Small group instruction would be fine with me if they did more interesting things than worksheets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The move away from whole group instruction is great, actually. If a teacher lectures an entire class, anyone can zone out, and it's impossible to see inside his or her head. If the teacher's time is shared equally, each child gets between 2-3 minutes of time per class period. Using small group activities and stations, teachers are better able to observe and give feedback to students for longer periods of time. Students are expected to be doing things, not just passively listening.

I understand the fear that the children who act up or the "low performers" are taking away time from your kid (though it's a bit of an ugly sentiment). But if your child is an average or high achiever, then he or she doesn't really need the extra resources. Your child is fine. He or she will not be any less intelligent at the end of secondary school because the slower children got some extra attention.

The sky is not falling. Teach yourselves patience and your children some self regulation. It's all going to be just fine.

posts like this are so obnoxious.

If a class of 25 kids are split into 5 groups and the teacher spends less time with the average or advanced group then in a 50 minute period, the average or advanced kids get less than 10 minutes of direct instruction. Compare this to 30-40 minutes direct instruction that they could be getting an a whole class level.

Stop telling people that everything will be 'just fine'. GOOD parents should ask questions of why their kid is in the corner for the majority of the day with worksheets.

DP. I'm not thrilled with small groups but you're mixing them up with direct instruction. Direct instruction happens at the beginning of the lesson, before the class breaks into small groups.

Very little direct instruction as a whole group at my school. Our principal said if she came in and saw whole group instruction, she would mark us down for our professional responsibilities.

Stop telling people that everything will be 'just fine'. GOOD parents should ask questions of why their kid is in the corner for the majority of the day with worksheets.

Kind of glad to know that it just hasn't been my kid stuck in the corner with a worksheet. (But also very concerned by how widespread it is that high performing kids with good behavior effectively get ignored.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The move away from whole group instruction is great, actually. If a teacher lectures an entire class, anyone can zone out, and it's impossible to see inside his or her head. If the teacher's time is shared equally, each child gets between 2-3 minutes of time per class period. Using small group activities and stations, teachers are better able to observe and give feedback to students for longer periods of time. Students are expected to be doing things, not just passively listening.

I understand the fear that the children who act up or the "low performers" are taking away time from your kid (though it's a bit of an ugly sentiment). But if your child is an average or high achiever, then he or she doesn't really need the extra resources. Your child is fine. He or she will not be any less intelligent at the end of secondary school because the slower children got some extra attention.

The sky is not falling. Teach yourselves patience and your children some self regulation. It's all going to be just fine.

posts like this are so obnoxious.

If a class of 25 kids are split into 5 groups and the teacher spends less time with the average or advanced group then in a 50 minute period, the average or advanced kids get less than 10 minutes of direct instruction. Compare this to 30-40 minutes direct instruction that they could be getting an a whole class level.

Stop telling people that everything will be 'just fine'. GOOD parents should ask questions of why their kid is in the corner for the majority of the day with worksheets.

DP. I'm not thrilled with small groups but you're mixing them up with direct instruction. Direct instruction happens at the beginning of the lesson, before the class breaks into small groups.

Anonymous wrote:The move away from whole group instruction is great, actually. If a teacher lectures an entire class, anyone can zone out, and it's impossible to see inside his or her head. If the teacher's time is shared equally, each child gets between 2-3 minutes of time per class period. Using small group activities and stations, teachers are better able to observe and give feedback to students for longer periods of time. Students are expected to be doing things, not just passively listening.

I understand the fear that the children who act up or the "low performers" are taking away time from your kid (though it's a bit of an ugly sentiment). But if your child is an average or high achiever, then he or she doesn't really need the extra resources. Your child is fine. He or she will not be any less intelligent at the end of secondary school because the slower children got some extra attention.

The sky is not falling. Teach yourselves patience and your children some self regulation. It's all going to be just fine.

posts like this are so obnoxious.

If a class of 25 kids are split into 5 groups and the teacher spends less time with the average or advanced group then in a 50 minute period, the average or advanced kids get less than 10 minutes of direct instruction. Compare this to 30-40 minutes direct instruction that they could be getting an a whole class level.

Stop telling people that everything will be 'just fine'. GOOD parents should ask questions of why their kid is in the corner for the majority of the day with worksheets.

The move away from whole group instruction is great, actually. If a teacher lectures an entire class, anyone can zone out, and it's impossible to see inside his or her head. If the teacher's time is shared equally, each child gets between 2-3 minutes of time per class period. Using small group activities and stations, teachers are better able to observe and give feedback to students for longer periods of time. Students are expected to be doing things, not just passively listening.

I understand the fear that the children who act up or the "low performers" are taking away time from your kid (though it's a bit of an ugly sentiment). But if your child is an average or high achiever, then he or she doesn't really need the extra resources. Your child is fine. He or she will not be any less intelligent at the end of secondary school because the slower children got some extra attention.

The sky is not falling. Teach yourselves patience and your children some self regulation. It's all going to be just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

I taught in a system that had 35-40. I'm a strong classroom manager and yes, I could manage a group that size. But to really teach a group of kids, I've found the sweet spot to be under 20 for K-3. When I have fewer than 20 students I can provide all the needed small group instruction in reading, math and writing. I can help the few who need daily individual help in a particular area. I can focus on building strong SEL, offering appropriate RTI, and the entire class can breathe. Good public schools offer small class sizes. (There are high performing publics with large ones, but high test scores are reflective of high income parents which is totally different than a GOOD education.)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about debates in education, but curious as to what the issues with tracking vs small group instruction.

I don't honestly know the downsides to tracking, but my kids end up sitting around a lot int heir classes with small group instruction. Their groups meet once or twice a week. They even bring books to school so they have something to do when they're in limbo each day.

tracking went out of style because SJW and liberals don't like that

the top tracks are richer whiter and more asian

the bottom tracks are poorer more hispanic and African American

Never mind that Africans tend to be in the top groups that's isn't enough. Tracking must be racist

No, the problem with tracking is that there is virtually no movement upward from the lower tracks. Ever.

there is no movement with the current system either. No one has been able to close the achievement gap (Which is really a parenting gap but I digress). But under the current system tons of kids are bored because the teachers basically can only go at the pace of the lowest people in the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

I taught in a system that had 35-40. I'm a strong classroom manager and yes, I could manage a group that size. But to really teach a group of kids, I've found the sweet spot to be under 20 for K-3. When I have fewer than 20 students I can provide all the needed small group instruction in reading, math and writing. I can help the few who need daily individual help in a particular area. I can focus on building strong SEL, offering appropriate RTI, and the entire class can breathe. Good public schools offer small class sizes. (There are high performing publics with large ones, but high test scores are reflective of high income parents which is totally different than a GOOD education.)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about debates in education, but curious as to what the issues with tracking vs small group instruction.

I don't honestly know the downsides to tracking, but my kids end up sitting around a lot int heir classes with small group instruction. Their groups meet once or twice a week. They even bring books to school so they have something to do when they're in limbo each day.

tracking went out of style because SJW and liberals don't like that

the top tracks are richer whiter and more asian

the bottom tracks are poorer more hispanic and African American

Never mind that Africans tend to be in the top groups that's isn't enough. Tracking must be racist

No, the problem with tracking is that there is virtually no movement upward from the lower tracks. Ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

I taught in a system that had 35-40. I'm a strong classroom manager and yes, I could manage a group that size. But to really teach a group of kids, I've found the sweet spot to be under 20 for K-3. When I have fewer than 20 students I can provide all the needed small group instruction in reading, math and writing. I can help the few who need daily individual help in a particular area. I can focus on building strong SEL, offering appropriate RTI, and the entire class can breathe. Good public schools offer small class sizes. (There are high performing publics with large ones, but high test scores are reflective of high income parents which is totally different than a GOOD education.)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about debates in education, but curious as to what the issues with tracking vs small group instruction.

I don't honestly know the downsides to tracking, but my kids end up sitting around a lot int heir classes with small group instruction. Their groups meet once or twice a week. They even bring books to school so they have something to do when they're in limbo each day.

tracking went out of style because SJW and liberals don't like that

the top tracks are richer whiter and more asian

the bottom tracks are poorer more hispanic and African American

Never mind that Africans tend to be in the top groups that's isn't enough. Tracking must be racist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

I taught in a system that had 35-40. I'm a strong classroom manager and yes, I could manage a group that size. But to really teach a group of kids, I've found the sweet spot to be under 20 for K-3. When I have fewer than 20 students I can provide all the needed small group instruction in reading, math and writing. I can help the few who need daily individual help in a particular area. I can focus on building strong SEL, offering appropriate RTI, and the entire class can breathe. Good public schools offer small class sizes. (There are high performing publics with large ones, but high test scores are reflective of high income parents which is totally different than a GOOD education.)

I'm not especially knowledgeable about debates in education, but curious as to what the issues with tracking vs small group instruction.

I don't honestly know the downsides to tracking, but my kids end up sitting around a lot int heir classes with small group instruction. Their groups meet once or twice a week. They even bring books to school so they have something to do when they're in limbo each day.

Class sizes used to be larger but teachers just taught mostly to the whole group. There might have been reading groups but there were basal textbooks (and textbooks in general) so the teacher wasn't spending most of her day on rotating small groups and having to come up with ideas for what the other groups will be doing. We had tracking too which helped. My SIL teaches in a first grade classroom with 28 kids and she said they range from just barely reading (level A) to way above grade level. They are not allowed to regroup with the other first grade teachers. She said she has 6 reading groups and now her principal wants small group math instruction too. She spends tons of her own time and money trying to find and create activities for the other groups to do. Ridiculous waste of time IMO. Regroup the classes based on reading levels and math to cut down on the number of small groups. Give the teachers something to work with so they are spending time trying to find activities for the students to work on. My teachers had 3 reading groups and we worked on answering end of story/end of chapter questions from our basal readers while our teacher met with the other groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

I taught in a system that had 35-40. I'm a strong classroom manager and yes, I could manage a group that size. But to really teach a group of kids, I've found the sweet spot to be under 20 for K-3. When I have fewer than 20 students I can provide all the needed small group instruction in reading, math and writing. I can help the few who need daily individual help in a particular area. I can focus on building strong SEL, offering appropriate RTI, and the entire class can breathe. Good public schools offer small class sizes. (There are high performing publics with large ones, but high test scores are reflective of high income parents which is totally different than a GOOD education.)

Kids are exposed to so many things so much earlier. Parents don’t parent like our parents did so a lot of respect is gone. Teachers have no backing and no hope with classroom management because of the wildly diverse population and the high numbers of kids they’re asked to teach. Principals are knee deep in scandals and lawsuits they’ve either created or they’re avoiding. School boards have lost their focus on the basics of education and education policy. In its current form and structure, this will not work.

Anonymous wrote:In FCPS class sizes for K-3 are huge. Big problem!

When I went to FCPS in the 70s we typically had 35-40 kids per class. Doubt it's anywhere near that these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more and more people are waking up to the fact that all the schools around here are being overrun by underperformers which takes away time and resources from everyone else

The above average performers are either clustering in the remaining "decent school pyramids" aka the wealthier ones supplementing and desperately holding on or going private

The average performers are really hurting and I think people are waking up and saying enough is enough you need to focus on my children

As harsh as this is, I second it in MoCo. Special needs / problem kids are taking all of the attention. I hear more and more parents telling stories of teachers lauding their children for "not causing problems." I heard one say "I hardly even notice she's there" as a positive comment. As far as parents clustering in the remaining decent pyramids, I've seen this too, which is why there's all this uproar about busing. Parents have spent $1M+ for a pyramid, and now some County Council do-gooder is going to "close the achievement gap" using kids as pawns... that's the perception. Many parents long for the days of great teachers dominating schools--today it seems like schools are mostly admin + paraeducators + big curriculum companies. It's definitely a long slide to mediocrity.

Parents are willing to pay $1+ mil for the house in a W, but are not willing to pay teachers more. Compensation is what is needed to attract and retain top teachers who can meet the demands of special populations (ELLs, GT, FARMS, and SN). Until that happens, no progress.

They are paying the 1 million plus to get away from the more challenging populations it has nothing to do with the teachers

Teachers don't make or break the school system. It's all about the students. The average caliber of a student is going down across the region which is why the school systems are going down.

Special needs and ESL populations are exploding

MCPS BOE voted to favor diversity when reworking school boundaries so I expect they'll to start bussing this population into the W schools to end the segregation.

You expect them to do this, or is this a real proposal? I don't follow MCPS close enough, so I'm not trying to be snarky.

Wrong. Please stop spreading lies. There are 4 factors that are evaluated when looking at boundary assignments. There is not one preference over the others.

Not true - they voted to make diversity the #1 criteria.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. What they voted on was to reword part of the demographic characteristics factor to say "Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body."

it is NOT the #1 criteria. There is no #1 criteria. There are 4 factors, one of them being demographics and not one of the factors take priority over the others. Do your research.

No the vote resulted in diversity taking precedence over the other factors.

I remember reading about this a few months ago. Good on them for being so forward thinking. Many of the current boundaries are gerrymandered to segregate the wealthy communities and it's high time that ended.