Maryland 3rd Grade Retention for Reading Policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to disproportionately impact students with dyslexia who haven’t received adequate services.

It’s hugely damaging to the kid. They should instead be doing universal dyslexia screenings in 1st grade and provide services to all kids who have dyslexia.

Wait, they don't do universal dyslexia screenings in 1st? That is shocking to me. I thought that was standard.

DCPS does universal screenings.

My kid is 1st and all I know is they administer DIBELS 3x per year. My kid was in the "needs support" category for most of K and beginning of 1st and they didn't offer much support. We got tutoring outside of school and kid is on track now.

This is the issue.

They use DIBELS, which is fine for flagging kids who are at risk, but they don’t follow up with proper supports.

If you don’t give OG tutoring to a kid who needs support in 1st grade, then by the time they get to 3rd/4th, it is much harder to teach them to read.

It’s in part neurological. Literally you can help rewire a kid’s brain in 1st and 2nd with proper OG tutoring.

By 3rd/4th, their brain is developed such that it’s harder to rewire.

So there’s a clear window. This is well known in the scientific community. MCPS is literally being negligent by not supporting these kids. They are knowingly dooming them.

— A mom of a dyslexic kid who is livid about this. She is ahead in 3rd because we pay $20,000/year for private tutoring. MCPS was ZERO help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

Maybe you only use it for testing but my kid's K teacher absolutely had them play games on then regularly and would play youtube videos instead of reading actual books

By middle school they are playing video games and watching porn at school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds unfair except if they are going to offer kids struggling in K/1 more reading supports.

In Mississippi, they DID offer more reading supports - and a better Phonics-centered curriculum - and early screening for LD.

If the person behind this came from MS, where a literacy miracle occurred, then I would expect all of those to be part of the package.

I thought I read something about the data for Mississippi being bogus. The data excludes the kids that failed I think?

No. Data is from Mississippi on the NAEP, which is a nationwide standardized test. Not bogus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds unfair except if they are going to offer kids struggling in K/1 more reading supports.

In Mississippi, they DID offer more reading supports - and a better Phonics-centered curriculum - and early screening for LD.

If the person behind this came from MS, where a literacy miracle occurred, then I would expect all of those to be part of the package.

I thought I read something about the data for Mississippi being bogus. The data excludes the kids that failed I think?

No. Data is from Mississippi on the NAEP, which is a nationwide standardized test. Not bogus.

But isn't it administered in 4th grade? So the kids that are retained in 3rd don't take it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds unfair except if they are going to offer kids struggling in K/1 more reading supports.

In Mississippi, they DID offer more reading supports - and a better Phonics-centered curriculum - and early screening for LD.

If the person behind this came from MS, where a literacy miracle occurred, then I would expect all of those to be part of the package.

I thought I read something about the data for Mississippi being bogus. The data excludes the kids that failed I think?

No. Data is from Mississippi on the NAEP, which is a nationwide standardized test. Not bogus.

But isn't it administered in 4th grade? So the kids that are retained in 3rd don't take it?

They would take it the following year, after retention. Those kids don’t drop out of the stats, but they have an extra year of instruction by the time they take the text. Which I guess is the point - they needed it. Almost every child - 95% can learn to read with appropriate and appropriately intensive instruction. If that begins in K and carries on every year and over summers if need be there should be no need to have any child repeat a year.

I think the purpose isn’t to punish the child or to make any child repeat the year. I think the purpose is to force school systems, school administrators, and teachers to change how reading is taught. Failing to promote 60% of a class would be untenable, so the schools will have to overhaul their programs to prevent it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the purpose is to force school systems, school administrators, and teachers to change how reading is taught. Failing to promote 60% of a class would be untenable, so the schools will have to overhaul their programs to prevent it.

This.

And Mississippi overhauled the state reading curriculum first, to switch to literacy instruction that was actually effective. They banned the Lucy Calkins, Balanced Literacy, Whole Language crap as the first step. They retrained teachers who had been taught those bogus "methods".

That state also mandated extra attention and focus on making sure dyslexic or other special needs kids actually were given extra and appropriate literacy instruction, such as O-G.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

So these kids are constantly angry, restless, not interested in any activity except for the days you do state-mandated testing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

So these kids are constantly angry, restless, not interested in any activity except for the days you do state-mandated testing?

DP. I do not doubt screens make it worse now, but even when I was in school (and screens were mostly TV at home) there were plenty of kids who were angry, restless, and disengaged -- except during recess, lunch, or sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

Maybe you only use it for testing but my kid's K teacher absolutely had them play games on then regularly and would play youtube videos instead of reading actual books

By middle school they are playing video games and watching porn at school

This is our experience as well in the primary grades. There is easily twice as much time on devices than a few years ago, and that excludes testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

So these kids are constantly angry, restless, not interested in any activity except for the days you do state-mandated testing?

My DC has had way more time than I ever wanted on a device before. Fortunately they are performing well, with one exception: screened based tests. I’m confident the results would be significantly higher if the tests were on paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds unfair except if they are going to offer kids struggling in K/1 more reading supports.

How is it fair to keep promoting kids into material they can’t understand and are not able to learn from so they get further and further behind? Social promotion not doing them any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to understand that with increased standards, a certain percentage of students will not make benchmarks even with extra help. There are just as many kids on the left side of the bell curve as the right.

Performance is going down based on the same standards

And so what is the explanation? Ask any teacher and you’ll have it.

Let me guess, they will blame the same screens they use in their classroom, but it's only bad when parents use them

So when a child comes into my kindergarten class addicted to screens, yes, I’m going to hold their family accountable. How do I know they’re addicted? Classic signs of withdrawal- extreme anger and irritability, very restless, little to no interest in any activity not involving screens. We get about 8-10 kids each year displaying these behaviors. I only use screens for testing that the state requires. That’s it. Some of these children have brain damage from being raised on a screen. How can they learn to read, which requires sustained attention, if they can’t focus on anything?

So these kids are constantly angry, restless, not interested in any activity except for the days you do state-mandated testing?

At first they are excited because they see the laptop and they think they can play games, watch videos but it quickly goes downhill when they realize they have to take a test. Crying, whining, etc then commences.