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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

+1.  Benchmark was a poor choice for a general curriculum.[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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 [i]in utero[/i]?

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.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics