Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMAO. What "experts?"

Benchmark alternates between fiction units where students learn the conventions of fictional books (such as problem/solution, point of view, begining, middle end). They read short stories from Benchmark's consumable books. You can supplement with an actual book.

The nonfiction units focus on short articles about different topics. Every year there's an animal unit, a community unit, technology and inventions, etc.

When I hear about the knowledge gap I'm always curious what the scope and sequence should be for elementary school children? I do like that benchmark has spiral review where in kindergarten the students learn about animal traits first grade the students learn about animal life cycles and in 2nd grade they learn about animal adaptations.

In practice done of the topics for articles are a bit esoteric. My kid did a unit on community workers and read about smoke jumpers. For technology there was an article about robots that go to school when children are housebound.

Core Knowledge is a much stronger, richer, and engaging for building knowledge.

Here is the overview -- it is build around the science of reading, not just phonics but also knowledge-building: https://amplify.com/programs/amplify-core-knowledge-language-arts/

More info on the curriculum by grade is here: https://www.coreknowledge.org/free-resource/core-knowledge-sequence/

It's really a shame we are stuck with Benchmark when something so much better is available.

Anonymous wrote:If you do not like the treatment of your kid due to the composition of the student population, your options are:
(1) move to private
(2) move to another part of the county with more favorable composition
(3) home school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

At our school now about half the class are struggling non-native speakers. The kids who aren't struggling are literally ignored. The teachers spend all their time with the struggling students. Their only priority is the gap and to h#ll with everyone else. They expect parents and tutors to pick up the slack. This is the latest strategy in McKnight's equity crusade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

At our school now about half the class are struggling non-native speakers. The kids who aren't struggling are literally ignored. The teachers spend all their time with the struggling students. Their only priority is the gap and to h#ll with everyone else. They expect parents and tutors to pick up the slack. This is the latest strategy in McKnight's equity crusade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

So what you are proposing is that mcps hire fully bilingual teachers in who can speak half a dozen of different languages to individually tutor newcomers until the student is bilingual "enough" (is there a wida cut score?) To participate in a general education classroom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMAO. What "experts?"

Benchmark alternates between fiction units where students learn the conventions of fictional books (such as problem/solution, point of view, begining, middle end). They read short stories from Benchmark's consumable books. You can supplement with an actual book.

The nonfiction units focus on short articles about different topics. Every year there's an animal unit, a community unit, technology and inventions, etc.

When I hear about the knowledge gap I'm always curious what the scope and sequence should be for elementary school children? I do like that benchmark has spiral review where in kindergarten the students learn about animal traits first grade the students learn about animal life cycles and in 2nd grade they learn about animal adaptations.

In practice done of the topics for articles are a bit esoteric. My kid did a unit on community workers and read about smoke jumpers. For technology there was an article about robots that go to school when children are housebound.

Core Knowledge is a much stronger, richer, and engaging for building knowledge.

Here is the overview -- it is build around the science of reading, not just phonics but also knowledge-building: https://amplify.com/programs/amplify-core-knowledge-language-arts/

More info on the curriculum by grade is here: https://www.coreknowledge.org/free-resource/core-knowledge-sequence/

It's really a shame we are stuck with Benchmark when something so much better is available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMAO. What "experts?"

Benchmark alternates between fiction units where students learn the conventions of fictional books (such as problem/solution, point of view, begining, middle end). They read short stories from Benchmark's consumable books. You can supplement with an actual book.

The nonfiction units focus on short articles about different topics. Every year there's an animal unit, a community unit, technology and inventions, etc.

When I hear about the knowledge gap I'm always curious what the scope and sequence should be for elementary school children? I do like that benchmark has spiral review where in kindergarten the students learn about animal traits first grade the students learn about animal life cycles and in 2nd grade they learn about animal adaptations.

In practice done of the topics for articles are a bit esoteric. My kid did a unit on community workers and read about smoke jumpers. For technology there was an article about robots that go to school when children are housebound.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LMAO. What "experts?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

Anonymous wrote:They did record all the sessions, so I hope they will post them. Most of the ES ELA session was about the switch to structured literacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?

Sure kids benefit from immersion with native speakers. But they also benefit from quality direct instruction that will help them get up to speed quicker. And there is a difference in having one non-native speaker in a class vs having several and then also having 15+ other students with a range of abilities that speak the language (and some of them not all that great). No one is advocating for isolating a kid they are advocating for giving the tools and the best chance of success.

If you have a 10yr old join who was a A student in their language but then drop them in a class they don’t understand the language are you still expecting them to be an A student? Or would it be better to continue teaching them in their language in their level while also providing them intense instruction and opportunity to engage in the new language so they get up to speed quickly?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's always fascinating to see how people who have never stepped foot in a classroom think they know how to run a school.


Wouldn't children who don't speak a lick of English really benefit from peers who model speaking English?

What happens to a classroom if you are just constantly having kids test out of preschool, would that make sense for the ELL "preschool" teacher to start the year with 20 kids, and the general education kindergarten teacher starts with 20 but then over time funneling kids over to the general Ed kindergarten teacher so teacher A has 5 kids and teacher b has 35

So what happens when you have kids who are newcomers who are not in kindergarten does this hypothetical preschool class also have 10 year olds in it or do they get to be learning with their same age peers?