Reading Pedagogy at DCPS Elementary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lord, every parent listened to that podcast and now deems themself a reading specialist.

Agree! It’s comical. They’ve “done their own research” and now are experts.

Sadly the parents who’ve listened to the Sold a Story podcast are more educated than most curriculum decision makers.

-OG tutor who does know the research and cleans up damage from poorly-informed schools

Not the OP. I don't get the hype about PK3 reading, really even K reading. Some might read in PK, K, or even 1st and 2nd and it can come out fine. DC1 didn't really read till end of first and is a super strong student. DC2 read fairly early and in depth by start of first - a thoughtful student, especially in humanities, but not super strong.

Reading is so critical, but doing it early isn't necessarily a predictor of anything.

This. If you read and talk to your kids during the early years, then it’s fine as long as your schools reading curriculum has a phonics component.

DS school taught phonics but also had writers workshop to encourage creative thoughts and writing. It doesn’t have to be either/or.

Kids with above foundations learn to read at their own pace. DS was just starting to read CVC words in the spring of K. Then a bulb just went off and his reading skyrocketed. Towards the end of summer (we did encourage reading daily over the summer), DS was reading late 1st grade and when school started in 1st he was reading at 2nd grade level. Now in 3rd, he is reading/comprehending at 5th grade level.

Some kids read early because they are pushed by their parents. Some kids read later. By 3rd grade, late kids catch up and it evens out.

I agree it isn’t essential to push for early reading. And I think formal instruction should wait until 1st grade. But it is really important for teachers and parents to be really clear about the typical developmental sequence of reading skills. Things like phonemic awareness and phonics are important steps on the path to being a skilled reader.

It is also possible to identify the 1 in 5 kids who are dyslexic by the end of K if you are monitoring these skills. Waiting until the 3rd grade to try to figure out why reading hasn’t “clicked” virtually guarantees most of those kids will never catch up.

Why wait until 1st grade? DCPS would be really negligent if they did that. They have a lot of kids who can’t waste a year of formal instruction.

DCPS pushes academics way too early in ECE, especially at the title 1 and lower performing schools. It is not developmentally appropriate at all. At these younger ages, talking, plating, building curiosity, exploring, etc….is what is needed. It’s not phonics or worksheets.

Studies have shown no long term gains of pushing academics early.

This isn't entirely true. There is evidence that early readers fare better in content areas, possibly because they spend more time reading for knowledge than later readers. I think framing early literacy instruction as "pushing academics" is also misleading. This might be the case some places, but there does not need to be worksheets or phonics drills. In reality, teaching young kids to read involves teaching a letter a week and making it really fun with songs and games and rich literature. Most children who do not have reading difficulties can learn to read easily at a young age.

That sounds fine, but not necessarily what the "year of formal instruction" poster has in mind. Do believe that talking, playing cultivating curiosity, exploring are also very critical elements here and foundation for reading can be woven into that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

[Anonymous]

There are two questions here that are getting conflated. (1) When is the right time to start reading instruction, and (2) what type of instruction should that be?

Here in DCPS the science of reading (phonics etc) folks, as a general matter, tend to start earlier and the Lucy Calkins folks tend to start later (or not at all, depending on your view of Lucy).

For me, I think the science of reading makes a lot of sense. But it probably doesn't need to be a big part of the school day in PK3 or even PK4. There should be a lot of time for play in those years. But in the past it seemed challenging to find a school that would take that approach. Maybe things are changing after the shift back to phonics in more affluent schools, as a result of "sold a story" and increased awareness, generally, about these curricular issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lord, every parent listened to that podcast and now deems themself a reading specialist.

Agree! It’s comical. They’ve “done their own research” and now are experts.

Sadly the parents who’ve listened to the Sold a Story podcast are more educated than most curriculum decision makers.

-OG tutor who does know the research and cleans up damage from poorly-informed schools

Not the OP. I don't get the hype about PK3 reading, really even K reading. Some might read in PK, K, or even 1st and 2nd and it can come out fine. DC1 didn't really read till end of first and is a super strong student. DC2 read fairly early and in depth by start of first - a thoughtful student, especially in humanities, but not super strong.

Reading is so critical, but doing it early isn't necessarily a predictor of anything.

This. If you read and talk to your kids during the early years, then it’s fine as long as your schools reading curriculum has a phonics component.

DS school taught phonics but also had writers workshop to encourage creative thoughts and writing. It doesn’t have to be either/or.

Kids with above foundations learn to read at their own pace. DS was just starting to read CVC words in the spring of K. Then a bulb just went off and his reading skyrocketed. Towards the end of summer (we did encourage reading daily over the summer), DS was reading late 1st grade and when school started in 1st he was reading at 2nd grade level. Now in 3rd, he is reading/comprehending at 5th grade level.

Some kids read early because they are pushed by their parents. Some kids read later. By 3rd grade, late kids catch up and it evens out.

I agree it isn’t essential to push for early reading. And I think formal instruction should wait until 1st grade. But it is really important for teachers and parents to be really clear about the typical developmental sequence of reading skills. Things like phonemic awareness and phonics are important steps on the path to being a skilled reader.

It is also possible to identify the 1 in 5 kids who are dyslexic by the end of K if you are monitoring these skills. Waiting until the 3rd grade to try to figure out why reading hasn’t “clicked” virtually guarantees most of those kids will never catch up.

Why wait until 1st grade? DCPS would be really negligent if they did that. They have a lot of kids who can’t waste a year of formal instruction.

DCPS pushes academics way too early in ECE, especially at the title 1 and lower performing schools. It is not developmentally appropriate at all. At these younger ages, talking, plating, building curiosity, exploring, etc….is what is needed. It’s not phonics or worksheets.

Studies have shown no long term gains of pushing academics early.

This isn't entirely true. There is evidence that early readers fare better in content areas, possibly because they spend more time reading for knowledge than later readers. I think framing early literacy instruction as "pushing academics" is also misleading. This might be the case some places, but there does not need to be worksheets or phonics drills. In reality, teaching young kids to read involves teaching a letter a week and making it really fun with songs and games and rich literature. Most children who do not have reading difficulties can learn to read easily at a young age.

That sounds fine, but not necessarily what the "year of formal instruction" poster has in mind. Do believe that talking, playing cultivating curiosity, exploring are also very critical elements here and foundation for reading can be woven into that.

I wasn’t addressing the early childhood experience as a whole. I was posting about something specific related to literacy. I realize that literacy is woven into all aspects of life, and things like vocabulary and oral language develop in and outside of the classroom. I also realize that the skills you mention are crucial. Do you realize that explicit literacy instruction is like 20 minutes of the school day?

[Anonymous]

Yeah I dunno, my then 4 year old asked me to teach her how to read during the pandemic. Now that she’s an advanced first grader, she can do her math word problems independently and her favorite activity is reading for pleasure. I’m sure that’s 99% personality, but I see friends starting to worry that their almost second graders aren’t quite there yet, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence their kids mostly go to the warm and fuzzy charters that use Lucy Caulkins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

Smells like BS. White affinity groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

Smells like BS. White affinity groups?

PP told you exactly how to find the thread. Is it really that hard?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1123051.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

SWS uses Foundations and Heggerty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

SWS uses Foundations and Heggerty.

Because they literally have to. But many teachers barely use it. So much move your mouth in the shape and guess. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Give examples, or not credible. What is considered a white affinity group?

There is a thread on this. SWS has jumped the shark or something similar. I don't think the PPs are talking about the same school though as SWS isn't a charter (though it does lean heavily in the LC direction).

SWS uses Foundations and Heggerty.

Because they literally have to. But many teachers barely use it. So much move your mouth in the shape and guess. Ugh.

I think it's a bit more than that. There are teachers who have completed the training programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

White affinity group meetings? What crazy?

Unfortunately true.

Haha not the same school but I bet they'll steal the idea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you mention that you're at a charter that uses three-cueing and other balanced literacy-type methods. It's probably the same one my family left last year, partially because of their dedication to joy over competency. Bring your concerns to the leadership and PTO. You're not the only one who is wondering why they have chosen to go against the evidence. They don't think they need to change because the test scores are good. However, anyone with even passing familiarity knows that the scores are driven entirely by wealth and whiteness.

You forgot to mention how everyone in this “joyful” school is frantically supplementing in between their white affinity group meetings.

What school is this?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been very happy with our PK3 charter, but concerned about the reading pedagogy. It seems like they are using approaches similar to the “three-cueing” system that teaches kids to rely on context clues, memorization, and skipping unfamiliar words all together to use more familiar words to make a guess. Cognitive scientists and applied linguistics researchers have proven this to be a horrible method to teach children to read and it actually does more harm than good. Found this article in a quick google search for reference: https://www.apmreports.org/amp/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

Contrary to popular belief, learning letters isn’t even the best place to start. Foundational skills in pre-k should focus on things like sound recognition and making sounds with your mouth. I would be surprised if I encountered a school that was onto this though. For some reason these things don’t seem to successfully bridge academia to the classroom. Would definitely like to know though if anyone has encountered anything like this in ECE.

I was reading on another thread that DCPS has an academic and rigorous approach to teaching kids to read in K, which is good to hear. This year we applied mainly to ward 3 DCPS schools for PK4 and we have a number of low waitlist numbers. Can anyone tell me about how these schools teach kids to read? Is the phonics instruction strong?

OP if you are otherwise happy w the charter, I wouldn’t stress about it. Just keep reading with your kid at home. Many kids (who read w their parents at home) will just figure it out this way. It doesn’t matter all that much what type of reading instruction is done at school. That said, since one of my kids learned to read on his own at an early age, a lot of the Heggerty/phonics stuff was pretty mind numbing for him.