Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Two points about this... Core Knowledge is not a new curriculum, there are lost of research studies about its effectiveness in all kinds of populations. Second, we've been listening to the people who are fixated on "cultural relevance" for the last several years. Their track record in showing educational gains in at risk populations is pretty poor. So maybe we don't worry about them for a little while and let the pendulum swing back to educational rigor. The problem is not that CKLA is not appropriate for all kids, it is the stupid expectation that all kids, including "ELD and SpEd" can be included in classrooms using a rigorous grade level curriculum. Those kids are behind and MCPS needs to realize that those kids need to work through the earlier years of the curriculum at their own pace. There is NO curriculum that is going to magically bring someone who isn't literate up to grade level within a year.

Cultural Relevance does not have to mean not rigorous. And I have no idea why the BOE would believe CKLA lacks cultural relevance when then approved its implementation for ES. Further nothing is going to change in two weeks. Alll this said PP is absolutely correct that what is needed is additional support in class and study halls where students can get the help and support they need. Yes, challenging curriculum can help kids make strides, but pretending they don’t need the foundational skills is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the recommendation is to use CKLA (the free open source version, not the paid Amplify version like in elementary): https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DGEJWQ4F32DF/$file/MS%20ELA%20Curric%20Approval%20250508%20PPT.pdf

Any thoughts?

The board did not vote on this today. There were a lot of comments about lack of diversity among the evaluation participants. They'll try to bring it back to the board at one of the next two meetings.

This board is incompetent. If they don't act soon, they will have no curriculum at all. Or, they will get a curriculum in, but not have enough time to provide teachers with meaningful training.

While I do agree the board is inept and incompetent, they were right to be frustrated with the shoddy survey work and the lack of thorough evidence and material making the case for this curriculum. Chief Academic Officer Nikki Hazel showed up to a gun fight with a knife.

How the hell do we continue to be approving new curriculum purchases in May? Those decision need to be made in Feb/Mar at the latest so that the curriculum can be ordered, arrived, any training scheduled for late spring and summer. Plus give key resources all summer for review and necessary intervention/updates made.

You're right. That timeline you proposed is what MCPS should have done.

Taylor is responsible. Hold him accountable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

That’s what will happen if the BOE doesn’t go with a new curriculum, so effectively the BOE members are.

I don't think so, because there's no money budgeted to pay for Study Sync again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

That’s what will happen if the BOE doesn’t go with a new curriculum, so effectively the BOE members are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

I don't think anyone is proposing that they renew StudySync.

Anonymous wrote:Staying with a subpar curriculum that is not aligned with standards and received a bad evaluation from MCPS meets nobody's needs hurts all students. Here is the MCPS evaluation of the current curriculum, Study Sync: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2024/2023%20StudySync%20Evaluation_Final.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Two points about this... Core Knowledge is not a new curriculum, there are lost of research studies about its effectiveness in all kinds of populations. Second, we've been listening to the people who are fixated on "cultural relevance" for the last several years. Their track record in showing educational gains in at risk populations is pretty poor. So maybe we don't worry about them for a little while and let the pendulum swing back to educational rigor. The problem is not that CKLA is not appropriate for all kids, it is the stupid expectation that all kids, including "ELD and SpEd" can be included in classrooms using a rigorous grade level curriculum. Those kids are behind and MCPS needs to realize that those kids need to work through the earlier years of the curriculum at their own pace. There is NO curriculum that is going to magically bring someone who isn't literate up to grade level within a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.

Yes, but who the heck is still of the opinion that any curriculum is going ton fulfill the needs of all learners, particularly Species. A) Any curriculum takes time for teachers to get used to (hence why getting it early is helpful) and B) Depending on the Special Need there is always going to need to be customizations made. That doesn’t mean the curriculum isn’t good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE update that was sent today makes no mention of considering Study Sync, only CKLA:

Board Considers New ELA Curriculum for Grades 6–8

The Board received a presentation about the open-source Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) curriculum for Grades 6–8 English Language Arts, starting in the 2025–2026 school year. The Board had a robust discussion and they will continue the conversation at an upcoming meeting as the Board considers approval of this new curriculum.

If the Board won't approve the new curriculum, then they will either a) have no curriculum for next year or b) have to extend Study Sync for another year and have MCPS try again next year. They are not going to do better than CKLA, which is a curriculum aligned with standards and is a natural extension of the curriculum that the BOE approved for ES a year ago and is now in place. The BOE seems to think that it is easy to recruit community members to spend dozens of hours reviewing detailed curricula and analyzing them against rubriks. It is not. I am no defender of central office, but I think in this case they came out with the best curriculum and did the best they could to recruit people to participate in the process - it's just really hard to do, given what a time commitment it is.

That's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that the people who overwhelmingly evaluated the efficacy and cultural relevance of the curriculum are white. And that's a problem, given that white students are not the ones who are the further behind when it comes to literacy.

Why doesn't MCPS pay people to do curriculum evaluations? The reality is that the people who are in the position to give their time away for free are white people, who most often have the wealth and comfort to do so.

Furthermore, the board was pissed because they trusted MCPS staff with moving forward with CKLA for elementary level, only to receive an influx of testimony from ELD and SpEd teachers who said the curriculum was useless for them. So the board is understandably skeptical to take MCPS's word that the curriculum is in fact appropriate this time without much more proof and assurances that if they approve the curriculum, they won't be hit with a wave of complaints from teachers like they did the last time.

This is on MCPS staff.