Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one year renewal for Benchmark is on the BOE agenda tomorrow.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSCN7G5E8BBE/$file/Cont%20Apprv%20RFP%204478.1%20Lang%20Arts%20Math%20Materials%20ES%20MS%20Ext.pdf

Looks like they’re also sticking with Leader in Me. In spite of their survey indicating all secondary and most elementary teachers felt it was not effective at all.

They're only sticking with LiM for the 37 schools that opted to keep it.

Is there a list of schools that are keeping it? I can't imagine anyone opting into it.l Hope our ES turned it down -- we have had it 2 years, and it is awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one year renewal for Benchmark is on the BOE agenda tomorrow.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSCN7G5E8BBE/$file/Cont%20Apprv%20RFP%204478.1%20Lang%20Arts%20Math%20Materials%20ES%20MS%20Ext.pdf

Looks like they’re also sticking with Leader in Me. In spite of their survey indicating all secondary and most elementary teachers felt it was not effective at all.

They're only sticking with LiM for the 37 schools that opted to keep it.

Anonymous wrote:The one year renewal for Benchmark is on the BOE agenda tomorrow.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSCN7G5E8BBE/$file/Cont%20Apprv%20RFP%204478.1%20Lang%20Arts%20Math%20Materials%20ES%20MS%20Ext.pdf

Looks like they’re also sticking with Leader in Me. In spite of their survey indicating all secondary and most elementary teachers felt it was not effective at all.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS told NAACP Parents Council Reps that Benchmark is staying for one more year, BUT they have trained staff in the Science of Reading.

The reason for keeping Benchmark is that they couldn't find a curriculum to replace it that met its diversity, equity and inclusion needs. I have no idea what that means, but they're apparently reissuing a new RFP in the hopes of getting some other vendors who they'd hoped would bid but didn't to throw their hat in the ring.

This is what we mean when we say they are valuing DEI over the quality of the literary texts and curriculum. Of course we should include diverse characters and authors. But when given a weak/ineffective curriculum with diverse viewpoints and a stronger/more effective ELA curriculum with less diverse texts, MCPS picks the educationally weak option.

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.

The irony is that benchmark really fails if you're viewing it through an equity lens.

How so?

DP. A curriculum that doesn't follow the science of reading and is not engaging to the kids definutely is inequitable. Families with resources (money, time, engagement) can supplement and keep their kids on track; others fall further behind. A high-quality curriculum is critical for more equitable outcomes.

They already invested in training the Teachers in Science of Reading and provided Really Great Reading for K-2.

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.

The irony is that benchmark really fails if you're viewing it through an equity lens.

How so?

DP. A curriculum that doesn't follow the science of reading and is not engaging to the kids definutely is inequitable. Families with resources (money, time, engagement) can supplement and keep their kids on track; others fall further behind. A high-quality curriculum is critical for more equitable outcomes.

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.

The irony is that benchmark really fails if you're viewing it through an equity lens.

How so?

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.

The irony is that benchmark really fails if you're viewing it through an equity lens.

Anonymous wrote:The one year renewal for Benchmark is on the BOE agenda tomorrow.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSCN7G5E8BBE/$file/Cont%20Apprv%20RFP%204478.1%20Lang%20Arts%20Math%20Materials%20ES%20MS%20Ext.pdf

I cannot believe that we are going to pay $2.4 million to Benchmark for next year and continue to prop up a substandard curriculum that leaves ES students behind. Actually, yes I can; this is MCPS after all.

The one year renewal for Benchmark is on the BOE agenda tomorrow.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CSCN7G5E8BBE/$file/Cont%20Apprv%20RFP%204478.1%20Lang%20Arts%20Math%20Materials%20ES%20MS%20Ext.pdf

Anonymous wrote:MCPS told NAACP Parents Council Reps that Benchmark is staying for one more year, BUT they have trained staff in the Science of Reading.

The reason for keeping Benchmark is that they couldn't find a curriculum to replace it that met its diversity, equity and inclusion needs. I have no idea what that means, but they're apparently reissuing a new RFP in the hopes of getting some other vendors who they'd hoped would bid but didn't to throw their hat in the ring.

Someone needs to press them on what on earth that means. Aren’t they already implementing a different curriculum for the Spanish dual immersion schools?

MCPS told NAACP Parents Council Reps that Benchmark is staying for one more year, BUT they have trained staff in the Science of Reading.

The reason for keeping Benchmark is that they couldn't find a curriculum to replace it that met its diversity, equity and inclusion needs. I have no idea what that means, but they're apparently reissuing a new RFP in the hopes of getting some other vendors who they'd hoped would bid but didn't to throw their hat in the ring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it is not designed to leave others behind, but that's what it has done in practice during the last ten years in MCPS. Designing policies, dedicating resources and choosing curricula designed for the lowest achievers leaves behind both average and above average students. If you are serious about providing the supports that each person needs to reach their highest potential, we would all support that. But that would involve radically different policies than those that have been adopted, including tracking, use of magnet curricula in all schools, separate classes for English Language Learners, a required "Pre-K" year for kids who arrive not knowing how to hold a book, disciplinary policies that allow kids to learn, etc. Somehow, I doubt that is what you mean.

I’d argue that Benchmark is a pretty poor curriculum for the lowest achievers too. It works ok for those who are getting a lot of supplements at home.

But I kind of agree that the way they are approaching English language learners isnt working. There isn’t enough staff at our school to provide constant support for the few native Spanish speakers in each class so the teachers are left to try to translate on their own. It’s gotten to the point that the principal will not hire any new teachers that don’t have some working Spanish because they will need it. I do wonder if some dedicated classes for English language learners would help- I would imagine dual immersion is the ideal but probably easier to staff sone classes that just target the students that need to learn English.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it is not designed to leave others behind, but that's what it has done in practice during the last ten years in MCPS. Designing policies, dedicating resources and choosing curricula designed for the lowest achievers leaves behind both average and above average students. If you are serious about providing the supports that each person needs to reach their highest potential, we would all support that. But that would involve radically different policies than those that have been adopted, including tracking, use of magnet curricula in all schools, separate classes for English Language Learners, a required "Pre-K" year for kids who arrive not knowing how to hold a book, disciplinary policies that allow kids to learn, etc. Somehow, I doubt that is what you mean.

I don’t disagree with all you said just some of it. You don’t need tracking to provide equity, because kids should be allowed to live up and down a level based on skill, ability, and will to succeed. The kindergarten evaluation should definitely determine whether kids are at the Pre-K level or K and then kids be placed accordingly. If they catch on quickly they can move into K. We should absolutely stop pretending that one teacher can be all things to all learners when there are 20+ learners in the class, particularly at the ES level. All those classes need a full-time Para or Assistant teacher. ELL should definitely be separate with push-in to regular classes for things like recess/specials/etc. Ot should also be understood that these kids need after school enrichment in order to get then up to speed in the language quickly.

I would greatly support reimagining education in ways that actually supported equity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it is not designed to leave others behind, but that's what it has done in practice during the last ten years in MCPS. Designing policies, dedicating resources and choosing curricula designed for the lowest achievers leaves behind both average and above average students. If you are serious about providing the supports that each person needs to reach their highest potential, we would all support that. But that would involve radically different policies than those that have been adopted, including tracking, use of magnet curricula in all schools, separate classes for English Language Learners, a required "Pre-K" year for kids who arrive not knowing how to hold a book, disciplinary policies that allow kids to learn, etc. Somehow, I doubt that is what you mean.