Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any updates on this? What are the contenders?

Their timeline said the BOE would vote in March, and so that would be next week. I haven't seen any communication about what they are considering. Let's just hope it's not a continuation of Benchmark.

There isn't anything on Tuesday's agenda about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any updates on this? What are the contenders?

Their timeline said the BOE would vote in March, and so that would be next week. I haven't seen any communication about what they are considering. Let's just hope it's not a continuation of Benchmark.

Anonymous wrote:Any updates on this? What are the contenders?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My jaw just dropped when I read this. I can't believe they're switching again. I'm not an MCPS employee, but I've been a teacher and administrator in other school districts, and curriculum selection is normally a long process (over a year), followed by a 3+ year implementation process, with extensive PD for teachers, as well as training for coaches and admin to monitor implementation and support teachers as needed. How will any schools and teachers, and therefore students (!), ever see success if they don't commit to anything for longer than a couple years??

I think in this case, it’s because Benchmark really is that bad. It never should have been chosen.

This. Teachers hate benchmark. Many kids are not learning to read with Benchmark. Students hate benchmark. It's god awful and should be a scandal that it was chosen to begin with.

Oh yes, choosing a curriculum that is widely used all over the country....such a scandal.

Agree with the thought here. Benchmark was chosen as an on grade level curriculum for reading. And it is working fine for plenty of students. While it may need some tweaks or there may be other things that work for specific parts of reading, that is being evaluated and steps taken (ie. RGR for Phonics instruction along with LETRS training for staff).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My jaw just dropped when I read this. I can't believe they're switching again. I'm not an MCPS employee, but I've been a teacher and administrator in other school districts, and curriculum selection is normally a long process (over a year), followed by a 3+ year implementation process, with extensive PD for teachers, as well as training for coaches and admin to monitor implementation and support teachers as needed. How will any schools and teachers, and therefore students (!), ever see success if they don't commit to anything for longer than a couple years??

I think in this case, it’s because Benchmark really is that bad. It never should have been chosen.

This. Teachers hate benchmark. Many kids are not learning to read with Benchmark. Students hate benchmark. It's god awful and should be a scandal that it was chosen to begin with.

Oh yes, choosing a curriculum that is widely used all over the country....such a scandal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My jaw just dropped when I read this. I can't believe they're switching again. I'm not an MCPS employee, but I've been a teacher and administrator in other school districts, and curriculum selection is normally a long process (over a year), followed by a 3+ year implementation process, with extensive PD for teachers, as well as training for coaches and admin to monitor implementation and support teachers as needed. How will any schools and teachers, and therefore students (!), ever see success if they don't commit to anything for longer than a couple years??

I think in this case, it’s because Benchmark really is that bad. It never should have been chosen.

This. Teachers hate benchmark. Many kids are not learning to read with Benchmark. Students hate benchmark. It's god awful and should be a scandal that it was chosen to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My jaw just dropped when I read this. I can't believe they're switching again. I'm not an MCPS employee, but I've been a teacher and administrator in other school districts, and curriculum selection is normally a long process (over a year), followed by a 3+ year implementation process, with extensive PD for teachers, as well as training for coaches and admin to monitor implementation and support teachers as needed. How will any schools and teachers, and therefore students (!), ever see success if they don't commit to anything for longer than a couple years??

I think in this case, it’s because Benchmark really is that bad. It never should have been chosen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Really Great Reading also is not recommended by Ed Report. https://www.edreports.org/reports/overview/really-great-reading-2021

"The materials have a sequence for explicitly teaching all 26 uppercase and lowercase letters. However, there is no explicit instruction in letter formation. The materials contain explicit instruction in phonological awareness and have multimodal/multisensory opportunities for students to practice phonological awareness skills frequently."

Likewise, Ed Reports doens't recommend Benchmark.

I don't understand why MCPS would choose not one but two curricula that aren't recommended.

Is Ed reports the Be,-all and-all for curriculum review?

It's interesting that they don't review the usability of the curriculum I can tell you from experience it's a really tricky curriculum to use in it requires teachers to just be standing next to a smart board or laptop clicking on each slide. There's no way to move around the room and work with students while you're running the curriculum and since the slides are in the rgr website you can't use like an external clicker or something like that

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Really Great Reading also is not recommended by Ed Report. https://www.edreports.org/reports/overview/really-great-reading-2021

"The materials have a sequence for explicitly teaching all 26 uppercase and lowercase letters. However, there is no explicit instruction in letter formation. The materials contain explicit instruction in phonological awareness and have multimodal/multisensory opportunities for students to practice phonological awareness skills frequently."

Likewise, Ed Reports doens't recommend Benchmark.

I don't understand why MCPS would choose not one but two curricula that aren't recommended.

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Really Great Reading also is not recommended by Ed Report. https://www.edreports.org/reports/overview/really-great-reading-2021

"The materials have a sequence for explicitly teaching all 26 uppercase and lowercase letters. However, there is no explicit instruction in letter formation. The materials contain explicit instruction in phonological awareness and have multimodal/multisensory opportunities for students to practice phonological awareness skills frequently."

Likewise, Ed Reports doens't recommend Benchmark.

I don't understand why MCPS would choose not one but two curricula that aren't recommended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Benchmark, has anyone been listening to the Sold a Story podcast?

No. What is it about?

It's about how the "newer" reading programs (aka, not phonics) are actively harming kids' ability to learn how to read. Benchmark was mentioned on the most recent episode.

Not the same Benchmark. MCPS a is using Benchmark Advanced. Totally different thing.

Sounds like the podcast findings do apply to Benchmark Advance’s crappy curriculum, though. -DP

Thanks for clarifying. I had assumed it was the same, since MCPS was mentioned in the prior episode.

I think it is the same. Benchmark Advance is often referred to as Benchmark. I don't see a curriculum called Benchmark other than Benchmark Advance.

It is not the same. The podcast is referring to a component of a Fountas and Pinnel tool called Benchmark.
Benchmark Advance is a completely different product that is currently being used as the Reading curriculum in MCPS.
I am a veteran teacher in mcps and just listened to the podcast. It is interesting. I am still processing it but may start a thread to discuss.

NP here, please do PP. There's a Sold a Story thread currently in the FCPS forum but I'd like to see one that is MCPS-focused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My jaw just dropped when I read this. I can't believe they're switching again. I'm not an MCPS employee, but I've been a teacher and administrator in other school districts, and curriculum selection is normally a long process (over a year), followed by a 3+ year implementation process, with extensive PD for teachers, as well as training for coaches and admin to monitor implementation and support teachers as needed. How will any schools and teachers, and therefore students (!), ever see success if they don't commit to anything for longer than a couple years??

Yeah originally benchmark and Eureka was supposed to be I think a two or three year adoption and then with the pandemic that was abandoned in everybody had to adopt benchmark right away

My youngest learned to read with Benchmark much faster than older one with C2.0. Don't really see the problem here. Not sure I'd take a podcast sponsored by Pearson all that seriously either.