Lucy Caulkins was wrong about reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forcing early reading on little children has zero value. It fact, untold numbers of children have been harmed by that nonsense.

Read “The Hurried Child”.

David Elkind, a child psychologist who lectures to college students, not a reading specialist who actually teaches in the early years, talks about the dangers of pushing an elementary school reading curriculum down into the early years (aka preschool). This thread is not talking about early years. It’s talking about elementary school. Regardless, as someone who has actually taught reading in both the early years and elementary school, I somewhat disagree with him anyway. I’ve had children as young as 3 show signs of reading readiness, but in my experience the typical age they start showing signs of readiness is 4-5. Still younger than 6… Take these books with a grain of salt. It’s how we got into the whole phonics-is-the-devil mess in the first place.

Again, zero evidence for pushing a 3,4 or 5 year old child into early reading.

Pp, and a) they were never “pushed”. They were guided. B) my evidence is the 3,4 and 5 years olds I’ve taught to read who have gone on to excel in all areas of learning. I don’t need a book to tell me when something works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personally learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

My kid figured it out on their own at age three. Smart kid, not genius. We read to them and pointed out the words and did language apps and videos but, yes some kids just figure it out.

What kind of "language apps and videos" did you have your 3yo watch?

Bump

[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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Ha. Do you know the history of how her curriculum was adopted? She just had her own random ideas based on what she thought kids needed. Plenty of people advocating for phonics, since the 60s at least, have zero financial interest one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

WTH? No.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

[Anonymous]

My DS is now in remedial phonics education in third grade. It’s really frustrating that known methods were thrown out for the unproven.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

I was taught to read in the 80 using phonics. When I went to college for teaching in the late 90's/early 00's, whole literacy was the new latest greatest thing to do. By the 2010's, my oldest son didn't get as much phonics, etc. as I would have liked, but it was back. My youngest by 7 years has straight up phonics instruction like I did. The pendulum swings quicker than we realize because unless you are in the industry, you only get that one snapshot in time of when you were in school and then your children.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Lucy Caulkins should be sued and bankrupted and left penniless. She should be investigated by the Dept of Education for fraud.

Parents have been telling teachers for years their kids couldn’t read but the teachers were either too dumb to get the fact that they were teaching nothing but guessing or too disinterested to pay attention.

Teachers get all up in arms bc parents are always complaining and the reading debacle is the exact reasons teachers deserve the scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

I was taught to read in the 80 using phonics. When I went to college for teaching in the late 90's/early 00's, whole literacy was the new latest greatest thing to do. By the 2010's, my oldest son didn't get as much phonics, etc. as I would have liked, but it was back. My youngest by 7 years has straight up phonics instruction like I did. The pendulum swings quicker than we realize because unless you are in the industry, you only get that one snapshot in time of when you were in school and then your children.

On a broad scale, no.

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy-the-history-of-the-reading-wars

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

you obviously arent in education. It's been like 3-4 pendulum swings since then.

[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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

I was taught to read in the 80 using phonics. When I went to college for teaching in the late 90's/early 00's, whole literacy was the new latest greatest thing to do. By the 2010's, my oldest son didn't get as much phonics, etc. as I would have liked, but it was back. My youngest by 7 years has straight up phonics instruction like I did. The pendulum swings quicker than we realize because unless you are in the industry, you only get that one snapshot in time of when you were in school and then your children.

On a broad scale, no.

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy-the-history-of-the-reading-wars

You are quoting Lexia for research?????

Like they aren’t a money driven company?

I didn’t even read it, and have no idea whether the article was correct, but when you are trying to prove science go for research and blogs that aren’t written by a company that has vested interest in proving their way correct. You should look at peer reviewed journal articles.

This is iOS Lucy Caulkins got big. Welcome to another cycle.

[Anonymous]

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

A few years from now they'll finally realize she was actually right and this is just another money grab to sell more textbooks.

Couldn't agree more. Most teachers know that learning methodology swings on a pendulum. The best ones implement whatever is in fashion enough to please admin while plugging/sneaking in the tried and true methods (phonics, etc.) in their daily planning.

“Why Johnny can’t read” is a book published in 1955. Its thesis is that whole word literacy instruction is ineffective and does not properly prepare students for higher-level texts.

So maybe this is a pendulum swing but the pendulum was going the other way for a good seventy years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Johnny_Can't_Read?wprov=sfti1

you obviously arent in education. It's been like 3-4 pendulum swings since then.

Here's an informative graph showing reading instruction methods in the US since the 1700s. The Y axis shows a ranking of whether the reading method being taught is "meaning based" (whole word by sight method- show a kid the word "bath" and tell them "this word says "bath") or "sound based" (analytic phonics - teaching kids that B says /b/ and A says /a/ and TH says /th/ and how to blend three sounds together.

https://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/ReadingInstrGraph.html

Why Johnny Can't read came out in the mid 50s in response to the "dick and Jane trend starting in the 30s, but we honestly haven't yet recovered. I learned to read in the 70s and do remember phonics being taught, though, but not very explicitly, in reading class. We did use a basic spelling book though that seems like it covered most of the basics through grade 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t the public school districts use a curriculum that is good and is already being used at top private schools? Is it inherently more expensive? What is stopping them for going adopting such curriculum? Why keep experimenting on our kids? Private school parents seem happy with their schools so why not adopt something that is working for someone ?

Even top private schools were using Lucy Caulkins. They're not perfect. Don't fool yourself.

Yeah it’s weird. Our school (Little Langley) uses Lucy Caulkins in K. One hour of reading workshop and one hour of writing workshop every day. But they also do one hour of phonics every day. And DS, who went in knowing a handful of sight words, uses the approach of sounding out new words when reading or trying to spell. And has learned that “ou” makes this type of sound, “ew” makes that type of sound. They do learn sight words too.