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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/12/13/incoming-schools-chancellor-david-banks-on-why-so-many-black-brown-students-arent-reaching-proficiency-theyre-teaching-wrong/

Bravo to the new School Chancellor in NYC for his leadership! When is MCPS going to step up? Our elementary reading scores are dismal and there are huge disparities—and we know that the curriculum the system uses is the wrong way to teach reading.

This is key part of curriculum 3.0 which they're been developing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you say so. Why do reading scores keep falling then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Gosh I hope so- anyone know? I hate all the online “books” with benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would be glad to see real printed books. But there's skepticism in the science of reading community about "phonics patches," which are one-dimensional and don't often address all the aspects of reading that recent research has shown to be important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Gosh I hope so- anyone know? I hate all the online “books” with benchmark.

Unclear- I’m not on my schools leadership team, and even they only saw a handout of new elements, not any actual parts of the new curriculum. I was told there is “a lot more vocabulary and phonics”, whatever that means. I’d assume the set up of materials is the same though- online resources with hard copy consumables for students and some provided hard copy books for small group instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would be glad to see real printed books. But there's skepticism in the science of reading community about "phonics patches," which are one-dimensional and don't often address all the aspects of reading that recent research has shown to be important.

While are some people so hung up on these artifacts of a bygone age. Nobody needs books in the age of the internet. Your kids need to adapt and seize the future not cling to the past.

[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.

The way they are doing it now, maybe. But see E.D. Hirsch's Core Knowledge research that shows that even kids who know how to decode will eventually fall behind again (why 4th graders do better on proficiency than 8th graders) because they lack the background content knowledge to understand more advanced texts. So the best is to use content rich LA materials AND content rich History, Geography and Science materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would be glad to see real printed books. But there's skepticism in the science of reading community about "phonics patches," which are one-dimensional and don't often address all the aspects of reading that recent research has shown to be important.

While are some people so hung up on these artifacts of a bygone age. Nobody needs books in the age of the internet. Your kids need to adapt and seize the future not cling to the past.

This...
https://hechingerreport.org/evidence-increases-for-reading-on-paper-instead-of-screens/

"29 of the 33 laboratory studies found that readers learned more from text on paper.

Clinton’s analysis, published earlier in 2019, is now at least the third study to synthesize reputable research on reading comprehension in the digital age and find that paper is better. It was preceded by a 2017 review by scholars at the University of Maryland and a 2018 meta-analysis by scholars in Spain and Israel. The international analysis arrived at nearly the same numerical conclusion as Clinton’s study. Paper beat screens by more than a fifth of a standard deviation."

[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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

[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.

+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.

Imagine how much money MCPS could save in litigation if they had an effective structured literacy program that taught all kids to read and helped identify those kids with learning disabilities earlier and provided appropriate intervention aligned with the general education curriculum. Instead they would rather buy the Civics so their attorneys can make bank on the due process litigation. Someone should research where the kids on MCPS’ legal team go to school.

[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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

I would agree that if they were identifying and providing more intervention to all kids that need it, but that’s not really what happens. A lot of kids fall through the cracks, those who dont learn under the current system but don’t get the benefit of the specialized instruction. There simply aren’t enough resources- our ES only has one reading specialist for 600+ kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

I would agree that if they were identifying and providing more intervention to all kids that need it, but that’s not really what happens. A lot of kids fall through the cracks, those who dont learn under the current system but don’t get the benefit of the specialized instruction. There simply aren’t enough resources- our ES only has one reading specialist for 600+ kids.

I think advocating for more resources for the kids who are being missed is going to be far more effective and productive than advocating for every kid in the district to get a hyper-specialized, resource-intensive, reading curriculum designed for kids with learning differences.

One of these things is doable and the other is a distraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

I would agree that if they were identifying and providing more intervention to all kids that need it, but that’s not really what happens. A lot of kids fall through the cracks, those who dont learn under the current system but don’t get the benefit of the specialized instruction. There simply aren’t enough resources- our ES only has one reading specialist for 600+ kids.

I think advocating for more resources for the kids who are being missed is going to be far more effective and productive than advocating for every kid in the district to get a hyper-specialized, resource-intensive, reading curriculum designed for kids with learning differences.

One of these things is doable and the other is a distraction.

Nobody is proposing everyone gets real OG. Some general education curriculums are aligned with the science of reading. The biggest gap/ expense would be teacher training since so many only know the balanced literacy garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

I would agree that if they were identifying and providing more intervention to all kids that need it, but that’s not really what happens. A lot of kids fall through the cracks, those who dont learn under the current system but don’t get the benefit of the specialized instruction. There simply aren’t enough resources- our ES only has one reading specialist for 600+ kids.

I think advocating for more resources for the kids who are being missed is going to be far more effective and productive than advocating for every kid in the district to get a hyper-specialized, resource-intensive, reading curriculum designed for kids with learning differences.

One of these things is doable and the other is a distraction.

Nobody is proposing everyone gets real OG. Some general education curriculums are aligned with the science of reading. The biggest gap/ expense would be teacher training since so many only know the balanced literacy garbage.

+1. Benchmark was a poor choice for a general curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't really understand this attitude, to be honest. Most kids can and do learn to read with the current approach. Some need a specialized approach, which MCPS seems to finally be ready to provide. I'm not mad that some kids are getting OG when my kids learned to read with 2.0. For the same reason, I'm not mad that some kids get a 1-to-1 aide or speech therapy. In a public education system, I think it is perfectly fine to use an approach (a Honda Civic) that works on the lower-needs kids, and to save the resource-intensive approaches (the Cadillacs) for kids who need something different.

I would agree that if they were identifying and providing more intervention to all kids that need it, but that’s not really what happens. A lot of kids fall through the cracks, those who dont learn under the current system but don’t get the benefit of the specialized instruction. There simply aren’t enough resources- our ES only has one reading specialist for 600+ kids.

The problem is not one reading specialist as not every kid requires a reading specialist. The problem is that foundational skills in reading and math take time, attention and practice. Items generally better delivered and retain on a 1-1 or small group basis. Unfortunately, K-2 classes where these skills are taught have 20+ kids, one teacher and kids all over the spectrum. A K teacher might have one group of students cementing the basic constant and short vowel sounds, another group working on digraphs, long vowels, and reading at mid 1st grade, and yet another group working or trigraphs, special phonemes, and reading at early 2nd. And this is only if the teacher has three groups. Many have 4 or 5 both because of levels and tongice each student attention and a chance to read aloud.