Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

still eye-opening - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parcc-gets-parked-what-te_b_10140282.html

and the very reason why PARCC is pure BS - simply a money-maker for Pearson products
https://parcc.pearson.com/

It is. Thanks, PP.

I've been wondering why PARCC 'proficiency' levels were so low across the board. That explains it.

Children have to write a response to be deemed proficient in reading. But are they proficient writers? In 4th grade, no chance!

PARCC sounds more and more like a SShow everytime a kid, teacher, parent or journalist tells me about it.

Can someone pls post a like proving that Maryland is dumping PARCC for Fall 2018 school year??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

still eye-opening - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parcc-gets-parked-what-te_b_10140282.html

and the very reason why PARCC is pure BS - simply a money-maker for Pearson products
https://parcc.pearson.com/

It is. Thanks, PP.

I've been wondering why PARCC 'proficiency' levels were so low across the board. That explains it.

Children have to write a response to be deemed proficient in reading. But are they proficient writers? In 4th grade, no chance!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

still eye-opening - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parcc-gets-parked-what-te_b_10140282.html

and the very reason why PARCC is pure BS - simply a money-maker for Pearson products
https://parcc.pearson.com/

It is. Thanks, PP.

I've been wondering why PARCC 'proficiency' levels were so low across the board. That explains it.

Children have to write a response to be deemed proficient in reading. But are they proficient writers? In 4th grade, no chance!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

still eye-opening - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parcc-gets-parked-what-te_b_10140282.html

and the very reason why PARCC is pure BS - simply a money-maker for Pearson products
https://parcc.pearson.com/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/potential-conflict-of-interest-derails-curriculum-rollout-in-md-school-system/2018/05/25/d28c96c2-5e9f-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.1e96b4f5ab8c

WP’s article on the Discovery issue

No. Titling this a “potential conflict of interest” instead of a conflict of interest is the first clue that this article is a soft marshallow instead of dispassionate reporting. How Discovery or Lang or Fliakas can claim that all this just caught them by surprise (oh my!) and that as soon as they “realized” they rushed to report it is flatly unbelievable. If you are involved in public procurement, you just don’t go around marketing yourself to private vendors and then get religion the day you get a job offer. You just don’t do that and call it ethical. Lang may be a very personable guy, but this isn’t ethical behavior. There are plenty of personable and friendly people who lack ethical judgement. Dixon is right. There should be some very clear laws about this in MCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

New Federal laws meant all public school systems had to substantially change - there was no existing "off the shelf" material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having worked closely with some of the people mentioned here, I have to agree with others that Lang is one of the more decent folks in central office, and Jack Smith is doing his best to 'do the right thing,' which has been a major flaw in past Superintendents. The guy walks the walk - first in his family to go to college, adopted special needs kids from war-torn country, etc - as opposed to Starr who waltzed out of Harvard into Bethesda.

That said, I'm not sure why Discovery - a massively corrupt, money-grubbing corporate institution, but that's another post (just look what their formerly high-brow programming is becoming) is designing curriculum at all or why they couldn't just go with a bid from another company after theirs was recused.

If you've worked with people mentioned in the article, then you shouldn't have questions about Discovery's need to design curriculum.

Discovery = MCPS 2.0

Decent or not, there was overlap among dates "courted," the audit process, and RFPs submitted. It's probably lack of business savvy, ignorance in such matters - and not necessarily a purposeful unethical breach.

Anonymous wrote:Having worked closely with some of the people mentioned here, I have to agree with others that Lang is one of the more decent folks in central office, and Jack Smith is doing his best to 'do the right thing,' which has been a major flaw in past Superintendents. The guy walks the walk - first in his family to go to college, adopted special needs kids from war-torn country, etc - as opposed to Starr who waltzed out of Harvard into Bethesda.

That said, I'm not sure why Discovery - a massively corrupt, money-grubbing corporate institution, but that's another post (just look what their formerly high-brow programming is becoming) is designing curriculum at all or why they couldn't just go with a bid from another company after theirs was recused.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to grade school in this country, and I admit I'm still trying to understand the peculiarities of US public education, from lack of textbooks and homework to overuse of screens.. so maybe someone on here could help me solve this great mystery of all times. If MCPS claims it needed to a new curriculum in 2008, why did they have to write it from scratch? Why didn't they look at curricula that were used at competitive privates for math, ELA, science, social studies, etc. - or at the best performing public school districts - and purchased bits and pieces (or even the entire sets) that were proven to work?

Why reinvent the wheel at taxpayers' -- and what's even worse, at students' -- expense??? I just don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/potential-conflict-of-interest-derails-curriculum-rollout-in-md-school-system/2018/05/25/d28c96c2-5e9f-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.1e96b4f5ab8c

WP’s article on the Discovery issue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/potential-conflict-of-interest-derails-curriculum-rollout-in-md-school-system/2018/05/25/d28c96c2-5e9f-11e8-9ee3-49d6d4814c4c_story.html?utm_term=.1e96b4f5ab8c

WP’s article on the Discovery issue

I have to say when you read this something isn’t right about blaming Lang and fliekas primarily. Looks like smith is throwing them under the bus. One of the comments after the article, which mirrors the reporting:


8 hours ago
“I'm glad the Post pointed out that Jim and Erick did everything right in this process, rather than making them the villains MCPS has tried to make them. Jim and Erick are two of the most principled educators I've ever worked with, and for years now they've worked to do what's best for kids and to add diversity to the curriculum in a work environment where leaders often engage in assigning blame rather than looking for solutions. As a teacher who ended my career in Central Services, I had an up-close seat to observe the politics without having to be involved in them. I can't count the times that I watched staff in the curriculum office try to work within the system to do what was best for kids and to provide resources for teachers in an atmosphere where that clearly wasn't the top priority among administrators who often seemed more concerned about the MCPS brand.”

I found Mr Lang surprisingly accessible and willing to meet with and listen to students and parents.

It is absolutely possible for Erik Lang to be a nice, smart, accessible guy AND also be responsible for designing and implementing a curriculum that has failed thousands of students all at the same time. I think he should have been fired. Doesn't mean he isn't a nice person, just means he did not do his job.