Please tell me this means MCPS is getting rid of Benchmark for next year

[Anonymous]

I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm also a MCPS teacher and agree with pp's about the distain for Benchmark but love of RGR. Unfortunately, I bet they try and choose a program that addresses all the components and we won't be able to continue using RGR. If you recall, Benchmark was chosen because it had a phonics component...which ended up being terrible.

[Anonymous]

Wtf you love about RGR and phonics, every two thing you teach the kids you have to tell them but here is an exception. I think phonics is a terrible system to each spelling and kids just know how to sound it out without knowing the meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wtf you love about RGR and phonics, every two thing you teach the kids you have to tell them but here is an exception. I think phonics is a terrible system to each spelling and kids just know how to sound it out without knowing the meaning.

I don’t know about RGR but phonic exceptions have you noted can be taught. Once learned there are very few words that can’t be sounded out (at least closely). Throw in some lessons on base words and affixes and kids will be able to spell, deduct word meaning, and read.

[Anonymous]

When would they implement a new curriculum? Benchmark is awful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When would they implement a new curriculum? Benchmark is awful!

It will be something like Benchmark that everyone hates once they realize it isn't any better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Your 1st grader has spelling tests? I don’t think mine has had any. Or at least he’s never brought them home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Your 1st grader has spelling tests? I don’t think mine has had any. Or at least he’s never brought them home.

My kids did throughout ES and we're in the DCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Not a teacher, but that’s just basic breaking words into syllables. We say prof-it, no pro-fit. If it were ra-dish, we would pronounce it ray-dish. It needs to be rad-ish to be a short a.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Not a teacher, but that’s just basic breaking words into syllables. We say prof-it, no pro-fit. If it were ra-dish, we would pronounce it ray-dish. It needs to be rad-ish to be a short a.

Yes, I get what you mean and thanks for your input. For me, the root word meaning is more important as kids are going to learn a second language. Great chances are the second language is originated from Latin (Italian, Spanish, French, etc.), where "pro" means "projecting", and "plast" stands for "molder". Then it's natural to understand "profit" as "projecting to make money", and "plastic" as something made by molders. What the heck is "plas" and then "tic"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Not a teacher, but that’s just basic breaking words into syllables. We say prof-it, no pro-fit. If it were ra-dish, we would pronounce it ray-dish. It needs to be rad-ish to be a short a.

I agree. Not to mention, spelling uses phonics rules,not just breaking a word into syllables.

Yes, I get what you mean and thanks for your input. For me, the root word meaning is more important as kids are going to learn a second language. Great chances are the second language is originated from Latin (Italian, Spanish, French, etc.), where "pro" means "projecting", and "plast" stands for "molder". Then it's natural to understand "profit" as "projecting to make money", and "plastic" as something made by molders. What the heck is "plas" and then "tic"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll chime in as another MCPS elementary teacher. I hope we get rid of Benchmark and keep Really Great Reading for K-2 for phonics. We'll still need something to replace Benchmark.

I'm about to initiate a new post to complain about RGR as I have an elder kid who went through the terrible curriculum 2.0, and a younger one who just started the benchmark, which was better than C2.0, but then started to be taught and tested on the RGR.

For the spelling test (1st grade), this is graded wrong: PRO-FIT. The correct answer is PROF-IT.
PLAST-IC is wrong. PLAS-TIC is correct.
RA-DISH is wrong. RAD-ISH is correct.

I receive such non-sense examples pretty much every week. I couldn't be convinced this curriculum is better at teaching kids spelling. It's breaking the root word rules. Since you are a teacher and like the RGR, could you explain? Thanks.

Not a teacher, but that’s just basic breaking words into syllables. We say prof-it, no pro-fit. If it were ra-dish, we would pronounce it ray-dish. It needs to be rad-ish to be a short a.

Yes, I get what you mean and thanks for your input. For me, the root word meaning is more important as kids are going to learn a second language. Great chances are the second language is originated from Latin (Italian, Spanish, French, etc.), where "pro" means "projecting", and "plast" stands for "molder". Then it's natural to understand "profit" as "projecting to make money", and "plastic" as something made by molders. What the heck is "plas" and then "tic"?

Oh man. This kinda ish makes my blood boil. Why can't they teach my child real things in school? Not this bogus pronunciation, non-linguistic approach. I swear we are just dumbing down our society...I mean what happens when there is a kid from Australia or England that puts a difference emphasis on the wrong syllable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone should be held accountable for the costly mistake with Benchmark.

The working group of educators who reviewed the various options did not support Benchmark. So who made the decision to go against the recommendation?

Big, expensive mistake that negatively impacted students.

Where’s the accountability?

I used to volunteer in a school with kids who struggled to read and did 1:1 tutoring. By third grade if they weren’t reading well it was too late. They just fell farther and father behind each year, despite all kinds of interventions. Self esteem tanked, and these kids hated reading and school. It’s terrifying to me to think of how many hundreds - or thousands - of kids have not learned from this lousy, awful curriculum and have no idea how to read and instead have been taught to use pictures to guess words, or to guess words based on whatever words look similar, and have no idea how to sound out words, and will now be on the receiving end of a million interventions to undo the damage of Benchmark. Many will never recover. Someone needs to
Be accountable for this!

[Anonymous]

If they do get rid of Benchmark; it has better be for something significantly better. If they just need to do this again in 3 years, it will be more waste and teachers will have to go to hall learn a new curriculum.