Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

This is not correct. It is recommended that Ms read at least one book a quarter.

Emphasis on recommended. My MS does not promote reading one book per quarter.

Per your post, are any full books taught?

Of course. Have you asked your MS English teacher or principal why clssses aren’t reading at least one book per quarter as recommended and as other schools are doing?

DP. This is exactly the problem the PP was noting. When it's only "recommended" and schools are not held to the standard by MCPS central, you get kids who should be getting those novel studies/full books taught but who don't, whether because of ease of cohort management or competence of teaching (hopefully, and presumably, much more the former than the latter).

MCPS needs to require and monitor/enforce, or give mechanisms by which parents can do so (but that would be a terrible can of worms to open). Otherwise, they set thing up to be inequitable.

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

This is not correct. It is recommended that Ms read at least one book a quarter.

Emphasis on recommended. My MS does not promote reading one book per quarter.

Per your post, are any full books taught?

Of course. Have you asked your MS English teacher or principal why clssses aren’t reading at least one book per quarter as recommended and as other schools are doing?

Anonymous wrote:An MCPS coworker of mine told me they love living in the Weller Road ES school area since *everything* is free for their kids. .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You contradict yourself... US citizen kids with undocumented parents ARE eligible for SNAP.

"Children born in the U.S. and those with legal permanent resident status may receive benefits even if their parents do not have documentation."
https://gettingsnap.org/immigrant#:~:text=Children%20born%20in%20the%20U.S.,for%20other%20eligible%20household%20members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

This is not correct. It is recommended that Ms read at least one book a quarter.

Emphasis on recommended. My MS does not promote reading one book per quarter.

Per your post, are any full books taught?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

DP and the curriculum question is certainly valid. Benchmark for ES is terrible- MCPS self corrected somewhat by adding really great reading last year, but the lack of explicit phonics instruction for many years had a huge impact on kids learning to read. Parents who recognized the deficiency supplemented with phonics at home, but I wouldn’t expect all parents to know they had to do that (and I think the role of parents should be to reinforce what their kids learn in school- not to fill in large gaps).

Not in MS yet but I’ve heard that ELA curriculum is poor too (and still an in house version?).

Do any of the BOE members even have kids in ES? I don’t get the sense any of them really appreciate the issues.

MS English curriculum is StudySync, from McGraw Hill, which is a collection of often poorly conceived units comprised of excerpts from various literature. Reading a complete book is not required. The school district has ELD (ESOL) classes use the same curriculum.

This is not correct. It is recommended that Ms read at least one book a quarter.