Anonymous wrote:
If you're going to accept that you're going to have to account for teaching children at different levels (which given reality, you're going to have to), why sort children initially? There seems to be minimal benefit and there are significant drawbacks.
Anonymous wrote:
I've heard repeatedly (maybe not be true?) that K - 2nd grade is all about making sure the kids know how to read. And, then after 3rd grade, they being to 'read to learn'.
So, grouping the kids by reading ability (versus math) might make more sense in K-2. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to reorder the classes throughout the year since part of K/1st grade is socialization. But, if the kids start at similar reading levels, won't they increase similarly as well, if all being taught the same?
And, more importantly, how would that be any worse than having the 5 different reading levels all in the same class? Even just making it so that there are 2 different reading groups would seem to be an improvement, so that the teacher can give each group a half-hour or instruction (versus 10 minutes or no time at all, in some cases).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You all are ridiculously obsessed with reading levels. Reading level is only a small piece of the puzzle. It is what you do with the reading that counts--and that can be taught at grade level.
Well, this particular thread is about reading groups (says that in the title!).
But, no, I'm not obsessed with reading levels. It's more just that I'd like my kid to actually be improving/learning for the 30 hours/week she's at school.
I'm actually quite concerned about math also, but that's a whole different thread.
DC has been in top group all year. The group NEVER meets as far as I can squeeze out my child. In spite of this DC jumped a whole grade in one marking period. Again I wouldn't stress too much over it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You all are ridiculously obsessed with reading levels. Reading level is only a small piece of the puzzle. It is what you do with the reading that counts--and that can be taught at grade level.
Well, this particular thread is about reading groups (says that in the title!).
But, no, I'm not obsessed with reading levels. It's more just that I'd like my kid to actually be improving/learning for the 30 hours/week she's at school.
I'm actually quite concerned about math also, but that's a whole different thread.
Anonymous wrote:
Fair points.
I've heard repeatedly (maybe not be true?) that K - 2nd grade is all about making sure the kids know how to read. And, then after 3rd grade, they being to 'read to learn'.
So, grouping the kids by reading ability (versus math) might make more sense in K-2. I agree that it wouldn't make sense to reorder the classes throughout the year since part of K/1st grade is socialization. But, if the kids start at similar reading levels, won't they increase similarly as well, if all being taught the same?
And, more importantly, how would that be any worse than having the 5 different reading levels all in the same class? Even just making it so that there are 2 different reading groups would seem to be an improvement, so that the teacher can give each group a half-hour or instruction (versus 10 minutes or no time at all, in some cases).
Anonymous wrote:
I know that the ES we're zoned for has 4 K classes with about 20 students each. Why wouldn't they just separate out the kids based on reading ability at the beginning of the year? It would use the same amount of 'resources', right? Same teachers. Same classroom. What is the down side?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Well since my one child is in 6th and my other in 1st, I guess all 8 teachers I have witnessed have poor classroom management. Wait, I take that back. How can a teacher TEACH to a class if she spends 1.5hrs of the day, pulling aside a few kids at a time. Oh, wait she can't, especially when she has 25-32 kids in a class. It is not the teacher, it is the style of teaching MCPS wants to have. Trying to be politically correct and blend the kids. Kids who are reading at 2-3 grade levels above and kids who can't read or don't even speak English. Neither group of kids are getting the direct teaching/learning they deserve.
Maybe they do all have poor classroom management. Or maybe you have unrealistic expectations. Because it actually is possible to teach kids reading without separating them into different classes.
Parents on DCUM like to assert that MCPS is doing within-class differentiation because of "political correctness". (Whatever that means.) An alternative explanation is that MCPS is doing within-class differentiation because that's what works best for the most children, with the resources MCPS has.
Can you explain this further? (we're new to MCPS)
I know that the ES we're zoned for has 4 K classes with about 20 students each. Why wouldn't they just separate out the kids based on reading ability at the beginning of the year? It would use the same amount of 'resources', right? Same teachers. Same classroom. What is the down side?
[/quote
How do they sort? Reading? Math? What if a child excels in one area and not in another? What if a child has a leap of ability during the year and goes from "the bottom" to "the top"? Or what if a child stagnates and goes from being advanced to average? Do you reorder the classes throughout the year to accommodate these changes?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm not the PP, but please see my post above at 14:18.
Have you ever volunteered? There is no shortage of other work to be done.
Yes, I have volunteered. As you say, there is no shortage of other work to be done.
Which then leads to the question: if (as you say) nobody is learning anything, then where does all of this no-shortage-of-other-work-to-be-done work come from?
Nobody is saying that 'nobody is learning anything'. Go back and re-read the complaints.
The complaint is that the kids who have already met benchmarks (eg. K kids at Level 6 or above in reading) are not getting enough direct instruction time because the teacher has to meet the needs of the other kids in the class. That is what bothers some parents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I volunteer too and see the same thing. There is so much unproductive time. Even during parent observation hour which you would think would be a display of more engaging activities the kids are bored to death and the parents try not to fall asleep in the chairs. The 1st grade teacher was demonstrating things that my kids did early in preschool. Their second year of preschool for ages 4-5 was more advanced than what the teacher was doing.
OMG! You do realize that there is a lot of repetition, going back over material, laying down the foundation ...that is a lot what goes on in K-1st grade. Not only that, but those early years is a lot about teaching kids HOW TO LEARN. Teaching them to focus, be in a classroom setting, getting organized, plus a lot of the fundamental facts they will need to build on in the later grades.
Some of you people are a trip, if your little 4-5 yr old is such a genius and wayyyyy beyond the scope of K-1 in MCPS, why the freak didn't you just test them into 3rd grade.
Get a grip!
Do you actually have a kid in MCPS? MCPS does NOT like kids to skip grades AT ALL. They don't even like you do to EEK. It is not easy to have your kid skip a grade.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I'm not the PP, but please see my post above at 14:18.
Have you ever volunteered? There is no shortage of other work to be done.
Yes, I have volunteered. As you say, there is no shortage of other work to be done.
Which then leads to the question: if (as you say) nobody is learning anything, then where does all of this no-shortage-of-other-work-to-be-done work come from?