RFP for new middle school ELA curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Yes, but who the heck is still of the opinion that any curriculum is going ton fulfill the needs of all learners, particularly Species. A) Any curriculum takes time for teachers to get used to (hence why getting it early is helpful) and B) Depending on the Special Need there is always going to need to be customizations made. That doesn’t mean the curriculum isn’t good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Yes, but who the heck is still of the opinion that any curriculum is going ton fulfill the needs of all learners, particularly Species. A) Any curriculum takes time for teachers to get used to (hence why getting it early is helpful) and B) Depending on the Special Need there is always going to need to be customizations made. That doesn’t mean the curriculum isn’t good.

And teachers are struggling to teach to so many levels at once - whatever the curriculum is, that's going to continue to be a challenge until MCPS cohorts. In our MS, there are kids who are struggling to read below-grade level texts combined with kids reading at the high school level. The BOE should be pushing to bring leveled classes -- on-grade level and advanced/honors -- to help teachers do their jobs effectively, not matter what the curriculum. Our current system serves no one. -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Two points about this... Core Knowledge is not a new curriculum, there are lost of research studies about its effectiveness in all kinds of populations. Second, we've been listening to the people who are fixated on "cultural relevance" for the last several years. Their track record in showing educational gains in at risk populations is pretty poor. So maybe we don't worry about them for a little while and let the pendulum swing back to educational rigor. The problem is not that CKLA is not appropriate for all kids, it is the stupid expectation that all kids, including "ELD and SpEd" can be included in classrooms using a rigorous grade level curriculum. Those kids are behind and MCPS needs to realize that those kids need to work through the earlier years of the curriculum at their own pace. There is NO curriculum that is going to magically bring someone who isn't literate up to grade level within a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Two points about this... Core Knowledge is not a new curriculum, there are lost of research studies about its effectiveness in all kinds of populations. Second, we've been listening to the people who are fixated on "cultural relevance" for the last several years. Their track record in showing educational gains in at risk populations is pretty poor. So maybe we don't worry about them for a little while and let the pendulum swing back to educational rigor. The problem is not that CKLA is not appropriate for all kids, it is the stupid expectation that all kids, including "ELD and SpEd" can be included in classrooms using a rigorous grade level curriculum. Those kids are behind and MCPS needs to realize that those kids need to work through the earlier years of the curriculum at their own pace. There is NO curriculum that is going to magically bring someone who isn't literate up to grade level within a year.

Cultural Relevance does not have to mean not rigorous. And I have no idea why the BOE would believe CKLA lacks cultural relevance when then approved its implementation for ES. Further nothing is going to change in two weeks. Alll this said PP is absolutely correct that what is needed is additional support in class and study halls where students can get the help and support they need. Yes, challenging curriculum can help kids make strides, but pretending they don’t need the foundational skills is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

That’s what will happen if the BOE doesn’t go with a new curriculum, so effectively the BOE members are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

That’s what will happen if the BOE doesn’t go with a new curriculum, so effectively the BOE members are.

I don't think so, because there's no money budgeted to pay for Study Sync again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

That’s what will happen if the BOE doesn’t go with a new curriculum, so effectively the BOE members are.

I don't think so, because there's no money budgeted to pay for Study Sync again.

They will re-up it for a year and then consider another curriculum next year. We will be stuck with Study Sync next year if they don't approve a new curriculum. Otherwise, there will be no curriculum at all, and even this incompetent Board won't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the recommendation is to use CKLA (the free open source version, not the paid Amplify version like in elementary): https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DGEJWQ4F32DF/$file/MS%20ELA%20Curric%20Approval%20250508%20PPT.pdf

Any thoughts?

The board did not vote on this today. There were a lot of comments about lack of diversity among the evaluation participants. They'll try to bring it back to the board at one of the next two meetings.

This board is incompetent. If they don't act soon, they will have no curriculum at all. Or, they will get a curriculum in, but not have enough time to provide teachers with meaningful training.

While I do agree the board is inept and incompetent, they were right to be frustrated with the shoddy survey work and the lack of thorough evidence and material making the case for this curriculum. Chief Academic Officer Nikki Hazel showed up to a gun fight with a knife.

How the hell do we continue to be approving new curriculum purchases in May? Those decision need to be made in Feb/Mar at the latest so that the curriculum can be ordered, arrived, any training scheduled for late spring and summer. Plus give key resources all summer for review and necessary intervention/updates made.

You're right. That timeline you proposed is what MCPS should have done.

Taylor is responsible. Hold him accountable.

Taylor doesn’t seem to be doing much in the way of managing change competently. All I get from MCPS are stupid emails from Chris Crum reminding me “there’s just a few weeks til summer.” Yeah, parents know that already-focus on getting a decent curriculum for my kid so teachers aren’t completely unprepared next year. And while you’re at it, fix that idiotic Synergy Canvas Parentvue boondoggle.

[Anonymous]

The MS ELA curriculum approval is back on the board's agenda for this Thursday the 22nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Two points about this... Core Knowledge is not a new curriculum, there are lost of research studies about its effectiveness in all kinds of populations. Second, we've been listening to the people who are fixated on "cultural relevance" for the last several years. Their track record in showing educational gains in at risk populations is pretty poor. So maybe we don't worry about them for a little while and let the pendulum swing back to educational rigor. The problem is not that CKLA is not appropriate for all kids, it is the stupid expectation that all kids, including "ELD and SpEd" can be included in classrooms using a rigorous grade level curriculum. Those kids are behind and MCPS needs to realize that those kids need to work through the earlier years of the curriculum at their own pace. There is NO curriculum that is going to magically bring someone who isn't literate up to grade level within a year.

Cultural Relevance does not have to mean not rigorous. And I have no idea why the BOE would believe CKLA lacks cultural relevance when then approved its implementation for ES. Further nothing is going to change in two weeks. Alll this said PP is absolutely correct that what is needed is additional support in class and study halls where students can get the help and support they need. Yes, challenging curriculum can help kids make strides, but pretending they don’t need the foundational skills is absurd.

MCPS has had YEARS to prove that cultural competence does not have to mean not rigorous, and failed. I agree with you! But MCPS, in its current convocation, has proven again and again and again that they will not use even grade-appropriate texts in ELA, because of the insistence on extremely heterogeneous classrooms. Not just "some kids are 50th percentile and some are 99th" but "many kids are in the 10th percentile and some are in the 99th."

Yes, I understand how statistics work. MCPS has a highly skewed population, but pretends it does not.

[Anonymous]

Curious--have tons and tons of parents complained about Study Sync? In the same ways people complained about the elementary program, Benchmark, that CKLA replaced?

Benchmark made learning miserable. Is Study Sync that. bad.?

Has the CKLAs elementary program gotten superb reviews from tons of ppl? (Teachers?) Were there issues with some of the content?

Personally I have trouble going out on a limb with a letter to the BOE this time without knowing first hand about this program.

Thanks for any insights.

[Anonymous]

My daughter hated Benchmark (truly awful) and dislikes Study Sync (no challenge, and the books MCPS adds on are ones she's already read). I don't Study Sync is as bad as Benchmark, but it's not good. And MCPS is definitely getting rid of it; it's expensive and the teachers hate it -- just look at the OSA analysis here: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

Thanks. So it's a matter of which curriculum is chosen to replace Study Sync?

I went through MCPS and the most useful thing I remember about 7th/8th English was *intensive* weekly vocabulary study.

Every English class in each grade had vocab workbooks and quizzes each week. It was a primary focus of study. Similar (but more advanced in level + quantity) to language classes today.

Could be interesting to find out what happened and why this is this not done anymore? Could it be brought back? Seems like a good opportunity for historical review maybe? Bringing back agency for teachers and quality curricula for students?