When will MCPS adopt an evidence-based early reading curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reading teacher in MCPS, I'm thrilled to see parents becoming more aware of how Benchmark does not follow the science of how children learn to read. The county does use some structured literacy intervention programs, such as Orton Gillingham lessons and programs such as Really Great Reading's BLAST and HD Word. Unfortunately, these programs are often only available to students who are significantly below grade-level and vary from school to school. I know of teachers who are asking to be trained in Orton Gillingham, but the county won't pay for their training. I decided to pay for the training out of pocket because I felt it was critical for helping struggling readers. I believe we could eliminate some students' reading difficulties and identify other students who need support earlier if we switched to a structured literacy curriculum.

Thanks for sharing. I know a few schools have moved the entire curriculum to OG but, as you say, those are the most struggling schools.

To the poster wondering about graft/kickbacks, I'd honestly look at cost before I look at a flawed procurement. Like any big organization, MCPS almost certainly approaches procurement from a "value for money" perspective.

So, Benchmark is a Honda Civic in this analogy. It will get the majority of kids from here to there, and is relatively cost effective.

OG is a Cadillac in this analogy. It will ALSO get the majority of kids from here to there, but is overkill for a lot of kids and much less cost effective.

So MCPS appears to have decided to buy a fleet of Civics and then a handful of Cadillacs. I'm not saying that's the right choice, but it does make sense to me as someone who does big procurements for a living. Sometimes we don't get the A+ solution. We get the "better than nothing" solution that is more cost effective.

Ok but reading is so important they should have bought the Cadillacs. They can buy unicycles for social studies and whatever for all I care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reading teacher in MCPS, I'm thrilled to see parents becoming more aware of how Benchmark does not follow the science of how children learn to read. The county does use some structured literacy intervention programs, such as Orton Gillingham lessons and programs such as Really Great Reading's BLAST and HD Word. Unfortunately, these programs are often only available to students who are significantly below grade-level and vary from school to school. I know of teachers who are asking to be trained in Orton Gillingham, but the county won't pay for their training. I decided to pay for the training out of pocket because I felt it was critical for helping struggling readers. I believe we could eliminate some students' reading difficulties and identify other students who need support earlier if we switched to a structured literacy curriculum.

Thanks for sharing. I know a few schools have moved the entire curriculum to OG but, as you say, those are the most struggling schools.

To the poster wondering about graft/kickbacks, I'd honestly look at cost before I look at a flawed procurement. Like any big organization, MCPS almost certainly approaches procurement from a "value for money" perspective.

So, Benchmark is a Honda Civic in this analogy. It will get the majority of kids from here to there, and is relatively cost effective.

OG is a Cadillac in this analogy. It will ALSO get the majority of kids from here to there, but is overkill for a lot of kids and much less cost effective.

So MCPS appears to have decided to buy a fleet of Civics and then a handful of Cadillacs. I'm not saying that's the right choice, but it does make sense to me as someone who does big procurements for a living. Sometimes we don't get the A+ solution. We get the "better than nothing" solution that is more cost effective.

Ok but reading is so important they should have bought the Cadillacs. They can buy unicycles for social studies and whatever for all I care.

+1. Especially since they Easter so much money in useless sh-t. It makes no sense to cheap out on a reading curriculum- penny wise, pound foolish.

[Anonymous]

Waste not Easter!! Ha.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to the person who started this thread and shared the interview.

Tears came to my eyes as I have believed for some time that the approach that we have been using was wrong. There are many examples of how utilizing a phonics based approach supports everyone. I always wondered WHY is it that this is not done - and believed it was due to companies "lobbying".

[Anonymous]

What about the program that was piloted at a handful of elementary schools last year? I understood it had really promising results for struggling readers and there were plans to expand to more schools, but nothing I read clearly explained what the program was. My kid is in HS now, but our neighborhood ES was one of the pilot schools.

Was that successful program using a different curriculum, or just a better method for teaching the current crappy one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reading teacher in MCPS, I'm thrilled to see parents becoming more aware of how Benchmark does not follow the science of how children learn to read. The county does use some structured literacy intervention programs, such as Orton Gillingham lessons and programs such as Really Great Reading's BLAST and HD Word. Unfortunately, these programs are often only available to students who are significantly below grade-level and vary from school to school. I know of teachers who are asking to be trained in Orton Gillingham, but the county won't pay for their training. I decided to pay for the training out of pocket because I felt it was critical for helping struggling readers. I believe we could eliminate some students' reading difficulties and identify other students who need support earlier if we switched to a structured literacy curriculum.

Thanks for sharing. I know a few schools have moved the entire curriculum to OG but, as you say, those are the most struggling schools.

To the poster wondering about graft/kickbacks, I'd honestly look at cost before I look at a flawed procurement. Like any big organization, MCPS almost certainly approaches procurement from a "value for money" perspective.

So, Benchmark is a Honda Civic in this analogy. It will get the majority of kids from here to there, and is relatively cost effective.

OG is a Cadillac in this analogy. It will ALSO get the majority of kids from here to there, but is overkill for a lot of kids and much less cost effective.

So MCPS appears to have decided to buy a fleet of Civics and then a handful of Cadillacs. I'm not saying that's the right choice, but it does make sense to me as someone who does big procurements for a living. Sometimes we don't get the A+ solution. We get the "better than nothing" solution that is more cost effective.

Ok but reading is so important they should have bought the Cadillacs. They can buy unicycles for social studies and whatever for all I care.

There is very little science or social studies in elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you to the person who started this thread and shared the interview.

Tears came to my eyes as I have believed for some time that the approach that we have been using was wrong. There are many examples of how utilizing a phonics based approach supports everyone. I always wondered WHY is it that this is not done - and believed it was due to companies "lobbying".

Phonics works for some not all. Mine were not phonics kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reading teacher in MCPS, I'm thrilled to see parents becoming more aware of how Benchmark does not follow the science of how children learn to read. The county does use some structured literacy intervention programs, such as Orton Gillingham lessons and programs such as Really Great Reading's BLAST and HD Word. Unfortunately, these programs are often only available to students who are significantly below grade-level and vary from school to school. I know of teachers who are asking to be trained in Orton Gillingham, but the county won't pay for their training. I decided to pay for the training out of pocket because I felt it was critical for helping struggling readers. I believe we could eliminate some students' reading difficulties and identify other students who need support earlier if we switched to a structured literacy curriculum.

Thanks for sharing. I know a few schools have moved the entire curriculum to OG but, as you say, those are the most struggling schools.

To the poster wondering about graft/kickbacks, I'd honestly look at cost before I look at a flawed procurement. Like any big organization, MCPS almost certainly approaches procurement from a "value for money" perspective.

So, Benchmark is a Honda Civic in this analogy. It will get the majority of kids from here to there, and is relatively cost effective.

OG is a Cadillac in this analogy. It will ALSO get the majority of kids from here to there, but is overkill for a lot of kids and much less cost effective.

So MCPS appears to have decided to buy a fleet of Civics and then a handful of Cadillacs. I'm not saying that's the right choice, but it does make sense to me as someone who does big procurements for a living. Sometimes we don't get the A+ solution. We get the "better than nothing" solution that is more cost effective.

Ok but reading is so important they should have bought the Cadillacs. They can buy unicycles for social studies and whatever for all I care.

There is very little science or social studies in elementary school.

This year, my 4th grader has science or social studies every day. They rotate between the two througout the year, so she'll spend a few weeks on one, then the other. It's much better than last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a reading teacher in MCPS, I'm thrilled to see parents becoming more aware of how Benchmark does not follow the science of how children learn to read. The county does use some structured literacy intervention programs, such as Orton Gillingham lessons and programs such as Really Great Reading's BLAST and HD Word. Unfortunately, these programs are often only available to students who are significantly below grade-level and vary from school to school. I know of teachers who are asking to be trained in Orton Gillingham, but the county won't pay for their training. I decided to pay for the training out of pocket because I felt it was critical for helping struggling readers. I believe we could eliminate some students' reading difficulties and identify other students who need support earlier if we switched to a structured literacy curriculum.

Thanks for sharing. I know a few schools have moved the entire curriculum to OG but, as you say, those are the most struggling schools.

To the poster wondering about graft/kickbacks, I'd honestly look at cost before I look at a flawed procurement. Like any big organization, MCPS almost certainly approaches procurement from a "value for money" perspective.

So, Benchmark is a Honda Civic in this analogy. It will get the majority of kids from here to there, and is relatively cost effective.

OG is a Cadillac in this analogy. It will ALSO get the majority of kids from here to there, but is overkill for a lot of kids and much less cost effective.

So MCPS appears to have decided to buy a fleet of Civics and then a handful of Cadillacs. I'm not saying that's the right choice, but it does make sense to me as someone who does big procurements for a living. Sometimes we don't get the A+ solution. We get the "better than nothing" solution that is more cost effective.

I agree. I also think folks get caught in the 2.7B number but forget that over 80% of that is salaries, wages, and benefits. Also, implementation of anything at a large scale requires training, time, and tweaks. I’m not saying everything is fine, but willing to acknowledge that the full implementation of Benchmark was accelerated and occured during a pandemic and virtual learning.

[Anonymous]

No change coming anytime soon. I'm an MCPS teacher and our leadership team is currently asking if our school should pilot the new Benchmark '22 curriculum which is apparently totally different texts from the current curriculum, but the exact same structure (we were told no PD because we've already gotten trained on how to use Benchmark). I'm assuming if they are rolling out a new version of Benchmark, it's here to stay for a while longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've not met a single teacher in this country who is prepared to teach children to read - only retired teachers who considered it a part of their job.

My kids are in HS so this is not a recent discovery. When each of them were in K-5 it was all about "testing" their reading, not teaching it. That was considered to be parent's work. So we did it at home, like everyone else.

I'm having a hard time following this- so teachers, who have gone through years of training and time in the classroom, aren't prepared to teach kids to read, but parents with no such training or practical experience should know how to do it at home? What curriculum should we be using?

Really its not that hard to teach your kids to read except if they have a learning disability. Try it.

If you're not doing this your kids pretty much out of luck since your child's teacher doesn't have time and will only meet with them two to three times per month for reading anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've not met a single teacher in this country who is prepared to teach children to read - only retired teachers who considered it a part of their job.

My kids are in HS so this is not a recent discovery. When each of them were in K-5 it was all about "testing" their reading, not teaching it. That was considered to be parent's work. So we did it at home, like everyone else.

I'm having a hard time following this- so teachers, who have gone through years of training and time in the classroom, aren't prepared to teach kids to read, but parents with no such training or practical experience should know how to do it at home? What curriculum should we be using?

Really its not that hard to teach your kids to read except if they have a learning disability. Try it.

If you're not doing this your kids pretty much out of luck since your child's teacher doesn't have time and will only meet with them two to three times per month for reading anyway

NP but a kindergarten parent and feeling rather panicky about all this. My parents read to me as a kid but that was pretty much the extent of home supplementing, I learned to read in school *somehow* and was plowing through Anne of green gables by second grade. It sounds like times have changed. Thanks to those who posted resources above, I just wonder how to fit it in. My DC is wiped by the end of the day (school plus aftercare) and even getting them to do the required math homework is a challenge some nights. I just wish the ~7hrs a day in school was more productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No change coming anytime soon. I'm an MCPS teacher and our leadership team is currently asking if our school should pilot the new Benchmark '22 curriculum which is apparently totally different texts from the current curriculum, but the exact same structure (we were told no PD because we've already gotten trained on how to use Benchmark). I'm assuming if they are rolling out a new version of Benchmark, it's here to stay for a while longer.

Doesn’t the latest version address the very complaint about the current version; systematic phonics instruction based on the “Science of Learning” and incorporation of real books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've not met a single teacher in this country who is prepared to teach children to read - only retired teachers who considered it a part of their job.

My kids are in HS so this is not a recent discovery. When each of them were in K-5 it was all about "testing" their reading, not teaching it. That was considered to be parent's work. So we did it at home, like everyone else.

I'm having a hard time following this- so teachers, who have gone through years of training and time in the classroom, aren't prepared to teach kids to read, but parents with no such training or practical experience should know how to do it at home? What curriculum should we be using?

Really its not that hard to teach your kids to read except if they have a learning disability. Try it.

If you're not doing this your kids pretty much out of luck since your child's teacher doesn't have time and will only meet with them two to three times per month for reading anyway

NP but a kindergarten parent and feeling rather panicky about all this. My parents read to me as a kid but that was pretty much the extent of home supplementing, I learned to read in school *somehow* and was plowing through Anne of green gables by second grade. It sounds like times have changed. Thanks to those who posted resources above, I just wonder how to fit it in. My DC is wiped by the end of the day (school plus aftercare) and even getting them to do the required math homework is a challenge some nights. I just wish the ~7hrs a day in school was more productive.

Teaching of reading is still happening *somehow* as you indicate, there is just more focus on ensuring that ALL kids learn how to read systematically, including those with LDs. And there are a lot more students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Every single classroom teacher I’ve met hates benchmark with a passion. Another example of terrible expensive decisions being made by the bloated, incompetent central office. Cut half of those jobs and redistribute $$ to teachers, paras, subs.

But but but they have textbooks! I thought dcum parents would be jumping for joy