Community Review of K-6 Reading Materials

[Anonymous]

See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

Sure it is. AFAIK it's usually done via reading aloud to sustain interest and also to build language comprehension (a critical part of reading comprehension - you can't understand if you have no vocabulary) while kids learn fluency.

Have you ever read a decodable book with your kid? I'm reading tons of them with my kindergartener and have read them with my older kids also. My kids enjoy them because, even when they are still just on CVC words, they can actually master the book.

[Anonymous]

^^^

The science on building a lifelong interest is here:
https://www.amazon.com/Jim-Treleases-Read-Aloud-Handbook-Eighth/dp/0143133799/

[Anonymous]

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

Everything old is new again.

I taught first grade some years ago. In one system, we were forced to use the Sullivan Reading program exclusively. It was totally phonics and incredibly boring.

I am a strong believer in phonics. I always taught phonics and used Modern Curriculum Phonics. It had a plaid cover. But, this business of never allowing a kid to look at a beginning sound and trying to decide what the word might be depending on context is terrible. You want kids to use common sense and critical thinking skills as well as decoding.

I also taught Kindergarten with the "Letter People." It was a great program. But, that was many years ago.

Phonics is key. It is not the "only." Good literature is also important, If kids have not had books read to them at home, they need lots of vocabulary building. Sounding out words that have no meaning does not encourage reading comprehension. And, why do we read? We read to understand and, hopefully, to enjoy.
Interesting books are important, too. You must have motivation.

[Anonymous]

I bought some MCP phonics readers when my kids were 4 and taught them to read before kindergarten. Those books were great.

Is that an option that FCPS could consider?

[Anonymous]

I'm going to need more help figuring out how to provide feedback on this. I want them to pick whatever is the opposite of Lucy Cawkins. Where we can have phonics taught again and they might even -- gasp -- be allowed to teach some spelling?

[Anonymous]

Yes! Is there an option to vote for spelling???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to need more help figuring out how to provide feedback on this. I want them to pick whatever is the opposite of Lucy Cawkins. Where we can have phonics taught again and they might even -- gasp -- be allowed to teach some spelling?

Read the materials for the grades you care about. Look to see if they look like the teach phonics and spelling. Pick the material on the form and comment accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Your google form is not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

[Anonymous]

Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your google form is not working.

I see that. You can still get it from the FCPS site I linked, though. Not sure what's wrong with the link here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

I don't need them to read Dickens (they would hate that!), just something roughly at their level and not have to endure phonics lessons they don't need and get some meaningful instruction at their level between K-2 in language arts. They LIKE age appropriate books (current K kid is devouring Ivy+Bean and Borrowers' series right now)--just have seen how my older kid who was similarly advanced in reading suffered through reading instruction in K-2 and dreading what it will be like for my younger one if they add even more phonics in and remove more of the writer's workshops/readers' workshops which were the only thing he liked. I wish there was more differentiation in K-2 as that's where the developmental differences in reading really show up and that's where kids form their attitudes towards school, learning etc.