Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

You seem to believe that teachers don't have any other way to interact with children other than individual assessment and MAP testing.

No, not what I am saying at all, but I have seen with my own eyes how little a teacher with a large class can understand about the nuances of a child’s ability when they rely heavily on computer testing instead of sitting down one-on-one. I saw this while volunteering in a very large second grade that used a lot of math apps and testing. The admin was very data-driven and the teacher spent a lot of time reviewing app and testing scores. The teacher asked me to do math facts with the kids and there were a few surprises in kids who were doing pretty badly on the Fast Math computer stuff but clearly knew their math facts well and showed that when they worked on paper with me. It was definitely an additional level of information for the teacher. There was one child who was getting very stressed by all the testing and showing a truly alarming amount of anxiety about it when I sat down with her. By computer testing standards, she was in the bottom third of the class. One-on-one, with a little reassurance and calm, she showed higher mastery than most of the class. This was a highly experienced and generally excellent teacher. Class discussions and group work do show a lot, but also obscure the abilities and needs of some children. A little individual time can go a long way to reveal whether a child is really struggling, or almost has it, or is flying on a subject.
So I am not at all advocating for this particular kind of assessment, but I am concerned that some kind of individual assessment is once again getting replaced by computer testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

You seem to believe that teachers don't have any other way to interact with children other than individual assessment and MAP testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am sorry if i missed this, but has anyone posted the memo to the principals that sparked this thread? My main concern with the Smith regime is that decisions are made--often without teacher input--and then, when teachers or school-level administrators ask for clarifications, there are multiple, contradictory responses. This seems to be a perfect example of that lack of clarity. So...the original source document, please?

The entire memo or just the part that discusses reading levels not being reported on report cards?

However, reading levels are still being reported multiple times a year by a more comprehensive and standardized test, the MAP-R. Basically, the county just cut out weeks of wasted teacher time and eliminated a redundant reading assessment. To me at least, this seems like a good thing.

Anonymous wrote:I am sorry if i missed this, but has anyone posted the memo to the principals that sparked this thread? My main concern with the Smith regime is that decisions are made--often without teacher input--and then, when teachers or school-level administrators ask for clarifications, there are multiple, contradictory responses. This seems to be a perfect example of that lack of clarity. So...the original source document, please?

The entire memo or just the part that discusses reading levels not being reported on report cards?

This may not be bad if teachers are given more time to on helping students improve rather than just measuring.

When DD was 2 she had a speech delay. We tried the county's infants and toddlers program. Friends encouraged us to also get private intervention because the county had a bad reputation. Wow, were they correct! The county speech therapists ONLY assessed and measured DD while the private therapist worked with DD. The difference was striking, The county therapist would show up very late, spend most of her time every week having me fill out assessments and then would test DD. When I shared with the county therapist what was working with DD her response was that it didn't matter what worked the county recommend the following materials. DD hated this therapist because she was rude and not kid friendly . When DD an away from her,the county therapist would then lecture me that we must not have been doing enough of the county directed activities with DD. It was beyond stupid.

MCPS also has this problem where they focus more in teaching new teachers to collect data for the county which is never shared with parents and does nothing to help the students. All this data creates a ridiculous number of data collection and analysis positions and departments within the central office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

What I've seen at a W feeder indicates otherwise. These assessments are anything but thorough. Teachers are hard pressed to process 25-30 students as quickly as possible. This also takes significant from classroom time. The tests are almost never done consistently from one teacher to the next. I have far more faith in a more comprehensive and standardized test like the MAP-R.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

But does this mean that teachers will be even further distanced from their students? They learn more about their students’ abilities when doing individual assements with them than they do by just looking over classroom MAP scores, don’t they?

Anonymous wrote:If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.

Since reading level can be inferred by MAP-R score which is updated 3 times a year already that’s my take. Perhaps the kids will also be less focused on level too.

Anonymous wrote:You think this is bad? Wait until ESSA ranks your school, as it moves from a supposedly 5-star to a 2-star.

Let's see how real estate is affected then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-board-approves-new-5-star-rating-system-for-schools/2017/06/29/2561e0bc-5c41-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3779b9a9081
Maryland board approves new 5-star rating system for public schools

the rating will likely be about as helpful as GS which isn’t all that helpful

I am sorry if i missed this, but has anyone posted the memo to the principals that sparked this thread? My main concern with the Smith regime is that decisions are made--often without teacher input--and then, when teachers or school-level administrators ask for clarifications, there are multiple, contradictory responses. This seems to be a perfect example of that lack of clarity. So...the original source document, please?

You think this is bad? Wait until ESSA ranks your school, as it moves from a supposedly 5-star to a 2-star.

Let's see how real estate is affected then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-board-approves-new-5-star-rating-system-for-schools/2017/06/29/2561e0bc-5c41-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f3779b9a9081
Maryland board approves new 5-star rating system for public schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like the earlier poster said this site will sometimes provide very useful information and even advice, but many of the opinions expressed seem out of touch with reality. Sure, C2.0 isn't perfect and they need to make changes, but it's hardly the end of the world. Many students from this county go on to top colleges...

Many students from this county also have families that either supplement at home or hire tutors.

You clearly haven't left your bubble of Bethesda/Potomac if you believe that.

I don't live in either of those areas. However, I have had to supplement - a lot. Most of the parents I know do even more. Moreover, the tutoring industry is booming in Montgomery County. If the education system was adequate, there wouldn't be anywhere near the demand for tutoring to support the boom.

I've also volunteered in schools frequently enough that I've seen kids who don't know anywhere near what they should.

From what I remember, the outside evaluators rated 2.0 considerably lower than less than perfect. I've been around long enough to remember the previous curriculum and I assure you that it wasn't significany better. If anything, I think it was worse.

I will say that there are some fantastic teachers in the county who go out of their way to supplement the curriculum. My children were fortunate enough to have some of these, for which I'm tremendously grateful. I've had teachers tell me, when questioned, that they cover things which aren't in the curriculum because they think it's important. One of them used the grammar curriculum from her daughter's private school. If you're happy with your MCPS experience, I strongly suspect you've been lucky enough to have some of these teachers.

The system itself is flawed. I maintain that it's excellent reputation is due less to the system and more to teachers and families who compensate on an ad hoc basis. I do applaud them for having their curriculum independently reviewed. I hope that it signifies a chance for improvement. My concern, however, is that the same curriculum department that gave us a failed curriculum may be the one to select the new curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:I am an educator and a parent and I for one think this is a fantastic change. I don't think reading levels ever belonged on a report card. Our students think of themselves as a level instead of as a reader. Could you imagine thinking you can only read certain books? I don't know about you, but sometimes I want to read dumb beach reads and other times books that really challenge me. Taking the levels off the report card helps our children become readers not levels. Teachers should ALWAYS communicate their level to the parent. However, levels were created to help us teach children, not to dictate what a child reads. What difference does it make if your child is reading one level above or a year above, they are above grade level readers. I also think that good teaching is teaching the love of reading not the love of reading leveled books.

+1M

I am an educator and a parent and I for one think this is a fantastic change. I don't think reading levels ever belonged on a report card. Our students think of themselves as a level instead of as a reader. Could you imagine thinking you can only read certain books? I don't know about you, but sometimes I want to read dumb beach reads and other times books that really challenge me. Taking the levels off the report card helps our children become readers not levels. Teachers should ALWAYS communicate their level to the parent. However, levels were created to help us teach children, not to dictate what a child reads. What difference does it make if your child is reading one level above or a year above, they are above grade level readers. I also think that good teaching is teaching the love of reading not the love of reading leveled books.

If this is really a move to use MAP testing as the measure of reading progress and drop burdensome and subjective teacher assessments, this is a good thing.