Why was Balanced Literacy so popular for so long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s popular because it’s easy and lazy to “teach”.
[b]
My kid brought the following Balanced Literacy sheet BS home:
1) use the pictures for clues
2) look at the beginning letter
3) look at the ending letter (wtf?)
4) make a good guess
5) read to the end of the sentence
6) as yourself, “does this make sense?”

No it does not. This self-teach picture BS should not be how k-4 literacy is “taught.”

Poor kids.

This.

You basically do nothing, just let the k-4 kid look at whatever picture book, graphic novel or real book they want during class.

Oh and tell them they should read whatever at home every night too.

That’ll do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of why BL was used for so long was because the creators based it off of research on what good readers do. Good readers do: use the first letter of a word and the context, they do skip words they can't read and come back to them, they do flip the vowel sound and more. Problematically,it wasn't researched to check that what works for readers who pick up reading easily, would work for most kids. So, when teachers like me heard "research based" and really read the dozens of great professional books written on the topic, we bought in.

The other problem is that balanced literacy was never intended to be taught without explicit and systematic phonics. But for some reason, some teachers (okay, many) assumed it was. Balanced literacy was intended to provide time for fluency instruction, comprehension instruction, writing instruction, vocabulary instruction and phonics instruction. For me, my first job was in a little private school that used a truly terrible curriculum that ONLY taught phonics using phonetic decodable books. There was ZERO (and I truly mean zero) comprehension, fluency, writing (other than handwriting) or vocabulary instruction taught in the early years. We didn't even have any read alouds. (for real) My students could decode a lot. But read? Not really.

At the same time, I'm grateful for those years because I can get all my students to meet or exceed what they should know in phonics and phonemic awareness by years end. There's a balance (excuse the word) here. Kids do need explicit and systematic phonics. Kids do need decodable readers. They do need to learn sight words through the lens of phonics as much as possible. But they also need vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and writing instruction. I probably focus too much on phonics, comprehension and writing and need to include more vocab and fluency work.

I really feel for all the students who had teachers who thought the 3 cueing system was balanced literacy and didn't have what they needed to teach phonics. However, after nearly 30 years of being in education, I can guarantee you that in 10-15 years, we'll be reading all the research that shows how SOR created a buy in that created great decoders but those decoders can't comprehend. Why in the world someone can't come up with a great full curriculum that has both is beyond me.

Thank you for this thoughtful and informative response.

[Anonymous]

I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

[Anonymous]

Teacher training programs also dropped the ball. I remember being marked down by my college advisor for “telling too much” during a reading lesson. They really wanted teachers to be a “guide on the side instead of a sage in the stage.” Um, look. Kids in the early grades need explicit instruction on how to read using phonics. They need a strong base of phonemic awareness. They don’t need their teachers to hand them books and figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

I see this too. DI is a four-letter word in education. It's also easier for the teacher, who won't have to make 3-5 lesson plans for each small group at a different level. And students learn from direct instruction. Not as well as from discovery - but actual discovery is really really hard to make happen in a classroom and in the best case should only be a small portion of the academic teaching.

The current way of teaching is really really hard for teachers - and the benefits for students are negligible and not worth the effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teacher training programs also dropped the ball. I remember being marked down by my college advisor for “telling too much” during a reading lesson. They really wanted teachers to be a “guide on the side instead of a sage in the stage.” Um, look. Kids in the early grades need explicit instruction on how to read using phonics. They need a strong base of phonemic awareness. They don’t need their teachers to hand them books and figure it out.

Ugh, this is disappointing.

If people want Montessori, they'll go do Montessori! Not all kids learn well in that environment. Some kids need direct instruction. You can also combine direct instruction with guided learning! In large classrooms or mixed-level classrooms, starting a lesson with direct instruction and then segueing to small groups or independent work where the teacher serves as a guide can be the best balance, because it allows for multiple learning styles and allows kids who are catching on quick to work independently but also ensures kids who aren't just picking it up on their own to have a clear explanation to refer back to.

Good teachers know how to do both and it's disappointing to here a perfectly acceptable teaching method (standing in front of the entire class and explaining a concept in clear, age-appropriate language) derided in favor of another one when a mix of methods is generally ideal.

[Anonymous]

Whole group direct instruction is something that I've found works for me and my students. I feel a lot of pressure (internally and from colleagues) to do more small group work (also a lot of direct instruction, though hands on, usually). But honestly, I can't get through what I need to get through with so much small group. Plus, while I know other teachers who can manage to keep the kids who aren't in the small group on task doing something meaningful, this is something I've never excelled at.

Don't get me wrong, I still do small group work, but not a lot of it. But one question I've gotten from admins that sticks with me is this: What's more important, teaching or learning? Learning is more important. I can have a great lesson that people love, but it only matters if the kids learn. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teacher training programs also dropped the ball. I remember being marked down by my college advisor for “telling too much” during a reading lesson. They really wanted teachers to be a “guide on the side instead of a sage in the stage.” Um, look. Kids in the early grades need explicit instruction on how to read using phonics. They need a strong base of phonemic awareness. They don’t need their teachers to hand them books and figure it out.

True.

Every other country gets this for math and reading except America (and England is a fast follower). What is wrong around here..?..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

I see this too. DI is a four-letter word in education. It's also easier for the teacher, who won't have to make 3-5 lesson plans for each small group at a different level. And students learn from direct instruction. Not as well as from discovery - but actual discovery is really really hard to make happen in a classroom and in the best case should only be a small portion of the academic teaching.

The current way of teaching is really really hard for teachers - and the benefits for students are negligible and not worth the effort.

Discovery doesn’t work for half the students.
Group work is still fine by 1-2 people in the 4-5 person group.
And it’s very slow and can’t cover much material in a week or month.

DI resonates with all learners, is skills based, and an efficient way to learn and cover more.
If you’re really smart you can learn way more. And then read more and teach yourself. But please, not for under 12 yos.

[Anonymous]

None of my teacher colleagues thought phonics was boring. There is nothing boring about seeing a child read for the first time. It's not boring to the kid and it's not boring for the teacher. As usual, people who didn't completely understand kids, child development and the science of reading made the decisions. These programs basically encouraged students to guess based on pictures and context. They should be ashamed of themselves but yet they still try to push their methods despite all evidence to the contrary.

Yep. As a teacher who worked in very low-income, low test score schools, I was constantly observed, evaluated, and critiqued on the way I implemented the reading program my district required me to follow. Though I felt phonics instruction was a missing component, I was not in a position to make a single decision about what training I got in reading instruction nor in what I taught or how--neither was my principal. It all came from the district level. It was clear to us teachers that the instruction wasn't meeting the needs of the students, but if we didn't follow the program given to us, we would be poorly evaluated and lose our jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm paywalled from the NYT article but this article from earlier this year is a good explainer on how balanced literacy gained popularity and then abruptly lost it:

https://time.com/6205084/phonics-science-of-reading-teachers/

One takeaway I have from reading about the reading wars, as a parent of a pretty new reader, is that kids really do need both explicit phonics instruction but "whole language" approaches (read alongs, talking about stories, examining context, etc.) to become strong readers, but while parents can do a pretty good job of contributing to the latter part, schools and teachers are much better situated to teach phonics.

If teachers just focus on the whole language piece, that leaves parents to fill in the gaps with phonics. But teaching phonics is actually a learned skill and most parents aren't good at it. I know because I tried to do it with varying success during Covid when it was clear my DD needed help with it because she hated Zoom school and would not pay attention during phonics instruction via Zoom (I do not blame her, that is not a good way for a kindergartener to learn). But it's freaking hard! First, you have to learn a lot of the phonics rules that you basically forgot years ago once you became a fluent reader. Also, you have to learn how to teach it to a 5 year old. I'm not an ECE teacher, I am good at talking to my kid about all kinds of things but I don't have any training on how to break down a relatively technical instruction for that age group. I muddled through and I know it helped some, but it was nothing compared to what an actual trained teacher with experience can do with phonics, as I learned once my child returned to in-person school.

But reading to my kid, talking about books and ideas, discussing context? I'm great at that. We read all kinds of books, we find different ways to talk about them, it's a bonding time for us and it just fits right into our life. I'm not saying I don't want teachers to do that portion at all, I'm just saying that if they can only do so much of it, I have the rest more than covered at home. But phonics? Kids should learn that in school from a teacher trained to teach it, because it's actually not that easy to teach. And kids are at school all day anyway! The idea that for years kids were being taught phonics via home supplementing while they spent the day doing read alongs and "whole language" practice? It's really dumb and I'm glad that era is over.

20+ years of parents complaining is NOT abrupt.

The complaints from parents were continuous, but the shift in teaching pedagogy was pretty abrupt in many instance, and Covid was a major driver as teachers re-entered the classroom and had to get real about what works and what doesn't. Plus it was easier for teachers and schools to placate parents pre-Covid. Now parents have more insight into the curriculum, often having seen it in action via Zoom. And there is a much greater sense of urgency due to Covid learning loss.

I also found the anecdote at the beginning of the Time article interesting, about the teachers in Oakland who were switched back to a phonemic awareness approach and hated it FOR YEARS. Before finally people started recognizing that it worked. To me that's so alarming because IME a focus on phonic pays instant dividends for a new reader. And that's true whether this is a kid who is dealing with dyslexia and is below grade level and hates reading, and a kid who is learning to read with very little explicit instruction. Watching a kid learn to decode language in a systemic way is really rewarding because it's a tool they can use forever. It will make their lives easier. It's crazy to me that teachers who had been using Balanced Literacy for years could go years on a phonics-first approach and still argue against it. Especially because a phonic first approach is not like hours and hours of phonics a day. It doesn't eliminate read alongs. It just requires 15-30 minutes of phonemic focus daily. That's it. And the rewards are immediate and huge. What are they fighting against? I truly do not get it.

Private schools here aren’t getting real.

They are still F&p, whole language, and balanced literacy garbage.

And never did any remedial math or phonics after reopening full time in fall 2021. Sad. Lost two years of elementary school foundational material and teaching.

Our private claims to be Balanced Literacy but they still do 1 hour of phonics every day so I don’t know. I am very pleased with how much my Ker has learned though. She can sound out, read, and spell words really well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

This is so true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

I see this too. DI is a four-letter word in education. It's also easier for the teacher, who won't have to make 3-5 lesson plans for each small group at a different level. And students learn from direct instruction. Not as well as from discovery - but actual discovery is really really hard to make happen in a classroom and in the best case should only be a small portion of the academic teaching.

The current way of teaching is really really hard for teachers - and the benefits for students are negligible and not worth the effort.

Amen! This pervasive small group nonsense is a major reason why I hope not to return to the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read education blogs/forums and there is a prejudice against "Direct Instruction" in which the teacher stands at the front of the class like a drill sergeant and the students repeat the lesson. Phonics is lumped in with this method. The current preference is for small group learning, student-led learning. These methods assume self-motivated students who are also altruistic enough to help their classmates who need extra support, while the teacher takes a passive stance. What they all ignore is that direct instruction WORKS and their preferred methods only work in their fantasies.
The most important change that could be made, that would help both students and teachers, is ability grouping. We can't do that so let's at least use scientifically proven teaching methods.

I see this too. DI is a four-letter word in education. It's also easier for the teacher, who won't have to make 3-5 lesson plans for each small group at a different level. And students learn from direct instruction. Not as well as from discovery - but actual discovery is really really hard to make happen in a classroom and in the best case should only be a small portion of the academic teaching.

The current way of teaching is really really hard for teachers - and the benefits for students are negligible and not worth the effort.

Amen! This pervasive small group nonsense is a major reason why I hope not to return to the classroom.

You still haven’t returned to the classroom yet are teaching fulltime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teacher training programs also dropped the ball. I remember being marked down by my college advisor for “telling too much” during a reading lesson. They really wanted teachers to be a “guide on the side instead of a sage in the stage.” Um, look. Kids in the early grades need explicit instruction on how to read using phonics. They need a strong base of phonemic awareness. They don’t need their teachers to hand them books and figure it out.

True.

Every other country gets this for math and reading except America (and England is a fast follower). What is wrong around here..?..

Other countries engage in a lot of ability grouping. We don't view that approach as equitable. Unfortunately, not all children can learn at the same pace.