Language arts new curriculumn for K-6th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

I have the same concern. I’m also not convinced that instruction will be adapted to meet students’ needs. It seems a lot of people will be happy simply with the fact that it’s a “textbook” series.

It’s basically a curriculum for the lowest common denominator. It uses excepts from novels to teach concepts but that’s it. Lame AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

I have the same concern. I’m also not convinced that instruction will be adapted to meet students’ needs. It seems a lot of people will be happy simply with the fact that it’s a “textbook” series.

It’s basically a curriculum for the lowest common denominator. It uses excepts from novels to teach concepts but that’s it. Lame AF.

Excerpts

[Anonymous]

The districts number one priority is high test scores and a basal will more than likely get the test scores up, especially in the title ones. Your kids are numbers on an excel sheet to the people at gatehouse. You would not believe the amount of time that is spent on test scores in school and dissecting the data. The fun little book clubs and novel studies get lost in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

Book clubs are pretty dumb anyway. No big loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

I have the same concern. I’m also not convinced that instruction will be adapted to meet students’ needs. It seems a lot of people will be happy simply with the fact that it’s a “textbook” series.

It’s basically a curriculum for the lowest common denominator. It uses excepts from novels to teach concepts but that’s it. Lame AF.

It is not a curriculum for the lowest common denominator. What MCPS used to complain about was that it was on-grade-level. The didn't like that it didn't accommodate lower level learners and higher level learners. The Benchmark Advance seems to do so more than the old Benchmark did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The districts number one priority is high test scores and a basal will more than likely get the test scores up, especially in the title ones. Your kids are numbers on an excel sheet to the people at gatehouse. You would not believe the amount of time that is spent on test scores in school and dissecting the data. The fun little book clubs and novel studies get lost in this.

+1 that’s why we pushed for AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

Book clubs are pretty dumb anyway. No big loss.

If they’re done right they aren’t dumb. But you’re right, many teachers are too dumb to do them correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

And now no one will get book clubs. Standardized to the lowest level.

+1 that’s one thing I don’t like. There will be no more novels or book clubs with this new heavy curriculum.

Book clubs are pretty dumb anyway. No big loss.

If they’re done right they aren’t dumb. But you’re right, many teachers are too dumb to do them correctly.

Book clubs should be introduced by 5th grade which is middle school to many. Basal readers are fine for grades K to 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 9th grader has read one novel. ONE.

in 6th grade, they have read 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

T

That sounds kind of awful for teachers. But I will admit that my older DC was taught to read with "Good readers look at the pictures" three-cueing, while my younger DC has gotten a decent amount of phonics. And neither of them have a strong grasp of grammar and sentence structure, or have any grasp at all of formal writing. Lucy Calkins has a lot to answer for.

Unless there is an older teacher sneaking those methods in three cueing is unheard of now. Most new teachers wouldn’t even be able to tell you what that is because colleges don’t teach it anymore.

It was only 3 years ago. I know that FCPS has really changed their reading curriculum, for the better. If they change their writing curriculum, I'll be happy. I 'm not sure an entirely scripted all-inclusive reading and writing program is needed - I guess we'll see how it is. What our teachers need more of is autonomy, not more scripts.

Not anymore. The current crop of inexperienced or burned out teachers don’t make good use of autonomy. Those days are over.

Most teachers at my school are happy about it because it cuts way down on planning. The workload has to come down to keep teachers. I would argue that work load is the bigger problem than the pay. If this basal goes successfully, I think a Math curriculum won’t be far behind.

They've had several math curriculums. What was wrong with the previous ones?

There has been no math curriculum for at least the last 8 years. We teachers at each school create EVERYTHING. The county puts together some slides that have ONE MATH PROBLEM for the entire instruction.

We have Origo to supplement. It’s all online for teachers, doesn’t align with what we teach in Virginia, uses terminology unheard of in the US and was complete and utter crap. No one uses it.

We are supposed to get new math slides for the new math standards. The current ones are terrible, nobody uses them, at least not without significant modification.

Oh, I’m sure we’ll get new slide decks. With fancy graphics and pages of POG skills. And one stinking math problem. And a slide with centers names. The kids need to do math, math, and more math. But apparently one problem and talking about it is sufficient for Gatehouse.

Thank God this bothers someone else besides for me. I’m so tired of these 20 page slide decks with only one problem in them. I CANNOT with these math slides anymore!!!

Do the teachers have to use the slide decks? They are not effective learning in elementary school especially for some neurodiverse students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

T

That sounds kind of awful for teachers. But I will admit that my older DC was taught to read with "Good readers look at the pictures" three-cueing, while my younger DC has gotten a decent amount of phonics. And neither of them have a strong grasp of grammar and sentence structure, or have any grasp at all of formal writing. Lucy Calkins has a lot to answer for.

Unless there is an older teacher sneaking those methods in three cueing is unheard of now. Most new teachers wouldn’t even be able to tell you what that is because colleges don’t teach it anymore.

It was only 3 years ago. I know that FCPS has really changed their reading curriculum, for the better. If they change their writing curriculum, I'll be happy. I 'm not sure an entirely scripted all-inclusive reading and writing program is needed - I guess we'll see how it is. What our teachers need more of is autonomy, not more scripts.

100% agree with you. My current 5th grader was taught with the Lucy Calkins method and it took two years of tutoring to get her up to the appropriate reading level (one of those years was online due to Covid), but her writing is still atrocious and she doesn't know any grammar and she can't spell.

+1 with 6th grader. What is the plan to catch these kids up with grammar and spelling? Hopefully, outside help has brought people to read ok. But, grammar and spelling needs brought up. There seems to be several years of students who missed a lot because of no appropriate curriculum, just following the guess the word by looking at the picture method and told to write one Lucy Calkin’s ‘fun’ essay after another with no real writing training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

T

That sounds kind of awful for teachers. But I will admit that my older DC was taught to read with "Good readers look at the pictures" three-cueing, while my younger DC has gotten a decent amount of phonics. And neither of them have a strong grasp of grammar and sentence structure, or have any grasp at all of formal writing. Lucy Calkins has a lot to answer for.

Unless there is an older teacher sneaking those methods in three cueing is unheard of now. Most new teachers wouldn’t even be able to tell you what that is because colleges don’t teach it anymore.

It was only 3 years ago. I know that FCPS has really changed their reading curriculum, for the better. If they change their writing curriculum, I'll be happy. I 'm not sure an entirely scripted all-inclusive reading and writing program is needed - I guess we'll see how it is. What our teachers need more of is autonomy, not more scripts.

100% agree with you. My current 5th grader was taught with the Lucy Calkins method and it took two years of tutoring to get her up to the appropriate reading level (one of those years was online due to Covid), but her writing is still atrocious and she doesn't know any grammar and she can't spell.

I retired last year after 30 years with FCPS. Somehow I never learned much about Lucy Calkins. I remember a few years before I retired (perhaps around 2019 or so) hearing a reading specialist refer to "Lucy" during a CT meeting. I kept thinking, "Who is this Lucy she keeps referencing?". Then perhaps two years ago they started talking about how "Lucy" was on it's way out.

So funny, me too. I would see a few other teachers use the materials, but several members on my team didn’t use it and we were never asked about it.

But that’s how they built their scripted slide decks that they passed to the teachers! So, you all were using it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

T

That sounds kind of awful for teachers. But I will admit that my older DC was taught to read with "Good readers look at the pictures" three-cueing, while my younger DC has gotten a decent amount of phonics. And neither of them have a strong grasp of grammar and sentence structure, or have any grasp at all of formal writing. Lucy Calkins has a lot to answer for.

Unless there is an older teacher sneaking those methods in three cueing is unheard of now. Most new teachers wouldn’t even be able to tell you what that is because colleges don’t teach it anymore.

It was only 3 years ago. I know that FCPS has really changed their reading curriculum, for the better. If they change their writing curriculum, I'll be happy. I 'm not sure an entirely scripted all-inclusive reading and writing program is needed - I guess we'll see how it is. What our teachers need more of is autonomy, not more scripts.

100% agree with you. My current 5th grader was taught with the Lucy Calkins method and it took two years of tutoring to get her up to the appropriate reading level (one of those years was online due to Covid), but her writing is still atrocious and she doesn't know any grammar and she can't spell.

+1 with 6th grader. What is the plan to catch these kids up with grammar and spelling? Hopefully, outside help has brought people to read ok. But, grammar and spelling needs brought up. There seems to be several years of students who missed a lot because of no appropriate curriculum, just following the guess the word by looking at the picture method and told to write one Lucy Calkin’s ‘fun’ essay after another with no real writing training.

My 6th grader has had spelling assessments all year as well as grammar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

Do the kids actually read any novels in the upper grades with this new curriculum, or is it all short passages to train them or the SOL? I’m not holding my breath.

What are you taking about? My kids have had book clubs starting in 3rd grade. They have read novels 3-6th. Then in MS and HS MANY are required.

And this is why curriculum needs to be standardized across all of FCPS because your children get book clubs and mine don't get anything.

Our kids experienced book clubs in 3-6th grade, but they weren’t great because they weren’t run well. The students were expected to read x pages and just talk about it. But, at those young ages, no one knew how to be a leader nor did anyone know literature terms and devices to add any value. It was very poorly executed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. While there are a lot of negatives such of lack of choice and teacher autonomy there are many pluses. The main one is that it will equalize the quality of teaching across the county. Your student will get the same reading instruction if they are being taught by a 30 year veteran teacher in a rich area or are be being taught by a teacher trainee or long term sub in a title one, the book literally tells you what to say. Right now there is reading “curriculum” but it is strongly suggested and many schools don’t even use the phonics lessons and use something else and the writing plans are minimal . The new curriculum is all inclusive and had reading comprehension , writing, grammar, and small group instruction.

T

That sounds kind of awful for teachers. But I will admit that my older DC was taught to read with "Good readers look at the pictures" three-cueing, while my younger DC has gotten a decent amount of phonics. And neither of them have a strong grasp of grammar and sentence structure, or have any grasp at all of formal writing. Lucy Calkins has a lot to answer for.

Unless there is an older teacher sneaking those methods in three cueing is unheard of now. Most new teachers wouldn’t even be able to tell you what that is because colleges don’t teach it anymore.

It was only 3 years ago. I know that FCPS has really changed their reading curriculum, for the better. If they change their writing curriculum, I'll be happy. I 'm not sure an entirely scripted all-inclusive reading and writing program is needed - I guess we'll see how it is. What our teachers need more of is autonomy, not more scripts.

100% agree with you. My current 5th grader was taught with the Lucy Calkins method and it took two years of tutoring to get her up to the appropriate reading level (one of those years was online due to Covid), but her writing is still atrocious and she doesn't know any grammar and she can't spell.

+1 with 6th grader. What is the plan to catch these kids up with grammar and spelling? Hopefully, outside help has brought people to read ok. But, grammar and spelling needs brought up. There seems to be several years of students who missed a lot because of no appropriate curriculum, just following the guess the word by looking at the picture method and told to write one Lucy Calkin’s ‘fun’ essay after another with no real writing training.

My 6th grader has had spelling assessments all year as well as grammar.

What kind of grammar lessons does your 6th grader get? Ours doesn’t even know all of the parts of speech yet!