPS is just continually failing both staff members and students.

Benchmark is awful. It never should have been selected. But given that MCPS did, and it has been awful, yes, hooray; it needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

You'd also need a team to evaluate and piece all of these different pieces together, no? Even if it makes sense, I don't trust MCPS to handle anything that complicated.

Was Benchmark cheaper than the "expensive" curricula? I admittedly have no idea how expensive these things are relative to their overall budget.

I’m not aware of the price vs others that were in the running. Benchmark was chosen because it had a component for preschool that could be used in Head Start and PreKindergarten classrooms.

I thought it was because there was Spanish available?

It seems even more ridiculous if it was selected because it had options for the PreK classrooms. There are plenty of curricula specifically designed for that age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The perfect curriculum doesn’t exist. Children learn in a multitude of different ways and at varying speeds. This is due to a myriad of factors including their experiences prior to starting school.
Rather than purchasing an expensive curriculum and pushing it at the exclusivity of everything else, MCPS could attempt to purchase components of multiple curricula and spend money on training. This would likely require training to continue on professional days throughout the school year, very popular with dcum. Essentially, we need high quality pieces of curricula that we can pieces together to create a comprehensive program that meets the diverse needs of the children we serve. To implement it well, we need the infrastructure in place to train teachers and support them while they implement the programs.

You'd also need a team to evaluate and piece all of these different pieces together, no? Even if it makes sense, I don't trust MCPS to handle anything that complicated.

Was Benchmark cheaper than the "expensive" curricula? I admittedly have no idea how expensive these things are relative to their overall budget.

I’m not aware of the price vs others that were in the running. Benchmark was chosen because it had a component for preschool that could be used in Head Start and PreKindergarten classrooms.

I thought it was because there was Spanish available?

It seems even more ridiculous if it was selected because it had options for the PreK classrooms. There are plenty of curricula specifically designed for that age group.

I don't think PreK components were cited as one of the main reasons.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2019/02/15/school-board-agrees-to-buy-new-elementary-level-english-curriculum/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard my principal say this week that they are definitely getting rid of Benchmark. Hooray!

Hooray? I just wasted the last three summers in Benchmark training. Now time to learn yet another new curriculum? Nope. MCPS is just continually failing both staff members and students.

Benchmark is awful. It never should have been selected. But given that MCPS did, and it has been awful, yes, hooray; it needs to go.

Why is Benchmark awful? Whats so bad about it? I am trying to understand aa my current 3rd grader has been doing Benchmark since K. What is Benchmark lacking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard my principal say this week that they are definitely getting rid of Benchmark. Hooray!

Hooray? I just wasted the last three summers in Benchmark training. Now time to learn yet another new curriculum? Nope. MCPS is just continually failing both staff members and students.

Benchmark is awful. It never should have been selected. But given that MCPS did, and it has been awful, yes, hooray; it needs to go.

Why is Benchmark awful? Whats so bad about it? I am trying to understand aa my current 3rd grader has been doing Benchmark since K. What is Benchmark lacking?

Have you ever asked any of your child's teachers? Or the Reading Specialist at your school? They have direct experience implementing the curriculum and are a great resource. The reading specialist and teachers at our school have not had good things to say about Benchmark, for various reasons (the phonics component especially got the thumbs down from them and they are happy to be using RGR this year).