Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really concerned that the BoE is not going to adopt Amplify CKLA, given this alert I just got from the MCCPTA Curriculum Committee. I just emailed the BoE members supporting the curriculum adoption and hope others will, too.

MCPS has recommended a new K-5 elementary ELA curriculum: AmplifyCKLA.

We have learned that some BOE members may ask for a delay that could jeopardize MCPS’s ability to procure materials, make final adjustments and prepare schools in time for a Fall 2024 rollout.

Since 2019, both families and teachers have clamored for a replacement to Benchmark, which lacks engaging, diverse or rigorous texts and is not grounded in the Science of Reading. MCPS conducted a TWO YEAR Request for Proposal review process that was ROBUST, COMPREHENSIVE and INCLUSIVE of many stakeholders. During that time the BOE has had ample opportunity to raise any concerns or conditions to their approval. Curriculum Committee sent multiple members to participate in the review, including literacy experts.

The Committee strongly SUPPORTS adopting AmplifyCKLA, which is:

Highly rated by independent curriculum reviewer Ed Reports, which is recommended by Maryland State Department of Education;

Grounded in the Science of Reading and provides daily foundational skills instruction
and strong knowledge building; and

Engaging, meaningful and rigorous
in both text and tasks.

Note: Amplify will replace Really Great Reading (RGR) as the daily foundational skills curriculum, but RGR can still be used as an intervention as it was originally intended.

Amplify has demonstrated strong outcomes in other districts:

In one NYC study, CKLA students’ literacy gains
more than doubled those of students at demographically similar schools.

In an Arizona study, CKLA significantly improved outcomes for students overall, as well as economically disadvantaged and Latino students.

In a charter school study, reading scores significantly improved and income-based gaps were eliminated.

Last year, in MCPS, over 40% of our third graders failed the state ELA assessments. Two thirds of third graders receiving FARMS failed.

Our teachers and students deserve better!

Please email the BOE to SUPPORT adopting Amplify ASAP:

boe@mcpsmd.org, Karla_Silvestre@mcpsmd.org, Lynne_Harris@mcpsmd.org, Brenda_Wolff@mcpsmd.org, Graciela_Rivera-oven@mcpsmd.org, Shebra_L_Evans@mcpsmd.org, Julie_Yang@mcpsmd.org, Rebecca_K_Smondrowski@mcpsmd.org, Sami_N_Saeed@mcpsmd.org

Why is MCCPTA lying? RFP was just due in January.

https://procurement.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/Home/Bid_Record/3041

Amplify is a company that has had a no bid deal with MCPS for over 10 years. Let’s hear about the perks MCPS staff have been getting on the side that got this company fast tracked to a contract award in two months.

Now I understand what you are saying. This January's RFP was the second one. In 2022 they issued a prior ES ELA RFP. This has been a two-year process.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really concerned that the BoE is not going to adopt Amplify CKLA, given this alert I just got from the MCCPTA Curriculum Committee. I just emailed the BoE members supporting the curriculum adoption and hope others will, too.

MCPS has recommended a new K-5 elementary ELA curriculum: AmplifyCKLA.

We have learned that some BOE members may ask for a delay that could jeopardize MCPS’s ability to procure materials, make final adjustments and prepare schools in time for a Fall 2024 rollout.

Since 2019, both families and teachers have clamored for a replacement to Benchmark, which lacks engaging, diverse or rigorous texts and is not grounded in the Science of Reading. MCPS conducted a TWO YEAR Request for Proposal review process that was ROBUST, COMPREHENSIVE and INCLUSIVE of many stakeholders. During that time the BOE has had ample opportunity to raise any concerns or conditions to their approval. Curriculum Committee sent multiple members to participate in the review, including literacy experts.

The Committee strongly SUPPORTS adopting AmplifyCKLA, which is:

Highly rated by independent curriculum reviewer Ed Reports, which is recommended by Maryland State Department of Education;

Grounded in the Science of Reading and provides daily foundational skills instruction
and strong knowledge building; and

Engaging, meaningful and rigorous
in both text and tasks.

Note: Amplify will replace Really Great Reading (RGR) as the daily foundational skills curriculum, but RGR can still be used as an intervention as it was originally intended.

Amplify has demonstrated strong outcomes in other districts:

In one NYC study, CKLA students’ literacy gains
more than doubled those of students at demographically similar schools.

In an Arizona study, CKLA significantly improved outcomes for students overall, as well as economically disadvantaged and Latino students.

In a charter school study, reading scores significantly improved and income-based gaps were eliminated.

Last year, in MCPS, over 40% of our third graders failed the state ELA assessments. Two thirds of third graders receiving FARMS failed.

Our teachers and students deserve better!

Please email the BOE to SUPPORT adopting Amplify ASAP:

boe@mcpsmd.org, Karla_Silvestre@mcpsmd.org, Lynne_Harris@mcpsmd.org, Brenda_Wolff@mcpsmd.org, Graciela_Rivera-oven@mcpsmd.org, Shebra_L_Evans@mcpsmd.org, Julie_Yang@mcpsmd.org, Rebecca_K_Smondrowski@mcpsmd.org, Sami_N_Saeed@mcpsmd.org

Why is MCCPTA lying? RFP was just due in January.

https://procurement.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/Home/Bid_Record/3041

Amplify is a company that has had a no bid deal with MCPS for over 10 years. Let’s hear about the perks MCPS staff have been getting on the side that got this company fast tracked to a contract award in two months.

Anonymous wrote:Wait PP are you saying that you think MCCPTA is lying about Amplify being chosen? It's in the memo posted on Board docs.

Anonymous wrote:I am really concerned that the BoE is not going to adopt Amplify CKLA, given this alert I just got from the MCCPTA Curriculum Committee. I just emailed the BoE members supporting the curriculum adoption and hope others will, too.

MCPS has recommended a new K-5 elementary ELA curriculum: AmplifyCKLA.

We have learned that some BOE members may ask for a delay that could jeopardize MCPS’s ability to procure materials, make final adjustments and prepare schools in time for a Fall 2024 rollout.

Since 2019, both families and teachers have clamored for a replacement to Benchmark, which lacks engaging, diverse or rigorous texts and is not grounded in the Science of Reading. MCPS conducted a TWO YEAR Request for Proposal review process that was ROBUST, COMPREHENSIVE and INCLUSIVE of many stakeholders. During that time the BOE has had ample opportunity to raise any concerns or conditions to their approval. Curriculum Committee sent multiple members to participate in the review, including literacy experts.

The Committee strongly SUPPORTS adopting AmplifyCKLA, which is:

Highly rated by independent curriculum reviewer Ed Reports, which is recommended by Maryland State Department of Education;

Grounded in the Science of Reading and provides daily foundational skills instruction
and strong knowledge building; and

Engaging, meaningful and rigorous
in both text and tasks.

Note: Amplify will replace Really Great Reading (RGR) as the daily foundational skills curriculum, but RGR can still be used as an intervention as it was originally intended.

Amplify has demonstrated strong outcomes in other districts:

In one NYC study, CKLA students’ literacy gains
more than doubled those of students at demographically similar schools.

In an Arizona study, CKLA significantly improved outcomes for students overall, as well as economically disadvantaged and Latino students.

In a charter school study, reading scores significantly improved and income-based gaps were eliminated.

Last year, in MCPS, over 40% of our third graders failed the state ELA assessments. Two thirds of third graders receiving FARMS failed.

Our teachers and students deserve better!

Please email the BOE to SUPPORT adopting Amplify ASAP:

boe@mcpsmd.org, Karla_Silvestre@mcpsmd.org, Lynne_Harris@mcpsmd.org, Brenda_Wolff@mcpsmd.org, Graciela_Rivera-oven@mcpsmd.org, Shebra_L_Evans@mcpsmd.org, Julie_Yang@mcpsmd.org, Rebecca_K_Smondrowski@mcpsmd.org, Sami_N_Saeed@mcpsmd.org

Anonymous wrote:Amplify makes the DIBELS reading assessment that we use in K-2 for all students and 3 - 5 for struggling readers. I like that assessment and progress monitoring components so I'm remaining hopeful that this curriculum will be better than Benchmark.
I think the bigger issue is that the Common Core standards are so rigorous that textbook companies try and race through content to cover all of the standards. Students need a LOT more time than their given to master the basics before moving on to more complex skills like comparing and contrasting two texts.
Benchmark claimed to do this by spiraling back to skills all year but all that happened was we threw a bunch of *hit at the wall and hoped it stuck before rushing on to the next skill. Many students never felt confident in what they were learning because they were rushed on to the next skill. As a teacher, it's painful to move on knowing half of the class understands. The curriculum office just tells us to trust the process of spiraling back. It simply doesn't work. Kids need to feel confident and show mastery before taking on the next big challenge.
Rant over...

Anonymous wrote:CKLA is great.

This is my area of expertise. I agree that RGR is great and I think teachers will find the approaches similar even if frustrating to switch over. I agree that keeping the option would have been good off k-2.

Amplify is just the publisher. It also publishes DIBELS. Didn’t create either CKLA or DIBELS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

That makes sense because MCPS is only focused on the bottom 20%.

Anonymous wrote:Amplify makes the DIBELS reading assessment that we use in K-2 for all students and 3 - 5 for struggling readers. I like that assessment and progress monitoring components so I'm remaining hopeful that this curriculum will be better than Benchmark.
I think the bigger issue is that the Common Core standards are so rigorous that textbook companies try and race through content to cover all of the standards. Students need a LOT more time than their given to master the basics before moving on to more complex skills like comparing and contrasting two texts.
Benchmark claimed to do this by spiraling back to skills all year but all that happened was we threw a bunch of *hit at the wall and hoped it stuck before rushing on to the next skill. Many students never felt confident in what they were learning because they were rushed on to the next skill. As a teacher, it's painful to move on knowing half of the class understands. The curriculum office just tells us to trust the process of spiraling back. It simply doesn't work. Kids need to feel confident and show mastery before taking on the next big challenge.
Rant over...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any idea on the effect on ELC? Would it remain complementary to the base curriculum? If not, will it be modified or abandoned in favor of something that comes with the curriculum? If the latter, is that viewed as something that would provide a proper local alternative to CES?

ELC is for kids who demonstrate a need for enrichment. This curriculum is the base curriculum for all kids.

Yes. That's what I'm positing, here. Will ELC as it exists fit with this new base curriculum, or does the new curriculum come with its own enrichment options such that they would do away with ELC as it exists? If the latter, are the enrichment options such that they would be better than ELC/a good alternative to the under-seated CESs?

I reviewed the curriculum and, although the base texts are MUCH more rigorous than Benchmark, it's an at-grade level curriculum. So there will still be a need for CES/ELC.

Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/D3ASBR71CEAB/$file/English%20Language%20Arts%20Curriculum%20Adoption%20240319.pdf

On the board's agenda for Tuesday March 19th: the adoption of Amplify: Core Knowledge Language Arts for elementary ELA and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt ¡Arriba la lectura! for elementary Spanish immersion programs.

Anyone have opinions about these?