Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the importance of background knowledge in the science of reading and the importance of a content-rich curriculum (which Benchmark most certainly is not):

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-background-knowledge-and-how-does-it-fit-into-the-science-of-reading/2023/01

“At the same time, though, some science of reading advocates have said that foundational skills instruction isn’t the only piece of literacy learning that needs an overhaul. They argue that schools also don’t do enough to support students’ background knowledge—a key factor in their understanding of any text. That’s the issue explored in The Knowledge Gap, a book that’s made its way onto district leaders’ reading lists and into teacher professional learning groups.”

That's just your opinion. Experts say it's content rich.

Anonymous wrote:This episode of the Daily goes into how reading education was completely screwed up and screwed over by Lucy Calkins and her misguided philosophies on what education should look like: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/podcasts/the-daily/reading-school-phonics.html

The worst part is she's unrepentant and she's not being held accountable for causing the learning loss of an entire generation of kids. She should be ashamed of herself and Columbia University should demote her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Why couldn’t they simply supplement with other more diverse books in the library/classrooms? Our school essentially did that this year anyway through a partnership with the pta. So dumb that MCPS is letting this drive the decision.

Doesn’t benchmark have access to supplemental text? Further, ELA is not the only place kids should be reading text and gaining background knowledge. I’d argue providing more time for Science and Social Studies and specials like music and art would actually better answer this need.

Anonymous wrote:

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:More on the importance of background knowledge in the science of reading and the importance of a content-rich curriculum (which Benchmark most certainly is not):

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-is-background-knowledge-and-how-does-it-fit-into-the-science-of-reading/2023/01

“At the same time, though, some science of reading advocates have said that foundational skills instruction isn’t the only piece of literacy learning that needs an overhaul. They argue that schools also don’t do enough to support students’ background knowledge—a key factor in their understanding of any text. That’s the issue explored in The Knowledge Gap, a book that’s made its way onto district leaders’ reading lists and into teacher professional learning groups.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Why couldn’t they simply supplement with other more diverse books in the library/classrooms? Our school essentially did that this year anyway through a partnership with the pta. So dumb that MCPS is letting this drive the decision.

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:Re the review committee — there were a lot of participants. Dozens attended the presentations from the 3 final vendors.

I spent a lot of time looking at my assigned curricula and considered how they would serve students and teachers. It is pretty disappointing that I know our work was in vain not from the central office staff who led the process, but rather from DCUM. It fees pretty disrespectful — I spent at least 40 hours reviewing the curricula, and I know many others did the same. I would not participate again if asked.

In the end, I thought one of the three finalists was outstanding, and rumors were circulating that MCPS was set to choose it. Then I read here that they were scrapping the entire RFP. I don’t know what happened, but given how high-quality the curriculum was, I am very skeptical that they will get anything better. It was so much better than the other curricula I reviewed. And now we are all stuck with Benchmark for another year.

Anonymous wrote:Re the review committee — there were a lot of participants. Dozens attended the presentations from the 3 final vendors.

I spent a lot of time looking at my assigned curricula and considered how they would serve students and teachers. It is pretty disappointing that I know our work was in vain not from the central office staff who led the process, but rather from DCUM. It fees pretty disrespectful — I spent at least 40 hours reviewing the curricula, and I know many others did the same. I would not participate again if asked.

In the end, I thought one of the three finalists was outstanding, and rumors were circulating that MCPS was set to choose it. Then I read here that they were scrapping the entire RFP. I don’t know what happened, but given how high-quality the curriculum was, I am very skeptical that they will get anything better. It was so much better than the other curricula I reviewed. And now we are all stuck with Benchmark for another year.

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.

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.

The science of reading does beyond phonics. Kids need to build background knowledge through challenging and engaging texts in a range of subjects to be successful at reading comprehension in later years. Benchmark is terrible at that, not just at phonics - and RGR doesn’t build background knowledge.

There was one curriculum under consideration that was truly excellent, and I am so disappointed that MCPS did not select it. (I was part of the review committee.) I have no faith they are goi g to select so
Etching stronger than Benchmark if they do select a curriculum through a new RFP.

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.

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.