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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Quantify many states and lagging behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

This might be a over generalized statements (may not). Parents definition of struggling vs what is truly appropriate for kids is not always the same. Its widely known that reading clicks for different kids at different times usually between ages 4-7. So just becuase some K kids are rapidly moving through it and others are not does not necessarily equate to struggling. Again, I can’t speak to your specific situation, but parental competition/fear does play a part in how some of this is perceived.

[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.

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.

Well that's sort of the point- with that sort of ratio, fewer kids get pulled out to work with a reading specialist and the classroom teacher has to manage these struggling kids on their own along with those at or above grade level. My sister is a reading teacher in a school with only 200 students plus she has a tutor (a retired reading teacher) to help. So she can work with a higher percentage of the kids who do need extra help.

[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.

Also a kindergarten parent and I have a hard time wrapping my head around all this sometimes. Schools have progressively shifted to focus on reading/math at the expense of everything else, yet it's still not enough to get them reading and we as parents need to teach them in the evening when they are melting down after the long day?

[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.

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.

Well that's sort of the point- with that sort of ratio, fewer kids get pulled out to work with a reading specialist and the classroom teacher has to manage these struggling kids on their own along with those at or above grade level. My sister is a reading teacher in a school with only 200 students plus she has a tutor (a retired reading teacher) to help. So she can work with a higher percentage of the kids who do need extra help.

No I think you missed the point. My example mentioned nothing about kids struggling, there’s just a lot of them and they are at different levels. A Reading Specialist isn’t necessarily required in this example just an assistant teacher or class Para who can help on a consistent basis each day. Additionally teachers need training in Phonics and every K-2 class should have a set of workbooks that they can pull/copy from. I’m consistently amazed (across multiple states mind you) that there are K-2 teachers that don’t know phonics nor even have a basic set of books/workbooks in their class that could help them should they get a kid that behind/ahead. Then I go volunteer in a classroom or tutor and after 1-2 sessions is like little Johnny needs to practice hearing the “g” sounds and needs work on blends and diagraphs. Invariably I get a strange look or question like “well which ones do you see he needs to review?” 🤔 Hmm wouldn’t it just be easier to do then all. The ones he knows will be review and will help him get the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Quantify many states and lagging behind.

11 states as of 2020

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/states-to-schools-teach-reading-the-right-way/2020/02

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

This might be a over generalized statements (may not). Parents definition of struggling vs what is truly appropriate for kids is not always the same. Its widely known that reading clicks for different kids at different times usually between ages 4-7. So just becuase some K kids are rapidly moving through it and others are not does not necessarily equate to struggling. Again, I can’t speak to your specific situation, but parental competition/fear does play a part in how some of this is perceived.

It’s December and my son cannot read at all, does not know many sounds letters make, and writes many letters backwards. I’m not a tiger mom. He’s clearly behind and his tutor agrees. I don’t think she was trying to sell me. She was genuinely concerned he wasn’t being assisted more at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

This might be a over generalized statements (may not). Parents definition of struggling vs what is truly appropriate for kids is not always the same. Its widely known that reading clicks for different kids at different times usually between ages 4-7. So just becuase some K kids are rapidly moving through it and others are not does not necessarily equate to struggling. Again, I can’t speak to your specific situation, but parental competition/fear does play a part in how some of this is perceived.

It’s December and my son cannot read at all, does not know many sounds letters make, and writes many letters backwards. I’m not a tiger mom. He’s clearly behind and his tutor agrees. I don’t think she was trying to sell me. She was genuinely concerned he wasn’t being assisted more at school.

Typical DCUM answer: You must be a lousy parent! What have you been doing for the last few years? Didn't you start reading to him in utero?

Lots of young kids write letters (and numbers) backwards. That's nothing to worry about.

Keep reading with him, model how words work. It'll come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

This might be a over generalized statements (may not). Parents definition of struggling vs what is truly appropriate for kids is not always the same. Its widely known that reading clicks for different kids at different times usually between ages 4-7. So just becuase some K kids are rapidly moving through it and others are not does not necessarily equate to struggling. Again, I can’t speak to your specific situation, but parental competition/fear does play a part in how some of this is perceived.

It’s December and my son cannot read at all, does not know many sounds letters make, and writes many letters backwards. I’m not a tiger mom. He’s clearly behind and his tutor agrees. I don’t think she was trying to sell me. She was genuinely concerned he wasn’t being assisted more at school.

The question is behind in comparison to what? For instance, assuming this is Kindergarten, is the comparison to his peers in K in this area, then yes your DC may be behind. However, if your K’er came in with little to no exposure to reading or writing this might be right on target. Many kids write letters backwards when first starting (for instance b, d, c, e, s). This is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong but just that additional practice is needed. Again, this is not to saying everything is fine as I’ve never meet you or your DC. This is also not to say that OG or another method won’t work better. its merely to note that depending on where your DC started they may not be behind for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hopefully, they'll be ready to debut curriculum 3.0 soon.

[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.

You make it sound like the dumbed down the curriculum. Did they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 We are asking for an evidence-based general curriculum for reading. Many other school districts and states are moving in this direction - MD and MCPS are lagging.

Also, I disagree with the Honda Civic analogy. A Civic still gets you from A to B. We have a curriculum now that leads to poor reading outcomes for a large share of students.

Yes. Benchmark is not a civic. It’s a lemon. Reading scores are in free fall. Also, MCPS will not give your child reading intervention unless they are REALLY REALLY doing poorly/behind. Our son is struggling but we were told he wasn’t bad enough to get the intervention so we are paying out the nose for private OG.

This might be a over generalized statements (may not). Parents definition of struggling vs what is truly appropriate for kids is not always the same. Its widely known that reading clicks for different kids at different times usually between ages 4-7. So just becuase some K kids are rapidly moving through it and others are not does not necessarily equate to struggling. Again, I can’t speak to your specific situation, but parental competition/fear does play a part in how some of this is perceived.

It’s December and my son cannot read at all, does not know many sounds letters make, and writes many letters backwards. I’m not a tiger mom. He’s clearly behind and his tutor agrees. I don’t think she was trying to sell me. She was genuinely concerned he wasn’t being assisted more at school.

The question is behind in comparison to what? For instance, assuming this is Kindergarten, is the comparison to his peers in K in this area, then yes your DC may be behind. However, if your K’er came in with little to no exposure to reading or writing this might be right on target. Many kids write letters backwards when first starting (for instance b, d, c, e, s). This is not necessarily a sign that something is wrong but just that additional practice is needed. Again, this is not to saying everything is fine as I’ve never meet you or your DC. This is also not to say that OG or another method won’t work better. its merely to note that depending on where your DC started they may not be behind for them.

You need to figure out your child's learning style and work with them every night, not just a tutor once a week. Many of us start at age 4. This is also why a more academic preschool for age four is helpful so they focus on these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP are you connected to MCPS? What else do you know about this? Would be interested in more info.