Reading in county third grade classrooms is a three-alarm fire going unanswered

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in DCPS and I don't understand how this is STILL happening in MCPS. We've been pleasantly surprised to see how well DCPS has course corrected regarding reading and our own experience has been phenomenal -- all evidence-based, focus on phonics, no Lucy Caulkins nonsense at all.

We're contemplating a move to MoCo for several reasons, including schools (in a bad HS triangle in DC) and this is giving me pause.

My second grader in MCPS has consistently been taught phonics in school since the beginning, definitely more than my current fourth grader received (I remember sight word books and “look at the pictures for clues” during the zoom school days). I don’t know where the current third graders fall. Was there a change to the MCPS curriculum with more phonics starting with the kids who are now second graders?

RGR was implemented at most schools in the 2022/2023 school year. I also have a second grader and it was a huge shift between kindergarten and 1st grade. In kindergarten they were bringing home lists of sight words to memorize and being taught cueing, which I could tell was not really working for DC. I was relieved when they actually started learning phonics in 1st grade.

So my understanding is that current 3rd graders would have gotten RGR only last year.

MCPS also has implemented Science of Reading across all ES, has Dibels for K-2, and has an RFP out for a new ES ELA curriculum. There is reading specialist in all ES.

The above said, I’m always amazed that parents don’t think they need to be heavily involved with teaching their kids to read.

There's a new RFP? They actually going to make a selection this time?

IMO parental involvement should be in a supporting role- e.g., trained instructors should introduce the phonics skills and parents help their kids practice at home. For too long terrible methods were being used in the classroom and really hard to try to get your kids to sound out the words when they are being taught at school to look at the picture and guess. Ask me how I know.

Parents should be in the drivers seat when teaching kids the Alphabet, basic numbers, and how to read. Just like they should be in the drivers seat in teaching basic life skills and manners. I’m tired of folks being like it’s really hard to do this or that because of school. Parenting is work. No one has ever said it should be easy.

Do I think that schools should have been using Phonics instruction all along, Yes. But the fact they weren’t in no way stopped me from doing what was needed for my children to read. If folks want to farm out the above responsibilities, fine that’s their prerogative. But IMO that in no way removes the accountability from parents.

This is hilarious. Schools have removed so much from ES to focus on math and reading. But now you're saying it's the parents responsibility to teach thir kids to read? Has this memo been passed on to parents who don't speak English as a first language?

I completely do not rely on ES to teach my child math or reading. They just don't have time anymore. All their efforts go to supporting a small group of students who struggle.

Exactly- only struggling students get a good education anymore. I do think this is a shock to parents who went to school decades ago. My own parents really didn’t have to do anything unless we asked them for help on a project.

Hmmm, my own parents were very involved in my education. But my mom SAH and had time to help us. Now kids are at aftercare or with a sitter until 5 or 6pm and of course they're tired and there is no time to put in the extra work. And on weekends they are overscheduled with sports and activities.

+1. My parents also were involved. Reviewed homework, quizzed me before spelling test, proofread book reports, etc. Neither of them was a SAHP. Guess it depends on what people want to prioritize.

I agree with the over scheduling of kids in sports and activities.

My parents did none of that and we also didn’t do “activities.” As a result my expectation was that our kid would take responsibility for his own work and….he did. It’s saner for all of us.

So because your parents didn’t do their job, you won’t either. Got it. Super idea of you to have children!

Not PP, I view it as one of my jobs as a parent to teach them independence and responsibility. Not helicopter over their homework to make sure they never get a wrong answer.

It's not helicopter parenting to encourage reading in the home and help facilitate that. I guess critical thinking is difficult for you.

I guess it is necessary to spell this out because this possibility doesn’t even seem to be on your radar.

My kid intrinsically likes reading and does it for an hour or so a day without anyone telling them to. I don’t have to “encourage” it; “encouraging it” would be a non sequitur.

We do supply books that the kid doesn’t have to buy with the sweat of their own brow. I guess that is “encouragement”—but I doubt it’s what you were picturing when you were chastising me for not “doing my job” as a parent.

These kids are all in different places and that is fine. I don’t expect the school to abandon teaching reading because my kid already knows how to do it. But for some reason you seem to feel strongly that everyone needs to do what you do. Why is that?

Why are you even joining this convo? The original reply was to someone who was proud they weren't teaching their kids to read or at the very least, helping because their parents didn't bother to teach them to read. Just because you weren't raised correctly doesn't mean you need to perpetuate the cycle. You'd think in the year 2024 people who understand this. DP btw.

Because I have a third-grader in a county classroom.

I am the PP to whom the “original reply” was written, as well as the person you are quoting above.

The rage in you people is really eye-popping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are for social learning
Tutors and home is for academics

How come private schools can teach more effectively than public schools when it comes to K-3?

Will mcps please hire a consultant to propose changes to the curriculum that will allow public schools to challenge and equip students the way catholic schools do?

Note: catholic schools arguably have far less funding and less trained teachers, yet students quickly learn to read, spell, understand grammar, write in cursive, etc. Heck, they even learn a foreign language! Class sizes at area catholic schools skyrocketed during the pandemic, so they know how to handle big classes. And ICYMI: bipoc families are scrambling to get into area privates as the mass exodus from mcps continues.

Don’t say “Catholic schools can expel troublemakers!”

We are talking about K-3, not middle school or MS13 high school.

I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s…before adhd and medicated kids were a thing. We had a smattering of kids who definitely had behavior issues. Nonetheless, everyone learned.

Heck, at this point I’d support uniforms, desks in rows, and classrooms grouped by ability. Worth a shot, no? Pilot an old school curriculum and see what happens. Be sure to incorporate grammar (we had spelling workbooks that incorporated vocabulary and grammar). I bet the kids will outpace their counterparts.

Privates aren't 35%+ ESM students with the addition of students with behavioral issues. They won't even admit kids with behavioral issues. These situations are not comparable.

So you are saying the ESM students are negatively impacting everyone else?

Then shouldn’t those kids be in a different class?

We have these things called laws, written by politicians, assuming idyllic conditions. Not to mention research. These things find and suggest that EML students do best and acquire language faster when immersed in regular classrooms with the language. These things also indicate that special education students should be in the least restrictive classroom and are entitled to a full range of services in order to allow for access the curriculum and class.

Now, most teachers nor people have any problem with the above ideals, however each does require extra time, funds, and training, to make work properly.

You quoted a bit related to ESM…not ESL.

Different kids, different issues…right?

ICYMI: catholic schools in the inner city (think: Baltimore, South Side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) are largely catering to…wait for it…Latinos!!! They can somehow navigate the whole bilingual thing fairly well.)

But we are talking about ESM…different issues.

Maybe mcps needs to find a better solution *if* those kids are the reason why so many 3rd graders can’t read.

I’m not convinced a few kids with extreme emotional issues and behavioral outbursts are the reason why so many third graders can’t read. Another poster suggested it as the reason why even poorly resourced Catholic schools churn out better educated kids than mcps…arguably one of the best resourced districts on the planet.

What evidence do you have to prove that homeschooling or students Catholic schools produce better results? Like do the kids actually take the same reading tests as the kids in public school?

Homeschool families are extremely resistant to any kind of oversight or legislation and often pull their kids out of homeschool for the very reason of not wanting their children to be assessed. They claim that their kids are having superior outcomes but don't actually have any kind of data to really prove had to head that their kids are achieving more. It's just anecdotal data about kids going to college but guess what many Public school kids also go to college too. I'd like to see actual head to head data

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are for social learning
Tutors and home is for academics

How come private schools can teach more effectively than public schools when it comes to K-3?

Will mcps please hire a consultant to propose changes to the curriculum that will allow public schools to challenge and equip students the way catholic schools do?

Note: catholic schools arguably have far less funding and less trained teachers, yet students quickly learn to read, spell, understand grammar, write in cursive, etc. Heck, they even learn a foreign language! Class sizes at area catholic schools skyrocketed during the pandemic, so they know how to handle big classes. And ICYMI: bipoc families are scrambling to get into area privates as the mass exodus from mcps continues.

Don’t say “Catholic schools can expel troublemakers!”

We are talking about K-3, not middle school or MS13 high school.

I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s…before adhd and medicated kids were a thing. We had a smattering of kids who definitely had behavior issues. Nonetheless, everyone learned.

Heck, at this point I’d support uniforms, desks in rows, and classrooms grouped by ability. Worth a shot, no? Pilot an old school curriculum and see what happens. Be sure to incorporate grammar (we had spelling workbooks that incorporated vocabulary and grammar). I bet the kids will outpace their counterparts.

Privates aren't 35%+ ESM students with the addition of students with behavioral issues. They won't even admit kids with behavioral issues. These situations are not comparable.

Exactly this. Private schools get to pick and choose their kids and families. Anyone who doesn’t like their curriculum, rules, process, guess what there is the door. Even if the class size is the same, the total enrollment is significant less. A K-5 Private might only have 300 students whereas my local elementary has 640. A Private might have two teachers in a K-3 class (which I think should be the case) but a public school might have to use those teachers just to be sure every class has a teacher. A private Catholic can mandate that every family volunteer 20hrs per year. And let’s no forget cost. Catholic schools are heavily subsidized by their diocese which in turns is subsidized by the Catholic Church.

NP - It was the "education experts" who continue to push large schools, despite research showing that kids do better in smaller schools. It was the "experts" who started pushing parent volunteers out of classrooms. It was the "experts" who made classroom management so much more difficult by eliminating tracking, eliminating schools for kids with behavioral problems, etc. It was the "experts" who think restorative justice will deter violence and disrespect.

So tired of the false "compassion" that continues to lower and lower expectations for both kids and parents. If your child is a constant disruption to the learning of others, there need to be consequences.

Which education experts? What exactly are you talking about?? This is just a bunch of blanket statements. Yes parents were off and not allowed to volunteer in schools during the height of the covid pandemic, but that has been removed

I would also point out that a lot of reasons why there's been a decline in parent volunteers has to do with parents being focused on work or child care commitments.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in DCPS and I don't understand how this is STILL happening in MCPS. We've been pleasantly surprised to see how well DCPS has course corrected regarding reading and our own experience has been phenomenal -- all evidence-based, focus on phonics, no Lucy Caulkins nonsense at all.

We're contemplating a move to MoCo for several reasons, including schools (in a bad HS triangle in DC) and this is giving me pause.

My second grader in MCPS has consistently been taught phonics in school since the beginning, definitely more than my current fourth grader received (I remember sight word books and “look at the pictures for clues” during the zoom school days). I don’t know where the current third graders fall. Was there a change to the MCPS curriculum with more phonics starting with the kids who are now second graders?

RGR was implemented at most schools in the 2022/2023 school year. I also have a second grader and it was a huge shift between kindergarten and 1st grade. In kindergarten they were bringing home lists of sight words to memorize and being taught cueing, which I could tell was not really working for DC. I was relieved when they actually started learning phonics in 1st grade.

So my understanding is that current 3rd graders would have gotten RGR only last year.

MCPS also has implemented Science of Reading across all ES, has Dibels for K-2, and has an RFP out for a new ES ELA curriculum. There is reading specialist in all ES.

The above said, I’m always amazed that parents don’t think they need to be heavily involved with teaching their kids to read.

There's a new RFP? They actually going to make a selection this time?

IMO parental involvement should be in a supporting role- e.g., trained instructors should introduce the phonics skills and parents help their kids practice at home. For too long terrible methods were being used in the classroom and really hard to try to get your kids to sound out the words when they are being taught at school to look at the picture and guess. Ask me how I know.

Parents should be in the drivers seat when teaching kids the Alphabet, basic numbers, and how to read. Just like they should be in the drivers seat in teaching basic life skills and manners. I’m tired of folks being like it’s really hard to do this or that because of school. Parenting is work. No one has ever said it should be easy.

Do I think that schools should have been using Phonics instruction all along, Yes. But the fact they weren’t in no way stopped me from doing what was needed for my children to read. If folks want to farm out the above responsibilities, fine that’s their prerogative. But IMO that in no way removes the accountability from parents.

This is hilarious. Schools have removed so much from ES to focus on math and reading. But now you're saying it's the parents responsibility to teach thir kids to read? Has this memo been passed on to parents who don't speak English as a first language?

I completely do not rely on ES to teach my child math or reading. They just don't have time anymore. All their efforts go to supporting a small group of students who struggle.

Exactly- only struggling students get a good education anymore. I do think this is a shock to parents who went to school decades ago. My own parents really didn’t have to do anything unless we asked them for help on a project.

Hmmm, my own parents were very involved in my education. But my mom SAH and had time to help us. Now kids are at aftercare or with a sitter until 5 or 6pm and of course they're tired and there is no time to put in the extra work. And on weekends they are overscheduled with sports and activities.

+1. My parents also were involved. Reviewed homework, quizzed me before spelling test, proofread book reports, etc. Neither of them was a SAHP. Guess it depends on what people want to prioritize.

I agree with the over scheduling of kids in sports and activities.

DP- my parents definitely helped me with this sort of stuff too. But I do think the things listed here like quizzing for spelling tests are a bit different than teaching a kid to read.

Unless your kid has a learning disability, which 85% of kids do not, it’s not that hard to teach a kid to read. Particularly now. Watch some Sesame Street, download an app, practice the phonics along with reading every night.

Good god, no more apps. They get enough of that in school.

I do wish the PSA about having to teach your kids at home had been more loudly stated when my kiddo was in kindergarten. I learned to read in school as did my siblings. My parents read to us and had us read to them but did not have to teach us. I had no idea how much the approaches had changed. I bought the schtick for a while that my kid was fine and would pick it up by following balanced literacy. They didn't.

I agree. They should tell parents that they need to be teaching the kids. I followed a phonics program with my kids and they easily got it. They had trouble understanding the school methods even when they knew how to read.

Because the school methods are asinine.

No need to correct spelling. They’ll eventually absorb it elsewhere through our fabulously expensive silver bullet reading curriculum. Never mind the fact that the content is boring and skews too technical (teach for the test!).

Literature. Good stories. Make it fun and interesting.

Admit that Benchmark was a big failure. Move on quickly and invest in catching up.

It’s shameful for mcps to churn out subpar students. Shameful.

As a parent I’m tired of this line. School is about learning how to learn and attaining certain skills. If they can make it fun, great, but that’s not the primary goal or objective. At school let’s get down to the business of education. If that means it’s technical, fine. It would probably take a lot less time and energy from teachers if they could just focus on what is needed and not all the fluff.

Um…have you seen Benchmark? The stories were not engaging. The corresponding activities/questions were even worse.

We obviously want our kids to be challenged. I am arguing for better tools and more rigorous instruction. Better tools would be more interesting and engaging.

Anyway, I was right about benchmark not being the silver bullet they hoped for.

Of course Benchmark wasn’t a silver bullet- anyone who thought it would be was highly deluded. At the time many were perplexed at the decision to select it.

Decodable books went out of favor for a while because they were “boring.” What a joke.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Who cares that decodabke books are “boring.” Them being engaging is not the point. If kids need engaging stories have someone read to them or better yet, teach them to read and then they can read engaging stories themself.

This “ it need to be engaging” or let’s work on love of learning” is a crock. Learning to read takes time and effort, it’s work. Love of learning happens because of curious kids exposed to different places, people, things. Imagine all the things they can be exposed to when they can read and do basic math.

We're talking about two different things. Decodable books are a good stepping stone to learning to read much like how kids use balance bikes or training wheels to then learn how to ride a bike.

The issue with me benchmark curriculum is that the kids are just reading these little booklets that are dry and uninteresting and largely cover topics that have been written about in much more engaging ways in actual books. The way it works is that you read the little story from the booklet over and over again for a week and then move on to the next story. I know a lot of teachers are just supplementing or skipping things because it's terrible and they would rather have the kids reading real books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS also has implemented Science of Reading across all ES, has Dibels for K-2, and has an RFP out for a new ES ELA curriculum. There is reading specialist in all ES.

The above said, I’m always amazed that parents don’t think they need to be heavily involved with teaching their kids to read.

I, too, am amazed that parents rely heavily on schools for the success of their kids especially in reading. Reading is something that you introduce to your kids as early as you, parents, want. Some moms read to their kids while they're still in the womb! If you didn't do any reading to your kid at an early age and you expect them to be at or above their reading level, then you must know that the problem is you and not the school system.

So much ignorance in this post. READING to your kid is not the same as instruction.

It's funny to me how many people on dcum view it that way. And don't get me wrong. I absolutely love reading to my children and I know there's a lot of great benefits for them. But being read to doesn't teach you how to read any more than riding in a car doesn't teach you how to drive one.

[Anonymous]

Benchmark is how MCPs is trying to justify only having science or social studies every other month for once a week. Most of the Benchmark readings are on science and social studies topics. As a parent, it’s nauseating to read the monthly school newsletter and see the curriculum theme for 2nd or 3rd grade reading actually has NOTHING to do with how to read!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're in DCPS and I don't understand how this is STILL happening in MCPS. We've been pleasantly surprised to see how well DCPS has course corrected regarding reading and our own experience has been phenomenal -- all evidence-based, focus on phonics, no Lucy Caulkins nonsense at all.

We're contemplating a move to MoCo for several reasons, including schools (in a bad HS triangle in DC) and this is giving me pause.

My second grader in MCPS has consistently been taught phonics in school since the beginning, definitely more than my current fourth grader received (I remember sight word books and “look at the pictures for clues” during the zoom school days). I don’t know where the current third graders fall. Was there a change to the MCPS curriculum with more phonics starting with the kids who are now second graders?

RGR was implemented at most schools in the 2022/2023 school year. I also have a second grader and it was a huge shift between kindergarten and 1st grade. In kindergarten they were bringing home lists of sight words to memorize and being taught cueing, which I could tell was not really working for DC. I was relieved when they actually started learning phonics in 1st grade.

So my understanding is that current 3rd graders would have gotten RGR only last year.

MCPS also has implemented Science of Reading across all ES, has Dibels for K-2, and has an RFP out for a new ES ELA curriculum. There is reading specialist in all ES.

The above said, I’m always amazed that parents don’t think they need to be heavily involved with teaching their kids to read.

There's a new RFP? They actually going to make a selection this time?

IMO parental involvement should be in a supporting role- e.g., trained instructors should introduce the phonics skills and parents help their kids practice at home. For too long terrible methods were being used in the classroom and really hard to try to get your kids to sound out the words when they are being taught at school to look at the picture and guess. Ask me how I know.

Parents should be in the drivers seat when teaching kids the Alphabet, basic numbers, and how to read. Just like they should be in the drivers seat in teaching basic life skills and manners. I’m tired of folks being like it’s really hard to do this or that because of school. Parenting is work. No one has ever said it should be easy.

Do I think that schools should have been using Phonics instruction all along, Yes. But the fact they weren’t in no way stopped me from doing what was needed for my children to read. If folks want to farm out the above responsibilities, fine that’s their prerogative. But IMO that in no way removes the accountability from parents.

This is hilarious. Schools have removed so much from ES to focus on math and reading. But now you're saying it's the parents responsibility to teach thir kids to read? Has this memo been passed on to parents who don't speak English as a first language?

I completely do not rely on ES to teach my child math or reading. They just don't have time anymore. All their efforts go to supporting a small group of students who struggle.

Exactly- only struggling students get a good education anymore. I do think this is a shock to parents who went to school decades ago. My own parents really didn’t have to do anything unless we asked them for help on a project.

Hmmm, my own parents were very involved in my education. But my mom SAH and had time to help us. Now kids are at aftercare or with a sitter until 5 or 6pm and of course they're tired and there is no time to put in the extra work. And on weekends they are overscheduled with sports and activities.

+1. My parents also were involved. Reviewed homework, quizzed me before spelling test, proofread book reports, etc. Neither of them was a SAHP. Guess it depends on what people want to prioritize.

I agree with the over scheduling of kids in sports and activities.

DP- my parents definitely helped me with this sort of stuff too. But I do think the things listed here like quizzing for spelling tests are a bit different than teaching a kid to read.

Unless your kid has a learning disability, which 85% of kids do not, it’s not that hard to teach a kid to read. Particularly now. Watch some Sesame Street, download an app, practice the phonics along with reading every night.

Good god, no more apps. They get enough of that in school.

I do wish the PSA about having to teach your kids at home had been more loudly stated when my kiddo was in kindergarten. I learned to read in school as did my siblings. My parents read to us and had us read to them but did not have to teach us. I had no idea how much the approaches had changed. I bought the schtick for a while that my kid was fine and would pick it up by following balanced literacy. They didn't.

I agree. They should tell parents that they need to be teaching the kids. I followed a phonics program with my kids and they easily got it. They had trouble understanding the school methods even when they knew how to read.

Because the school methods are asinine.

No need to correct spelling. They’ll eventually absorb it elsewhere through our fabulously expensive silver bullet reading curriculum. Never mind the fact that the content is boring and skews too technical (teach for the test!).

Literature. Good stories. Make it fun and interesting.

Admit that Benchmark was a big failure. Move on quickly and invest in catching up.

It’s shameful for mcps to churn out subpar students. Shameful.

As a parent I’m tired of this line. School is about learning how to learn and attaining certain skills. If they can make it fun, great, but that’s not the primary goal or objective. At school let’s get down to the business of education. If that means it’s technical, fine. It would probably take a lot less time and energy from teachers if they could just focus on what is needed and not all the fluff.

Um…have you seen Benchmark? The stories were not engaging. The corresponding activities/questions were even worse.

We obviously want our kids to be challenged. I am arguing for better tools and more rigorous instruction. Better tools would be more interesting and engaging.

Anyway, I was right about benchmark not being the silver bullet they hoped for.

Of course Benchmark wasn’t a silver bullet- anyone who thought it would be was highly deluded. At the time many were perplexed at the decision to select it.

Decodable books went out of favor for a while because they were “boring.” What a joke.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Who cares that decodabke books are “boring.” Them being engaging is not the point. If kids need engaging stories have someone read to them or better yet, teach them to read and then they can read engaging stories themself.

This “ it need to be engaging” or let’s work on love of learning” is a crock. Learning to read takes time and effort, it’s work. Love of learning happens because of curious kids exposed to different places, people, things. Imagine all the things they can be exposed to when they can read and do basic math.

We're talking about two different things. Decodable books are a good stepping stone to learning to read much like how kids use balance bikes or training wheels to then learn how to ride a bike.

The issue with me benchmark curriculum is that the kids are just reading these little booklets that are dry and uninteresting and largely cover topics that have been written about in much more engaging ways in actual books. The way it works is that you read the little story from the booklet over and over again for a week and then move on to the next story. I know a lot of teachers are just supplementing or skipping things because it's terrible and they would rather have the kids reading real books.

No we are not talking about two different things. Decodable books help you learn to break apart the words and practice that skill over and over with the same text which helps also helps build reading fluency. I care not if that story is interesting, I care that the kid masters the skill. Bob books are not particularly interesting they are purposeful.

The same with Benchmark. I care not if the little books are interesting. I care about the skill practice and repetition, including the part about kids finding the same phonemes throughout a text so they begin to recognize that other words can be made with the same ones. It’s the focus skill attention. As kids learn to read, they’ll move on to more interesting stories. Further the teacher can read an interesting book aloud to the entire class and let kids go to the library to pick out whatever book that they can take home for reading with family or during quiet time. Heck let the kids listen to audio books.

Using your own example, kids don’t love balance bikes or training wheels. They like being able say or seem like they are doing something that older kids and family are doing. Guess who also doesn’t love training wheels or balance bikes, adults and kids who already know how to ride a bike. Why? Because it slows everything down and makes for a relatively boring ride with limits on where you can go. But we deal with it for a time because we know once the kid learns to ride an actual bike the world opens up. In fact, the entire point of the balance bike is focused attention on the skill most needed to ride a bike which often accelerates progress towards that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are for social learning
Tutors and home is for academics

How come private schools can teach more effectively than public schools when it comes to K-3?

Will mcps please hire a consultant to propose changes to the curriculum that will allow public schools to challenge and equip students the way catholic schools do?

Note: catholic schools arguably have far less funding and less trained teachers, yet students quickly learn to read, spell, understand grammar, write in cursive, etc. Heck, they even learn a foreign language! Class sizes at area catholic schools skyrocketed during the pandemic, so they know how to handle big classes. And ICYMI: bipoc families are scrambling to get into area privates as the mass exodus from mcps continues.

Don’t say “Catholic schools can expel troublemakers!”

We are talking about K-3, not middle school or MS13 high school.

I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s…before adhd and medicated kids were a thing. We had a smattering of kids who definitely had behavior issues. Nonetheless, everyone learned.

Heck, at this point I’d support uniforms, desks in rows, and classrooms grouped by ability. Worth a shot, no? Pilot an old school curriculum and see what happens. Be sure to incorporate grammar (we had spelling workbooks that incorporated vocabulary and grammar). I bet the kids will outpace their counterparts.

Privates aren't 35%+ ESM students with the addition of students with behavioral issues. They won't even admit kids with behavioral issues. These situations are not comparable.

So you are saying the ESM students are negatively impacting everyone else?

Then shouldn’t those kids be in a different class?

We have these things called laws, written by politicians, assuming idyllic conditions. Not to mention research. These things find and suggest that EML students do best and acquire language faster when immersed in regular classrooms with the language. These things also indicate that special education students should be in the least restrictive classroom and are entitled to a full range of services in order to allow for access the curriculum and class.

Now, most teachers nor people have any problem with the above ideals, however each does require extra time, funds, and training, to make work properly.

You quoted a bit related to ESM…not ESL.

Different kids, different issues…right?

ICYMI: catholic schools in the inner city (think: Baltimore, South Side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) are largely catering to…wait for it…Latinos!!! They can somehow navigate the whole bilingual thing fairly well.)

But we are talking about ESM…different issues.

Maybe mcps needs to find a better solution *if* those kids are the reason why so many 3rd graders can’t read.

I’m not convinced a few kids with extreme emotional issues and behavioral outbursts are the reason why so many third graders can’t read. Another poster suggested it as the reason why even poorly resourced Catholic schools churn out better educated kids than mcps…arguably one of the best resourced districts on the planet.

What evidence do you have to prove that homeschooling or students Catholic schools produce better results? Like do the kids actually take the same reading tests as the kids in public school?

Homeschool families are extremely resistant to any kind of oversight or legislation and often pull their kids out of homeschool for the very reason of not wanting their children to be assessed. They claim that their kids are having superior outcomes but don't actually have any kind of data to really prove had to head that their kids are achieving more. It's just anecdotal data about kids going to college but guess what many Public school kids also go to college too. I'd like to see actual head to head data

Um???

You quoted me, but I never referenced homeschooling.

I focused on catholic schools.

Why?

Because my siblings and I went to Catholic schools. And while my own kids are currently in mcps, i have friends and family who teach in catholic schools as well as in mcps—and I know kids that have gone through both.

Here’s what I will say: the entrance tests for catholic schools are far more challenging than the mcps tests. We are currently prepping to pull our kids out of mcps and send them to catholic high school.

I will also say this: because of changes to curriculum, there are certain mcps tests that teachers have said are meaningless because students weren’t properly prepared (curriculum doesn’t cover content on the tests).

ICYMI: the original post provides data on how young students can’t read. If that doesn’t make you wonder about mcps, then let’s agree to disagree.

With one already in college (along with tons of friends from mcps and catholic schools), I can report the kids from catholic school are far better equipped for college. It’s the primary reason we are switching to catholic for our younger kids for HS. We never thought our straight A kid would struggle as much as they are…but the low bar in mcps (even at a “good” HS) is to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Benchmark is how MCPs is trying to justify only having science or social studies every other month for once a week. Most of the Benchmark readings are on science and social studies topics. As a parent, it’s nauseating to read the monthly school newsletter and see the curriculum theme for 2nd or 3rd grade reading actually has NOTHING to do with how to read!

Plus benchmark isn't aligned to mcps science or social studies standards. It's just a double dip for the sake of giving kids exposure to nonfiction topical it's a spiral review so every year there is a government unit, animal unit etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are for social learning
Tutors and home is for academics

How come private schools can teach more effectively than public schools when it comes to K-3?

Will mcps please hire a consultant to propose changes to the curriculum that will allow public schools to challenge and equip students the way catholic schools do?

Note: catholic schools arguably have far less funding and less trained teachers, yet students quickly learn to read, spell, understand grammar, write in cursive, etc. Heck, they even learn a foreign language! Class sizes at area catholic schools skyrocketed during the pandemic, so they know how to handle big classes. And ICYMI: bipoc families are scrambling to get into area privates as the mass exodus from mcps continues.

Don’t say “Catholic schools can expel troublemakers!”

We are talking about K-3, not middle school or MS13 high school.

I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s…before adhd and medicated kids were a thing. We had a smattering of kids who definitely had behavior issues. Nonetheless, everyone learned.

Heck, at this point I’d support uniforms, desks in rows, and classrooms grouped by ability. Worth a shot, no? Pilot an old school curriculum and see what happens. Be sure to incorporate grammar (we had spelling workbooks that incorporated vocabulary and grammar). I bet the kids will outpace their counterparts.

Privates aren't 35%+ ESM students with the addition of students with behavioral issues. They won't even admit kids with behavioral issues. These situations are not comparable.

So you are saying the ESM students are negatively impacting everyone else?

Then shouldn’t those kids be in a different class?

We have these things called laws, written by politicians, assuming idyllic conditions. Not to mention research. These things find and suggest that EML students do best and acquire language faster when immersed in regular classrooms with the language. These things also indicate that special education students should be in the least restrictive classroom and are entitled to a full range of services in order to allow for access the curriculum and class.

Now, most teachers nor people have any problem with the above ideals, however each does require extra time, funds, and training, to make work properly.

You quoted a bit related to ESM…not ESL.

Different kids, different issues…right?

ICYMI: catholic schools in the inner city (think: Baltimore, South Side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) are largely catering to…wait for it…Latinos!!! They can somehow navigate the whole bilingual thing fairly well.)

But we are talking about ESM…different issues.

Maybe mcps needs to find a better solution *if* those kids are the reason why so many 3rd graders can’t read.

I’m not convinced a few kids with extreme emotional issues and behavioral outbursts are the reason why so many third graders can’t read. Another poster suggested it as the reason why even poorly resourced Catholic schools churn out better educated kids than mcps…arguably one of the best resourced districts on the planet.

What evidence do you have to prove that homeschooling or students Catholic schools produce better results? Like do the kids actually take the same reading tests as the kids in public school?

Homeschool families are extremely resistant to any kind of oversight or legislation and often pull their kids out of homeschool for the very reason of not wanting their children to be assessed. They claim that their kids are having superior outcomes but don't actually have any kind of data to really prove had to head that their kids are achieving more. It's just anecdotal data about kids going to college but guess what many Public school kids also go to college too. I'd like to see actual head to head data

Um???

You quoted me, but I never referenced homeschooling.

I focused on catholic schools.

Why?

Because my siblings and I went to Catholic schools. And while my own kids are currently in mcps, i have friends and family who teach in catholic schools as well as in mcps—and I know kids that have gone through both.

Here’s what I will say: the entrance tests for catholic schools are far more challenging than the mcps tests. We are currently prepping to pull our kids out of mcps and send them to catholic high school.

I will also say this: because of changes to curriculum, there are certain mcps tests that teachers have said are meaningless because students weren’t properly prepared (curriculum doesn’t cover content on the tests).

ICYMI: the original post provides data on how young students can’t read. If that doesn’t make you wonder about mcps, then let’s agree to disagree.

With one already in college (along with tons of friends from mcps and catholic schools), I can report the kids from catholic school are far better equipped for college. It’s the primary reason we are switching to catholic for our younger kids for HS. We never thought our straight A kid would struggle as much as they are…but the low bar in mcps (even at a “good” HS) is to blame.

There was another pp saying that reading teaching is easy because any mom or nun can teach it (I guess they missed the memo about how there are fewer women becoming nuns (https://abcnews.go.com/US/americas-nun-population-steep-decline/story?id=87426990) and most Catholic schools have lay staff non nuns.

Your evidence boils down to anecdotal evidence about how you and people you know had a good experience at Catholic school. It doesn't demonstrate that Catholic schools provide a better education

[Anonymous]

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=1424

In 2004, mcps touted the fact that third graders led the pack in terms of the highest test scores—including in reading—and the most impressive progress was in low income schools with large Spanish-speaking populations.

So, what was different then? What curriculum were they using in the years leading up to those successful third graders who tested well in 2003/04?

This was under Jerry’s watch.

We didn’t have as many Latinos in 2004, but certain schools certainly did…and even those schools managed to teach kids to read.

What’s the difference? It’s not the students.

Is it the curriculum?

Teachers?

Social media?

Maga?

Who can we blame, and how can we fuel change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are for social learning
Tutors and home is for academics

How come private schools can teach more effectively than public schools when it comes to K-3?

Will mcps please hire a consultant to propose changes to the curriculum that will allow public schools to challenge and equip students the way catholic schools do?

Note: catholic schools arguably have far less funding and less trained teachers, yet students quickly learn to read, spell, understand grammar, write in cursive, etc. Heck, they even learn a foreign language! Class sizes at area catholic schools skyrocketed during the pandemic, so they know how to handle big classes. And ICYMI: bipoc families are scrambling to get into area privates as the mass exodus from mcps continues.

Don’t say “Catholic schools can expel troublemakers!”

We are talking about K-3, not middle school or MS13 high school.

I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s…before adhd and medicated kids were a thing. We had a smattering of kids who definitely had behavior issues. Nonetheless, everyone learned.

Heck, at this point I’d support uniforms, desks in rows, and classrooms grouped by ability. Worth a shot, no? Pilot an old school curriculum and see what happens. Be sure to incorporate grammar (we had spelling workbooks that incorporated vocabulary and grammar). I bet the kids will outpace their counterparts.

Privates aren't 35%+ ESM students with the addition of students with behavioral issues. They won't even admit kids with behavioral issues. These situations are not comparable.

So you are saying the ESM students are negatively impacting everyone else?

Then shouldn’t those kids be in a different class?

We have these things called laws, written by politicians, assuming idyllic conditions. Not to mention research. These things find and suggest that EML students do best and acquire language faster when immersed in regular classrooms with the language. These things also indicate that special education students should be in the least restrictive classroom and are entitled to a full range of services in order to allow for access the curriculum and class.

Now, most teachers nor people have any problem with the above ideals, however each does require extra time, funds, and training, to make work properly.

You quoted a bit related to ESM…not ESL.

Different kids, different issues…right?

ICYMI: catholic schools in the inner city (think: Baltimore, South Side of Chicago, Compton, etc.) are largely catering to…wait for it…Latinos!!! They can somehow navigate the whole bilingual thing fairly well.)

But we are talking about ESM…different issues.

Maybe mcps needs to find a better solution *if* those kids are the reason why so many 3rd graders can’t read.

I’m not convinced a few kids with extreme emotional issues and behavioral outbursts are the reason why so many third graders can’t read. Another poster suggested it as the reason why even poorly resourced Catholic schools churn out better educated kids than mcps…arguably one of the best resourced districts on the planet.

What evidence do you have to prove that homeschooling or students Catholic schools produce better results? Like do the kids actually take the same reading tests as the kids in public school?

Homeschool families are extremely resistant to any kind of oversight or legislation and often pull their kids out of homeschool for the very reason of not wanting their children to be assessed. They claim that their kids are having superior outcomes but don't actually have any kind of data to really prove had to head that their kids are achieving more. It's just anecdotal data about kids going to college but guess what many Public school kids also go to college too. I'd like to see actual head to head data

Um???

You quoted me, but I never referenced homeschooling.

I focused on catholic schools.

Why?

Because my siblings and I went to Catholic schools. And while my own kids are currently in mcps, i have friends and family who teach in catholic schools as well as in mcps—and I know kids that have gone through both.

Here’s what I will say: the entrance tests for catholic schools are far more challenging than the mcps tests. We are currently prepping to pull our kids out of mcps and send them to catholic high school.

I will also say this: because of changes to curriculum, there are certain mcps tests that teachers have said are meaningless because students weren’t properly prepared (curriculum doesn’t cover content on the tests).

ICYMI: the original post provides data on how young students can’t read. If that doesn’t make you wonder about mcps, then let’s agree to disagree.

With one already in college (along with tons of friends from mcps and catholic schools), I can report the kids from catholic school are far better equipped for college. It’s the primary reason we are switching to catholic for our younger kids for HS. We never thought our straight A kid would struggle as much as they are…but the low bar in mcps (even at a “good” HS) is to blame.

There was another pp saying that reading teaching is easy because any mom or nun can teach it (I guess they missed the memo about how there are fewer women becoming nuns (https://abcnews.go.com/US/americas-nun-population-steep-decline/story?id=87426990) and most Catholic schools have lay staff non nuns.

Your evidence boils down to anecdotal evidence about how you and people you know had a good experience at Catholic school. It doesn't demonstrate that Catholic schools provide a better education

Go google the research.

Or find someone with kids in catholic school and compare notes. You’ll be shocked.

Or google the free practice tests catholic schools use for applicants and see how your kid does.

Bottom line: I guarantee that every kid in catholic school can read at an early age—even bipoc kids at catholic schools in the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore or Chicago.

And it’s not because the parents are supplementing or the schools cream and kick out underperforming kindergartners. As if! The entire point of catholic schools in low income areas is to raise the bar and provide a rigorous education at school precisely because they know they won’t get it at home. And they churn out well-educated students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=1424

In 2004, mcps touted the fact that third graders led the pack in terms of the highest test scores—including in reading—and the most impressive progress was in low income schools with large Spanish-speaking populations.

So, what was different then? What curriculum were they using in the years leading up to those successful third graders who tested well in 2003/04?

This was under Jerry’s watch.

We didn’t have as many Latinos in 2004, but certain schools certainly did…and even those schools managed to teach kids to read.

What’s the difference? It’s not the students.

Is it the curriculum?

Teachers?

Social media?

Maga?

Who can we blame, and how can we fuel change?

How about we stop looking for something or someone to blame and just teach kids to read with what is known to work. Phonics instruction, teacher and parent time and support, addressing any learning disabilities/difficulties early, high dosage tutoring for those struggling, and surrounding kids with books they would choose(print, online, audio).

If a classroom or school is missing one of the above, let folks know which so it can be addressed.

[Anonymous]

So if parents are responsible for teaching their kids to read, then what is the point of school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/press/index.aspx?pagetype=showrelease&id=1424

In 2004, mcps touted the fact that third graders led the pack in terms of the highest test scores—including in reading—and the most impressive progress was in low income schools with large Spanish-speaking populations.

So, what was different then? What curriculum were they using in the years leading up to those successful third graders who tested well in 2003/04?

This was under Jerry’s watch.

We didn’t have as many Latinos in 2004, but certain schools certainly did…and even those schools managed to teach kids to read.

What’s the difference? It’s not the students.

Is it the curriculum?

Teachers?

Social media?

Maga?

Who can we blame, and how can we fuel change?

How about we stop looking for something or someone to blame and just teach kids to read with what is known to work. Phonics instruction, teacher and parent time and support, addressing any learning disabilities/difficulties early, high dosage tutoring for those struggling, and surrounding kids with books they would choose(print, online, audio).

If a classroom or school is missing one of the above, let folks know which so it can be addressed.

Can anyone tell us what teaching looked like in 2003/04 in mcps K-3?

I’m assuming they used phonics because this was pre 2.0, right?

And it was still old school teaching, right?

No chrome books.

Kids grouped by ability.

Anyone know what resources were available?

What did a typical day look like?

How did they approach spelling and grammar?