Community Review of K-6 Reading Materials

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

If you kids can read and write before K, can do multi digit addition subtraction, they won't learn anything new until close to third grade asides from history.

Public school is disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way public school can be everything to everyone. Either we need to fight for more tracking so that teachers have more homogenous classes, or we need to accept that the highest kids are going to be bored. It is impossible for teachers to give 5 levels of readers what they need, and it's not fair that we ask them to or everyone is going to get haphazard, watered down instruction.

If you want your kid to get exactly what they need (looking at you, kindergarten borrowers reader), you need to homeschool. That's the only realistic way that can happen.

Well, yes, more tracking would obviously be better for all kids, and for teachers. But it was done away with because it wasn't equitable, and it's apparently more important that school be equitable than that it deliver the best possible education.

Tracking as it was instantiated wasn't better for most kids--it channeled kids into paths they couldn't easily move out of (if you had a late bloomer, they stayed behind even if they were ready for more challenge) AND it was shown to be biased by race (white and Asian kids of same intelligence on average were tracked in higher groups than Black/Hispanic kids of the same intelligence; similar pattern for HIgh and low SES across all racial groups). This is well-documented by research.

What was advocated for better instruction and equity was flexible grouping by ability that was dynamic over the course of the year, by subject, etc. But just as that was started getting implemented and the kinks worked out, the emphasis on standardized testing/No Child Left Behind (under Bush in 2001) made it so that the most emphasis went to the kid who were in danger of not passing the tests. Advanced kids were neglected, so gifted and talented programs expanded to include more of them.

Fortunately we've moved beyond the more draconian phase of No Child Left Behind where schools were under constant threat about pass rates and they are also valuing and measuring growth for everyone. I think the schools are ripe to re-introduce dynamic, flexible grouping at all levels--especially with the help of new technologies for more quickly measuring progress. The process was stalled by the pandemic crisis, but seems to be somewhat still on track. We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way public school can be everything to everyone. Either we need to fight for more tracking so that teachers have more homogenous classes, or we need to accept that the highest kids are going to be bored. It is impossible for teachers to give 5 levels of readers what they need, and it's not fair that we ask them to or everyone is going to get haphazard, watered down instruction.

If you want your kid to get exactly what they need (looking at you, kindergarten borrowers reader), you need to homeschool. That's the only realistic way that can happen.

Well, yes, more tracking would obviously be better for all kids, and for teachers. But it was done away with because it wasn't equitable, and it's apparently more important that school be equitable than that it deliver the best possible education.

Tracking as it was instantiated wasn't better for most kids--it channeled kids into paths they couldn't easily move out of (if you had a late bloomer, they stayed behind even if they were ready for more challenge) AND it was shown to be biased by race (white and Asian kids of same intelligence on average were tracked in higher groups than Black/Hispanic kids of the same intelligence; similar pattern for HIgh and low SES across all racial groups). This is well-documented by research.

What was advocated for better instruction and equity was flexible grouping by ability that was dynamic over the course of the year, by subject, etc. But just as that was started getting implemented and the kinks worked out, the emphasis on standardized testing/No Child Left Behind (under Bush in 2001) made it so that the most emphasis went to the kid who were in danger of not passing the tests. Advanced kids were neglected, so gifted and talented programs expanded to include more of them.

Fortunately we've moved beyond the more draconian phase of No Child Left Behind where schools were under constant threat about pass rates and they are also valuing and measuring growth for everyone. I think the schools are ripe to re-introduce dynamic, flexible grouping at all levels--especially with the help of new technologies for more quickly measuring progress. The process was stalled by the pandemic crisis, but seems to be somewhat still on track. We'll see.

Have you looked into the research on the bolded? While technology promises to be key for differentiation and individualized teaching, it rarely delivers. It usually wildly gets wrong what kids actually know.

Human teachers are so critical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way public school can be everything to everyone. Either we need to fight for more tracking so that teachers have more homogenous classes, or we need to accept that the highest kids are going to be bored. It is impossible for teachers to give 5 levels of readers what they need, and it's not fair that we ask them to or everyone is going to get haphazard, watered down instruction.

If you want your kid to get exactly what they need (looking at you, kindergarten borrowers reader), you need to homeschool. That's the only realistic way that can happen.

Well, yes, more tracking would obviously be better for all kids, and for teachers. But it was done away with because it wasn't equitable, and it's apparently more important that school be equitable than that it deliver the best possible education.

Tracking as it was instantiated wasn't better for most kids--it channeled kids into paths they couldn't easily move out of (if you had a late bloomer, they stayed behind even if they were ready for more challenge) AND it was shown to be biased by race (white and Asian kids of same intelligence on average were tracked in higher groups than Black/Hispanic kids of the same intelligence; similar pattern for HIgh and low SES across all racial groups). This is well-documented by research.

What was advocated for better instruction and equity was flexible grouping by ability that was dynamic over the course of the year, by subject, etc. But just as that was started getting implemented and the kinks worked out, the emphasis on standardized testing/No Child Left Behind (under Bush in 2001) made it so that the most emphasis went to the kid who were in danger of not passing the tests. Advanced kids were neglected, so gifted and talented programs expanded to include more of them.

Fortunately we've moved beyond the more draconian phase of No Child Left Behind where schools were under constant threat about pass rates and they are also valuing and measuring growth for everyone. I think the schools are ripe to re-introduce dynamic, flexible grouping at all levels--especially with the help of new technologies for more quickly measuring progress. The process was stalled by the pandemic crisis, but seems to be somewhat still on track. We'll see.

Have you looked into the research on the bolded? While technology promises to be key for differentiation and individualized teaching, it rarely delivers. It usually wildly gets wrong what kids actually know.

Human teachers are so critical.

Learning analytics are getting better all the time--human teachers have a lot of bias and variability. I'm for teacher + technology on this one.

[Anonymous]

What does it even matter when a fair portion of principals will completely ignore it and almost all of the teachers will continue doing whatever they want. There is no quality control in fcps at all - a lot of admins don't even use the curriculums approved by the county or introduce their teachers to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does it even matter when a fair portion of principals will completely ignore it and almost all of the teachers will continue doing whatever they want. There is no quality control in fcps at all - a lot of admins don't even use the curriculums approved by the county or introduce their teachers to them.

This was actually Karl Frisch, of all people's, big concern at the work session on literacy.