Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's this "we"? My kid is in first grade in a DCPS and is getting explicit phonics instruction, along with learning sight words (which aren't pronounced phonetically).

My DCPS also teaches FUNdations (phonics) as well as trick words (ones that don’t follow the rules). They also in first grade teach specific decoding strategies ( tap it out, chunk it, look for word parts you know).

DC uses Fundations, which is considered a good program, explicitly teaching decoding, a bit remedial. And yet DC still has low proficiency rates, high rates of illiteracy.

As some PP's have said, decoding is very important. But comprehension is more important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, what is wrong with teaching other techniques along with decoding?

Decoding would be the most efficient strategy. Other strategies such as "look for the word within the word" or "scan and guess for context" should be used but only once you have reached the limits of decoding, and still don't know the word.

This. Most other strategies will encourage guessing and guessing is what poor decoders rely on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's this "we"? My kid is in first grade in a DCPS and is getting explicit phonics instruction, along with learning sight words (which aren't pronounced phonetically).

My DCPS also teaches FUNdations (phonics) as well as trick words (ones that don’t follow the rules). They also in first grade teach specific decoding strategies ( tap it out, chunk it, look for word parts you know).

DC uses Fundations, which is considered a good program, explicitly teaching decoding, a bit remedial. And yet DC still has low proficiency rates, high rates of illiteracy.

As some PP's have said, decoding is very important. But comprehension is more important.

This is because once a student can decode, they need to have background knowledge and a good vocabulary to understand what they are reading. Poor students with limited experiences struggle with this. This is much harder to fix.

[Anonymous]

Exactly, PP.

5th graders who are reading and writing at a 4th grade level, and those who cannot decode "fat cat sat", will both be recorded as "not proficient" on state tests of grade level reading proficiency.

But there is a world of difference in their middle school prospects the following year. Kids who are able to decode at a 3rd or even better 4th grade reading level in middle school will have some chance of getting ahead. The child who still can't sound out one syllable words in 6th grade? Is sunk. No amount of prereading, scaffolding, read aloud, word bank, pattern sentences, scanning and guessing, is going to meaningfully help this child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12 year veteran of teaching kids to read in first grade. It's been years since I taught, but I do not share the opinions of the writer--or the "experts" she interviewed.
I taught kids who struggled and I taught kids who picked up reading quickly. I taught kids who came from very, very poor homes with no books or reading materials, and kids who had lots of advantages.
One thing I learned: all kids do not learn in the same way.

Here is where I agree:
1. Reading is not a "natural" process. Some kids may appear to pick it up on their own--but, there is likely a lot of exposure that is not being documented. (Those that "pick it up" have likely been read to a lot. They have also likely been exposed to alphabet books and had parents who asked guided questions while they were reading to them. The parents likely taught them left to right when reading to them and also used books with rhyming words. These are the same parents who likely pointed out signs on the road and encouraged kids to talk about them.
2. Phonics instruction is very important.

Where I disagree:
1. Phonics is not the be all end all in learning to read. It is necessary to have good word attack skills, but some kids struggle with it and, while they should be taught phonics, they also need other options.
2. Whole language has some good points. (I agree it should not be the exclusive approach.)
3. Sight words have their place.

Reading is a complex process and there is not magic bullet.
Why have scores gone down with testing? Kids are being taught to pass tests--not to learn to read. Those are two different skills.

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12 year veteran of teaching kids to read in first grade. It's been years since I taught, but I do not share the opinions of the writer--or the "experts" she interviewed.
I taught kids who struggled and I taught kids who picked up reading quickly. I taught kids who came from very, very poor homes with no books or reading materials, and kids who had lots of advantages.
One thing I learned: all kids do not learn in the same way.

Here is where I agree:
1. Reading is not a "natural" process. Some kids may appear to pick it up on their own--but, there is likely a lot of exposure that is not being documented. (Those that "pick it up" have likely been read to a lot. They have also likely been exposed to alphabet books and had parents who asked guided questions while they were reading to them. The parents likely taught them left to right when reading to them and also used books with rhyming words. These are the same parents who likely pointed out signs on the road and encouraged kids to talk about them.
2. Phonics instruction is very important.

Where I disagree:
1. Phonics is not the be all end all in learning to read. It is necessary to have good word attack skills, but some kids struggle with it and, while they should be taught phonics, they also need other options.
2. Whole language has some good points. (I agree it should not be the exclusive approach.)
3. Sight words have their place.

Reading is a complex process and there is not magic bullet.
Why have scores gone down with testing? Kids are being taught to pass tests--not to learn to read. Those are two different skills.

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

DP. I am a parent, not a teacher. I taught my kids to read, and one learned quickly and easily with phonics, the other didn't.

Phonics is important but kids learn differently. What does that mean? It means that phonics alone isn't the right way to teach reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12 year veteran of teaching kids to read in first grade. It's been years since I taught, but I do not share the opinions of the writer--or the "experts" she interviewed.
I taught kids who struggled and I taught kids who picked up reading quickly. I taught kids who came from very, very poor homes with no books or reading materials, and kids who had lots of advantages.
One thing I learned: all kids do not learn in the same way.

Here is where I agree:
1. Reading is not a "natural" process. Some kids may appear to pick it up on their own--but, there is likely a lot of exposure that is not being documented. (Those that "pick it up" have likely been read to a lot. They have also likely been exposed to alphabet books and had parents who asked guided questions while they were reading to them. The parents likely taught them left to right when reading to them and also used books with rhyming words. These are the same parents who likely pointed out signs on the road and encouraged kids to talk about them.
2. Phonics instruction is very important.

Where I disagree:
1. Phonics is not the be all end all in learning to read. It is necessary to have good word attack skills, but some kids struggle with it and, while they should be taught phonics, they also need other options.
2. Whole language has some good points. (I agree it should not be the exclusive approach.)
3. Sight words have their place.

Reading is a complex process and there is not magic bullet.
Why have scores gone down with testing? Kids are being taught to pass tests--not to learn to read. Those are two different skills.

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

Interesting response. Who are the "experts?" Every time there is a change in instructional methods, it comes from "experts." There is also research involved to defend the conclusions. Which ones are your experts? And, what do you consider anecdotal experience? When is "experience" not anecdotal to you? Sure, one teacher's observations may be considered anecdotal--but, I assure you there is much research to defend a balanced approach to reading instruction.

[Anonymous]

Early education is so trend driven. Someone somewhere writes a book or a paper about something, and suddenly there is a “new and better” way of doing something. Young kids learn how to read by being read to. Parents today are too busy to actually spend time with their kids during the day, and are then shocked when their first grader can’t read a chapter book. Kids need more one on one teaching than your daycare (or kindergarten!) can give your kid. Read to your kid (and not just a couple books at bedtime), show them words during the day, talk to them and label things in your house. I’m so sick of ineffective early education majors preaching (and of course simultaneously complaining) their newest jargon. Educated parents of the world, Just ACTUALLY spend time with your kids ages 0-5 and they will be Fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do not (as advanced readers) decode every word. We read by sight. The earlier a child can do this the better. Kids can not comprehend well until they are reading by sight. Children (nor adults) do not need to sound out long words. We scan the whole word as well as the words after the word to guess the meaning of that unknown word. We are doing this constantly.

Phonics is fine to get a start.

Spanish and Latin is great for strengthening reading skills later in middle or high school.

It's true that, as proficient readers, we no longer need to decode every word. Just as in math, we no longer have to think about what 5 + 7 is (most of us don't). We have solved that problem often enough to realize it is 12. We have seen the phonogram "igh" together in words so often, we just "know" that they represent the "long I" sound in most words. So we see a word like sigh, or high, or flight, and the word just pops into our brains. We don't have to sound it out.

However, if we are reading, say, a fantasy or science fiction novel and see a nonsense word for example, "Mr. Depsigh", we might need to fall back on our basic decoding skills.

I strongly disagree with the second bolded statement. Poor readers who never properly learned to read phonetically? Yes they need to be constantly scanning ahead to try to guess meaning of words. Because they didn't learn to decode.

If you have learned to decode properly and thoroughly, you seldom need to guess a word from context.

If you have learned to decode syllables efficiently, you do not need to sound out long words. You can quickly look at each syllable and chunk it. The syllables are based on Latin and Green roots, prefixes and suffixes. A key way to improve reading comprehension in grades 4+ is to be sure students can quickly decode these roots and affixes, and know their meaning.

-tion, -ture, aqua- circum - graph, photo, chron-, hypo-

Once you are able to decode the above roots and affixes such as the ones above, you can read almost any word in the English language -- no scanning or guessing based on context necessary. In this manner, you are able to learn by reading. You don't need to ask anyone what a new word is, because you don't need them to read it out loud to you. You have the magic of decoding at your fingertips, and you can read the word to yourself.

If you can decode, you can read "synchronicity", "indeterminate", "hypothyroidism", "aquaculture". No guessing required.

I have studied the science of reading. Good readers decode sentences at a time—not words at a time. Readers scan ahead. It’s not guessing per se. it’s efficiency. It’s much faster. Decoding is slow. For kids with low working memory it’s doing them no favors. Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

You're both right but in different contexts. Proficient readers read like you're describing, but they're not "guessing" words in the way PP is talking about. They're pattern matching at a high rate against known topics, sentence structures, and words but will occasionally go back to decode if something seems incorrect and all without realizing it. But early readers don't have a large lexicon on patterns to match against and, instead of learning to decode unknown patterns, are being encouraged to guess.

As a parent of a child with severe dyslexia, this method of (not) teaching is extremely frustrating. We've paid over $15,000 out of pocket for effective tutoring that followed the same exact steps PP detailed in a different post and resulted in DS now reading above grade level in both accuracy and comprehension (still a horrible speller, though). This was after public school left him with such low self esteem and reading refusal we lost several years of reading instruction.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

I am the teacher to whom you are responding.

How many subjects do you need in order for the observations to not be "anecdotal?"

I taught over 500 5-7 year olds to read. During the time I taught, I experienced at least three different methods preferred and studied by "experts." My conclusion: no one method is the best for all kids. A balanced approach is best. And, yes, phonics and decoding is included in that balance. But, if you think that method should be exclusively used, I strongly disagree.
I assume that you are the parent of the dyslexic child who has spent lots of money on tutors. I am glad your child is succeeding. I'm sorry his teachers did not include decoding in their instruction, but decoding alone is not the best method. And, I suspect that his tutoring includes instruction one-on-one and/or very small groups. You do understand that you are offering "anecdotal" justification for your preferred method?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Early education is so trend driven. Someone somewhere writes a book or a paper about something, and suddenly there is a “new and better” way of doing something. Young kids learn how to read by being read to. Parents today are too busy to actually spend time with their kids during the day, and are then shocked when their first grader can’t read a chapter book. Kids need more one on one teaching than your daycare (or kindergarten!) can give your kid. Read to your kid (and not just a couple books at bedtime), show them words during the day, talk to them and label things in your house. I’m so sick of ineffective early education majors preaching (and of course simultaneously complaining) their newest jargon. Educated parents of the world, Just ACTUALLY spend time with your kids ages 0-5 and they will be Fine!

I work and sometimes come home very late and my kids are all in AAP and read well. We encourage reading and require our kids to read. There no book that is too girly or manly and we encourage a wide variety of reading. We talk about current issues in the world. And we taught our kids to decode. Sometimes we can't be home to read with our children. They still seem fine. I'm glad you have the time to spend 1 on 1 with your children at all times. Not everyone has the means to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

I am the teacher to whom you are responding.

How many subjects do you need in order for the observations to not be "anecdotal?"

I taught over 500 5-7 year olds to read. During the time I taught, I experienced at least three different methods preferred and studied by "experts." My conclusion: no one method is the best for all kids. A balanced approach is best. And, yes, phonics and decoding is included in that balance. But, if you think that method should be exclusively used, I strongly disagree.
I assume that you are the parent of the dyslexic child who has spent lots of money on tutors. I am glad your child is succeeding. I'm sorry his teachers did not include decoding in their instruction, but decoding alone is not the best method. And, I suspect that his tutoring includes instruction one-on-one and/or very small groups. You do understand that you are offering "anecdotal" justification for your preferred method?

This is the parent you're referring to. I'm not the poster you're responding to.

I strongly advocate decoding as a basis for learning to read but care less about what else is also included. The problem with making this a debate about decoding alone or decoding + other stuff is that you're ignoring that many students just aren't taught to read and they don't learn how to read until they are taught to decode. I know more than the average parent and most of the early ES teachers I've talked to about reading acquisition and I understand what science backs up whole word and what backs up decoding. The scientific studies don't actually disagree, they just show that students who pick up reading easily pick it up in a manner similar to "whole word". The mind boggling situation is why we've tailored ES reading instruction to teach only the kids who learn to read easily and meanwhile teach the teachers to put off parents who are rightly concerned that their child may have a LD and delay evaluation. I know a lot of parents whose kids have dyslexia and I have yet to hear a single story of a K or 1st grade teacher who listened to a parent's concerns, much less raised a flag themself.

[Anonymous]

I strongly advocate decoding as a basis for learning to read but care less about what else is also included. The problem with making this a debate about decoding alone or decoding + other stuff is that you're ignoring that many students just aren't taught to read and they don't learn how to read until they are taught to decode. I know more than the average parent and most of the early ES teachers I've talked to about reading acquisition and I understand what science backs up whole word and what backs up decoding. The scientific studies don't actually disagree, they just show that students who pick up reading easily pick it up in a manner similar to "whole word". The mind boggling situation is why we've tailored ES reading instruction to teach only the kids who learn to read easily and meanwhile teach the teachers to put off parents who are rightly concerned that their child may have a LD and delay evaluation. I know a lot of parents whose kids have dyslexia and I have yet to hear a single story of a K or 1st grade teacher who listened to a parent's concerns, much less raised a flag themself.

I'm the PP. There is another poster on here who seems to think that decoding ONLY should be taught. That is the person to whom I was responding.

I admit to being retired. I guess I did not realize that phonics is being ignored today. My own children went through the "whole language" fiasco. One child had an inexperienced teacher and did not learn to read until the reading specialist took him in a small group--and he learned in six weeks. She taught in the structured manner that I had used when I taught. Once he learned, he took off and never had a problem again. Of course, he was well prepared from the home environment.

Again, I am for all approaches in balance. And, believe it or not, there are kids who learn to read without having good decoding skills--but they should be taught them. My philosophy is to take each child where he is and to push him or pull him in the best approach for him.

There are two philosophies here-one to address the weakness and the other is to capitalize on the strengths. I believe that you should do both. But, the main approach should be to use their strengths.

[Anonymous]

Decoding is not that hard for most kids. It's a start, not an end for learning to read. I don't understand these arguments at all. Of course other methods are used. Decoding is just a start just like learning what numbers are and what they represent is a start to learning math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Decoding is not that hard for most kids. It's a start, not an end for learning to read. I don't understand these arguments at all. Of course other methods are used. Decoding is just a start just like learning what numbers are and what they represent is a start to learning math.

You'd be surprised.

First, they need to have visual discrimination in order to recognize the letters.
Next, they need auditory discrimination.

If you have never taught children who come from homes with no books, you'd be amazed at how many kids entering school do not have these skills.