Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

The decision-makers at the Central Office are so far removed from students that it hasn't been about education for a long time now. If this continues, MCPS will be reduced to a jobs program that serves no function aside from promoting equality for its own sake and parents will become increasingly irate.

There´s nothing wrong with using an equity lens, but delaying the correction of a poor curriculum will actually exacerbate inequality.

I will push back on this... yes, there is something wrong with using an equity lens. Our country is based on the idea that the government treats each citizen equally. Does it fail to do this sometimes? Sure, but that is the premise. I can't get behind taking a system that left some kids behind to creating a new system that leaves different kids behind.

Equity is not about leaving anyone behind. It’s about provide the supports that each person needs in order to be able to achieve their highest potential.

Anonymous wrote:If they keep changing curriculums won’t it be difficult for the teachers? Imagine if you had switch companies every year and re-learn everything from scratch.

I am not a teacher, so I can only assume that it would be difficult. Teachers I have encountered know a crap curriculum when they see it, and would like to have better, and are willing to put in the extra work.

If they keep changing curriculums won’t it be difficult for the teachers? Imagine if you had switch companies every year and re-learn everything from scratch.

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately Steph, the best thing they can do for equity is to choose a rigorous curriculum based on the science of reading. Otherwise, kids who can supplement will continue to move ahead at a significantly faster pace than kids who do not. Benchmark is only exacerbating inequities.

Sorry for the autocorrect - not sure where Steph came from!

Ultimately Steph, the best thing they can do for equity is to choose a rigorous curriculum based on the science of reading. Otherwise, kids who can supplement will continue to move ahead at a significantly faster pace than kids who do not. Benchmark is only exacerbating inequities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

The decision-makers at the Central Office are so far removed from students that it hasn't been about education for a long time now. If this continues, MCPS will be reduced to a jobs program that serves no function aside from promoting equality for its own sake and parents will become increasingly irate.

There´s nothing wrong with using an equity lens, but delaying the correction of a poor curriculum will actually exacerbate inequality.

I will push back on this... yes, there is something wrong with using an equity lens. Our country is based on the idea that the government treats each citizen equally. Does it fail to do this sometimes? Sure, but that is the premise. I can't get behind taking a system that left some kids behind to creating a new system that leaves different kids behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there still has been no announcement. That's awful communication even for MCPS, which has already set the bar very low on the communications front. They haven't even bothered to modify the timeline on the website, which still lists 3/28/23 as the date for BOE approval.

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/office/ela-rfp

That's weird. I feel MCPS is almost too communicative. Sorry if their thoroughness isn't convenient for you.

Wow, you are the first person I have heard say that MCPS is good at communications. They certainly have enough staff for it, but they regularly fail. The county council called them out for it last week. They communicate about things that don't matter and fail to communicate about things that do. This is a great example - we are supposed to have a new curriculum next year; they were supposed to get it approved in March; principals have been told what the plan is; and yet -- nothing to the public (or to the stakeholders other than principals involved in selecting the curriculum).

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe there still has been no announcement. That's awful communication even for MCPS, which has already set the bar very low on the communications front. They haven't even bothered to modify the timeline on the website, which still lists 3/28/23 as the date for BOE approval.

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/office/ela-rfp

That's weird. I feel MCPS is almost too communicative. Sorry if their thoroughness isn't convenient for you.

I can't believe there still has been no announcement. That's awful communication even for MCPS, which has already set the bar very low on the communications front. They haven't even bothered to modify the timeline on the website, which still lists 3/28/23 as the date for BOE approval.

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/office/ela-rfp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People like RGR, so they can't possibly keep that. Maybe they can find some free online curriculum that is so bad they have to get rid of it in 1-2 years. Oh wait, that's their normal process...

They did not say they are getting rid of RGR. In fact they are supposedly giving it to the schools with the Benchmark 2022 just to be sure that everything is aligned.

I'm very happy to hear this with a child at a school that didn't have RGR this year. But I remain very concerned that the Benchmark content outside of phonics is subpar and we are all still stuck with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

The decision-makers at the Central Office are so far removed from students that it hasn't been about education for a long time now. If this continues, MCPS will be reduced to a jobs program that serves no function aside from promoting equality for its own sake and parents will become increasingly irate.

There´s nothing wrong with using an equity lens, but delaying the correction of a poor curriculum will actually exacerbate inequality.

We don't really know that. A good curriculum might help healthy children from stable, education-oriend homes more than it helps others.

Remember ther equity is about reducing the variation between lowest and highest performance, not raising the performance of lower performers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

You aren't joking, but you speculating with 0 evidence.

Anonymous wrote:People like RGR, so they can't possibly keep that. Maybe they can find some free online curriculum that is so bad they have to get rid of it in 1-2 years. Oh wait, that's their normal process...

They did not say they are getting rid of RGR. In fact they are supposedly giving it to the schools with the Benchmark 2022 just to be sure that everything is aligned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

The decision-makers at the Central Office are so far removed from students that it hasn't been about education for a long time now. If this continues, MCPS will be reduced to a jobs program that serves no function aside from promoting equality for its own sake and parents will become increasingly irate.

There´s nothing wrong with using an equity lens, but delaying the correction of a poor curriculum will actually exacerbate inequality.

This. Because before MCPS added RGR, you pretty much had to teach phonics at home, so kids who had parents with the time and expertise to do so were at an advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has made it clear that they now want to make sure it goes with their equity lens. They do not care if it teaches reading as long as the main focus of the program is equity.

My guess is that when the final programs were reviewed, the focus was on literacy instruction and how well they did in the classroom (which makes sense). Hence, they need to review all again and add in others with a new focus lens.

This of course costs more time and money. I wish I was joking.

So basically you need to teach your kid phonics and reading at home if you want them to learn anything.

The decision-makers at the Central Office are so far removed from students that it hasn't been about education for a long time now. If this continues, MCPS will be reduced to a jobs program that serves no function aside from promoting equality for its own sake and parents will become increasingly irate.

There´s nothing wrong with using an equity lens, but delaying the correction of a poor curriculum will actually exacerbate inequality.