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.

Exposing a young child to letters, numbers, words, books is not pushing early reading. It's not much different than what all good parents do which is label their world.

[Anonymous]

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

+1 same in 4th grade.

Remedial phonics plus read aloud groups for reading class.

Disappointed to hear that the students were mainly reading to themselves since grade 2 onward and answering comp questions in small groups. Teacher only listened once ever 45-60 days to check versus national averages. What a goal!