Lucy Caulkins was wrong about reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

? I really don't see this in my daughter's school, and children's and YA fiction is booming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

? I really don't see this in my daughter's school, and children's and YA fiction is booming.

+1

They read assigned fiction books plus have a ton available for independent reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

[Anonymous]

How can somebody say "phonics didn't work?" That is how all phonetic languages work. A symbol corresponds to a sound and then you put it together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

NP here.

You should check out core knowledge foundation. It helps understand why this is a really effective approach. Once you learn to decode, the next component in reading is background knowledge. All the science and history classes give you that, and there are novels added on as well. I don't know what PP's school is doing but when I did this in homeschool it was like we would learn about the Middle Ages and we read King Arthur and Robin Hood at the same time.
:
I promise they are spending enough time on math in school. I don't know about the quality of instruction, but the time is there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you explain this a little bit more. The link takes you to A page that you can only read if you sign up for the new York times.

NP here. I cannot link to the article so I will try to answer your question.

Lucy Calkins was never an expert on reading. She got into the field by way of her writing program, which was influenced by a workshop-based approach she observed in progressive English schools. As I observe it, she let the philosophy - not the science - dictate the curriculum content she produced. She was quoted at a conference Q&A once saying that she was skeptical that dyslexia existed. She used the Ken Goodman's "three cueing system," which encouraged young students to look at context and the pictures, etc. to tackle unfamiliar words, rather than "sounding them out". Goodman's work has essentially been superseded by about 25 years of neuroscience and other reading research. Lucy's philosophy included a print-rich environment and developing a love of reading through giving students choices and interesting texts. Her detractors argue that in fact, ignoring reading science (including, but not limited to phonics) leads to lower outcomes later on, less love of reading, and diminished ability to read complex texts.

In the NYT piece, she admits that she was wrong to discount so much reading research for so many years. If you're interested in three-cueing, here's an article with more info. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/is-this-the-end-of-three-cueing/2020/12 Lucy's influence in MCPS is more indirect than direct. Some schools use her writing workshop, which has a similar feel: exciting and rich for kids who pick up skills "by osmosis" but insufficient for the majority who need to be explicitly taught. If you look, you can still see evidence of three cueing in MCPS. It's found in the Fountas & Pinnell system that the county uses to determine students' "reading level".

Thank you for this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

NP here.

You should check out core knowledge foundation. It helps understand why this is a really effective approach. Once you learn to decode, the next component in reading is background knowledge. All the science and history classes give you that, and there are novels added on as well. I don't know what PP's school is doing but when I did this in homeschool it was like we would learn about the Middle Ages and we read King Arthur and Robin Hood at the same time.
:
I promise they are spending enough time on math in school. I don't know about the quality of instruction, but the time is there.

Yes, I understand that. But fiction and discussion of fiction serves a different purpose which has a value and function all its own. It is not just a means to support knowledge in other subjects. Vocabulary, sentence structure, nuance, ambiguity, empathy, attention span, criticial thinking, holisticism, and parrallel thinking. The very skills and traits we as a society seem to be losing. Decoding is useless without critical thinking. Decoding produces the wrong answers if nuance can't be differentiated and ambiguity is ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS has switched to a phonics curriculum. No more LC.

Which specific curriculum materials is APS using in 2022-2023 for reading ? and for grammar, spelling, & writing ?

(This could influence our choice of school for our young DC.)

Thanks !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

NP here.

You should check out core knowledge foundation. It helps understand why this is a really effective approach. Once you learn to decode, the next component in reading is background knowledge. All the science and history classes give you that, and there are novels added on as well. I don't know what PP's school is doing but when I did this in homeschool it was like we would learn about the Middle Ages and we read King Arthur and Robin Hood at the same time.
:
I promise they are spending enough time on math in school. I don't know about the quality of instruction, but the time is there.

Yes, I understand that. But fiction and discussion of fiction serves a different purpose which has a value and function all its own. It is not just a means to support knowledge in other subjects. Vocabulary, sentence structure, nuance, ambiguity, empathy, attention span, criticial thinking, holisticism, and parrallel thinking. The very skills and traits we as a society seem to be losing. Decoding is useless without critical thinking. Decoding produces the wrong answers if nuance can't be differentiated and ambiguity is ignored.

I agree that we need fiction and the discussion of literature. And you can start that by talking about the stories that are read aloud. But nobody is going to be able to talk about nuance if they can’t decode easily.

We continue to expose kids to stories and rich narrative through oral reading while their decoding skills progress. Audiobooks fill the gap for dyslexic learners who take a bit more time (and effective instruction) to achieve proficiency.

Scarborough’s Reading Rope is a great visualization of the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can somebody say "phonics didn't work?" That is how all phonetic languages work. A symbol corresponds to a sound and then you put it together.

They didn't, really. In education, every time someone points out a problem - usually a real problem - with some method of teaching, then suggests a new way, schools immediately throw out everything they used to do, declaring it "bad teaching," and jump on the new bandwagon. All old knowledge is lost or forgotten or disallowed, as though nothing old is good. It's kind of like fashion, going in and out of style. Then after a while, people realize that the old stuff might have had some good qualities too, and just like fashion that trend comes back in a slightly more modern form, and the trend that displaced it becomes out of style. We call it the pendulum, and good teachers dodge the pendulum.

Phonics had plenty to recommend it. Like, you know, actually teaching kids to read words. But the instruction was often very dry and boring, and sometimes it was all phonics drills and no actual reading. The idea that reading real books could be incorporated into the teaching of reading, even before kids could read the words, was a good one. A lot of the ideas about learning through reading discussions and comprehension strategies were also good additions to reading instruction.

But of course, as education is by far the stupidest industry ever, it was taken to an extreme. Teachers were literally not allowed to teach decoding (phonics), even when it was clear that without it lots of kids just weren't going to be able to read. Dodging the pendulum meant integrating some phonics into the day, but in some districts micro-management made that very difficult. I know I literally felt anxious about it all the time, like I had some dirty secret.

So anyway, that's what happened to phonics, and will happen again. And again. And again.

[Anonymous]

Those of us with dyslexic kids have been known this for years while pleading with FCPS to hear them.

They snorted and lectured and called us helicopter parents while proclaiming our kids would do fine if they just tried harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isnt news. Maybe i am late to the party but just wanted to share anyway.
And has now incorporated phonics in its revised curriculum. But its too late for the students who struggled because of her. It’s appalling that our kid’s education is just a money making business and mcps continues to pick sub par curriculums over and over again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html

As a mom, I think it’s very important for parents to be paying attention to their little kids’ early reading, writing and math skills. Some of the school fads are ridiculous. It’s pretty easy to see when it’s not working and to help your own kid. It’s also really, really fun and satisfying!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isnt news. Maybe i am late to the party but just wanted to share anyway.
And has now incorporated phonics in its revised curriculum. But its too late for the students who struggled because of her. It’s appalling that our kid’s education is just a money making business and mcps continues to pick sub par curriculums over and over again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html

Focusing on phonics made me struggle. I think it may be helpful to some but not everyone.

Did you do the Lucy Caulkins? It was pointing at a picture of a cat and saying "cat" and hoping by osmosis the kid would learn to read the word.

Phonics isn't the only thing taught, it's also still figuring out the words. Whereas when Lucy Caulkins was taught, no phonics at all was taught.

Pre-pandemic I recall being at a happy hour for the moms of the kids in my daughter's girl scout troop. Eight of the ten moms were desperate to find a reading tutor because they'd just been informed that their end-of-first-grade daughters were woefully behind in reading. At the time I thought something had to be wrong--there was no way so many smart kids from engaged parents could be that far behind. The next year the Lucy Caulkin's criticism hit the news and it all made sense. One of those kids did turn out to be dyslexic. The rest just hadn't been taught to read and they eventually caught up with the help of very expensive outside reading tutors.

That is interesting. If you listen to the sold a story podcast, it is true that rich affluent public school kids also struggle in reading but because parents get tutors for the children they eventually catch up and learn to read. Those tutors use phonics to teach reading. Students at poorer schools have no resources and there by can’t catch up. You can see this playing out in the reading assessments nation wide and maryland in particular. Its in part due to the shutdown but also because of the terrible reading curriculum.

I completely agree with this. I've started realizing that it's just not the schools job to teach reading, writing or math, particularly in elementary school. Once I realized that and started teaching dd myself after school every day, she sailed through easily. She wasn't getting the osmosis method and likes everything stated explicitly. Things like counting pom pom balls and multiplying pom pom balls wasn't helping her learn math. I think teachers were taught that they need to make school fun, hands on and creative, but I don't think it's how kids learn. Even the writing prompts that were so open ended weren't working for my dd. At home, she did a lot of copying into a notebook, practice writing letters, math, constant reading. It also helped that I let her choose the books she likes for her reading. At school, they only had "role model" books. Role models are great- but they were dry and just not holding her interest. I let her choose the pinkest, sparkliest princess books with stickers in them and she got engrossed. I'm a huge reader and I do like classical literature, but I don't GAF what kind of books my kids want to read.

Please don't think I'm anti- teacher, it's just that there often is NO curriculum, and the methods they follow are just bad. I'm so enraged by the publishing house monopoly on everything. I wish more money went to teachers and not these awful programs schools spend money on.