APS Lucy Calkins- how does this happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

DP. Growth mindset sounds like a good idea but doesn't actually help. SEL is the same, sounds like good but in practice doesn't help and, depending on the specific version, can harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

People would be surprised to know how little some people do with their kids. Some have no reading material in their homes. No books, papers, nothing. There have been studies showing that seeing their parents read is an incentive to learn to read. My dad was a bookworm. I can remember watching him deep in a book and wishing I could do that. Of course, my parents also read lots of books to me and trips to the library were a weekly event to pick out new books to read. Money was very tight in my house, but the library was free.

And, today, with screens so readily at hand, there is less conversation with kids. When my kids were small, we talked about the signs we saw when we were driving. What does a red light mean? That type of thing. Some people do not do that naturally.

I was taught when crossing a street to always make eye contact with a driver before crossing. I stop at crosswalks, but how many people do you see walking in them that never look up from their phones?

This is parenting. Some kids do not get good parenting. FWIW, all children can learn. Some learn faster than others and I taught many Title I kids who were extremely bright and did have good parents who happened to be extremely poor. Unfortunately, I taught more Title I kids who suffered from poor parenting.

Ideally the schools could help make up for that, but it's a tall order. As your example suggests, learning academic skills isn't just about being exposed to good teaching; it's also about values and what's happening at home. Some parents simply couldn't help their kids even if they wanted to. I was one who was raised on TV and didn't have many of the fortunate experiences you describe, but I somehow sorted myself out later and now am the parent I wish I had. I think more kids would be more interested in school if academic skills were introduced and emphasized earlier so that they had some basic strengths to build on. Instead they get the play-based learning fad which will hurt the kids with uninvolved parents the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

DP. Growth mindset sounds like a good idea but doesn't actually help. SEL is the same, sounds like good but in practice doesn't help and, depending on the specific version, can harm.

NP this describes almost all of teaching methodology. Sounds good but in practice doesn't work. That's what happens when all the decisions about how we teach are made by people who don't actually teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

It's both part of SEL and separate. Self-regulation and executive functions. It's not the concepts themselves but how they are discussed and ideas for how to intervene. Basically SR/EFs have been thought to be more trainable with quick interventions/accommodations, but it's much more complex than it seems and evidence is weak. The most extreme example is the use of EF apps. There are no quick fixes. A lot of kids show poor self-regulation/ and "EFs" because they lack a wide variety of skills and knowledge that need to be taught/emphasized/practiced in order to stick. Of course, there are also children who have actual brain-based deficits, which is something else entirely but gets confounded in discussions of SR/EF skills.

I know there are many schools out there with some form of SR/EF curricula, but not sure about FCPS (my child isn't in FCPS yet). I'd be curious to know how much time/$ is spent on anything SR/EF related in FCPS and what the results have been. I'm of the mind that you can skip all the SR/EF talk and just teach kids the specific knowledge/skills you want them to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

It's both part of SEL and separate. Self-regulation and executive functions. It's not the concepts themselves but how they are discussed and ideas for how to intervene. Basically SR/EFs have been thought to be more trainable with quick interventions/accommodations, but it's much more complex than it seems and evidence is weak. The most extreme example is the use of EF apps. There are no quick fixes. A lot of kids show poor self-regulation/ and "EFs" because they lack a wide variety of skills and knowledge that need to be taught/emphasized/practiced in order to stick. Of course, there are also children who have actual brain-based deficits, which is something else entirely but gets confounded in discussions of SR/EF skills.

I know there are many schools out there with some form of SR/EF curricula, but not sure about FCPS (my child isn't in FCPS yet). I'd be curious to know how much time/$ is spent on anything SR/EF related in FCPS and what the results have been. I'm of the mind that you can skip all the SR/EF talk and just teach kids the specific knowledge/skills you want them to know.

I am really, really curious about all this and I'm wondering if you can tell me how I can find out more? Is there an organization or a researcher who has done work on this you can point me to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

It's both part of SEL and separate. Self-regulation and executive functions. It's not the concepts themselves but how they are discussed and ideas for how to intervene. Basically SR/EFs have been thought to be more trainable with quick interventions/accommodations, but it's much more complex than it seems and evidence is weak. The most extreme example is the use of EF apps. There are no quick fixes. A lot of kids show poor self-regulation/ and "EFs" because they lack a wide variety of skills and knowledge that need to be taught/emphasized/practiced in order to stick. Of course, there are also children who have actual brain-based deficits, which is something else entirely but gets confounded in discussions of SR/EF skills.

I know there are many schools out there with some form of SR/EF curricula, but not sure about FCPS (my child isn't in FCPS yet). I'd be curious to know how much time/$ is spent on anything SR/EF related in FCPS and what the results have been. I'm of the mind that you can skip all the SR/EF talk and just teach kids the specific knowledge/skills you want them to know.

I am really, really curious about all this and I'm wondering if you can tell me how I can find out more? Is there an organization or a researcher who has done work on this you can point me to?

Curious about what part? Researcher who has done work on...? If you elaborate I may be able to point you to something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

If you would rather not give more specifics I understand, but if you are willing to go into more detail I'd love to hear more.

DP. Growth mindset sounds like a good idea but doesn't actually help. SEL is the same, sounds like good but in practice doesn't help and, depending on the specific version, can harm.

NP this describes almost all of teaching methodology. Sounds good but in practice doesn't work. That's what happens when all the decisions about how we teach are made by people who don't actually teach.

The problem is that researchers often oversell their findings, so they sound like they'd solve a lot of problems with little effort. But what I don't understand is why it hasn't become obvious yet that there are no quick fixes. It's just wishful thinking. I'm also not convinced of what someone said earlier on this thread, that some kids don't do well with phonics and need other approaches. I think that's part of the problem--thinking that there needs to be something special and new to help the kids who just can't learn with conventional approaches, or who have the wrong "mindset".

How much time has growth mindset interventions taken up in FCPS? Is it just one-off presentations or are kids actually devoting time to this? Honest question (my kid isn't in FCPS yet.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

Responsive classroom?

[Anonymous]

The problem is that researchers often oversell their findings, so they sound like they'd solve a lot of problems with little effort. But what I don't understand is why it hasn't become obvious yet that there are no quick fixes. It's just wishful thinking. I'm also not convinced of what someone said earlier on this thread, that some kids don't do well with phonics and need other approaches. I think that's part of the problem--thinking that there needs to be something special and new to help the kids who just can't learn with conventional approaches, or who have the wrong "mindse

1. When I was in grad school, one of my professors stressed the "halo effect" for pilot programs. Pilot programs are frequently successful because of the motivation and attention given to them. That leads to "overselling" the findings.
When a program makes it to the classroom without all the bells and whistles, then reality sets in.

2. I said that some kids struggle with phonics in a post earlier. (I taught hundreds of kids to read in first grade and K.) Some kids have auditory processing issues. That does not mean that we don't teach them phonics--it just means that instruction should not be limited to phonics. Sight words have their place. Context clues have their place. But, there is no question that phonics should be the premier teaching tool for reading instruction. There are people who are posting who think that nothing but phonics should be taught. Phonics should be the backbone, but there are other things that kids should learn in order to read with comprehension.

Rhyming words is a first step.

Some kids also have visual processing issues. If they cannot sort out "alike" and "different" with letters, they are not going to learn the sounds of those letters. These are the baby steps that most people on here take for granted--but if children have not been exposed to rich language and visual stimulation of printed materials, there are many steps that must be taken in order to teach them to read.

If you are an English speaker, take some time and look at Chinese characters or Arabic and see how easy it is to distinguish them from one another. If a child has not been exposed to letters, it is not automatic. It must be taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You probably learned to read like the rest of us from Sesame Street and the Electric Company - which taught phonics. Or perhaps you are gifted and lucky. It took me a couple of weeks of 1st grade to learn to read and I distinctly remember being taught from worksheets that were phonics based.

We aren't talking about people like you and me though. We are talking about the majority of people in the United States who don't learn as easily. It will be a catastrophe to have a large part of an entire generation who don't read comfortably or fluently.

A huge part of the problem is localized school control. It creates these curriculum companies that make huge profits off of selling very expensive curriculums to many different school districts. Many of these curriculums aren't based in the science of learning - they are based on fads.

It's not that the majority doesn't learn as easily, it's that they simply aren't being taught anything at home. I have a career and taught my son to read during the pandemic. It was not easy but I was lucky my job was somewhat flexible so that I could make up my work time after hours. My son isn't special or gifted--he was simply given the opportunity to learn. That said, it requires time, dedication, values, and knowledge on the part of parents. Many kids don't have access to any of that. But the sad truth is that the kids will then go to school with zero academic skills (and also poor self-regulation) and will struggle to learn, not because they can't but because they are already behind and teachers can only do so much...

But yes, if once they get to school they are met with faddish curricula, all the worse. I am a researcher with expertise on a topic that is currently a fad in the elementary schools, so I know how that goes. I wish they would invest more time in basic academic skills using evidence based approaches and skip the fads.

What is the fad?

It's related to self-regulation. It's not the concept that is a fad but the implementation.

Responsive classroom?

No but yikes. They need a curriculum for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that researchers often oversell their findings, so they sound like they'd solve a lot of problems with little effort. But what I don't understand is why it hasn't become obvious yet that there are no quick fixes. It's just wishful thinking. I'm also not convinced of what someone said earlier on this thread, that some kids don't do well with phonics and need other approaches. I think that's part of the problem--thinking that there needs to be something special and new to help the kids who just can't learn with conventional approaches, or who have the wrong "mindse

1. When I was in grad school, one of my professors stressed the "halo effect" for pilot programs. Pilot programs are frequently successful because of the motivation and attention given to them. That leads to "overselling" the findings.
When a program makes it to the classroom without all the bells and whistles, then reality sets in.

2. I said that some kids struggle with phonics in a post earlier. (I taught hundreds of kids to read in first grade and K.) Some kids have auditory processing issues. That does not mean that we don't teach them phonics--it just means that instruction should not be limited to phonics. Sight words have their place. Context clues have their place. But, there is no question that phonics should be the premier teaching tool for reading instruction. There are people who are posting who think that nothing but phonics should be taught. Phonics should be the backbone, but there are other things that kids should learn in order to read with comprehension.

Rhyming words is a first step.

Some kids also have visual processing issues. If they cannot sort out "alike" and "different" with letters, they are not going to learn the sounds of those letters. These are the baby steps that most people on here take for granted--but if children have not been exposed to rich language and visual stimulation of printed materials, there are many steps that must be taken in order to teach them to read.

If you are an English speaker, take some time and look at Chinese characters or Arabic and see how easy it is to distinguish them from one another. If a child has not been exposed to letters, it is not automatic. It must be taught.

Interesting, thanks. I totally understand there will be kids who have difficulty with sensory/visual processing and therefore issues with phonics, but this should be rather exceptional, no? I taught my son solely using phonics (sound/letter matching with pictures I drew!) And the rest he got from using early readers frequently and we learned about words that couldn't quite be sounded out but we never spent much time "studying" sight words. I'm not trying to suggest that what worked for him would work for everyone but phonics really seems foundational. One interesting thing I discovered recently (that you probably already know) is that phonics is baked into the alphabet! Many (most?) letters in the alphabet originated as pictures/symbols that corresponded to some object whose name had relevant sound. So for example, 'A' is 'aleph' which means ox ('A' originated as a pictograph of an ox head).

Re: the halo effect for pilots, no doubt. Also, researchers careers loom large. Lucy Calkins is a prime example. I don't want to lump Carol Dweck in with Calkins, but there are many scientists who are more interested in getting famous and making $ than properly testing their theories and interventions before they are unleashed on the world.

[Anonymous]

I totally understand there will be kids who have difficulty with sensory/visual processing and therefore issues with phonics, but this should be rather exceptional, no?

It should be exceptional, but is far more common than you realize. Of course, there are some with extreme issues with auditory and visual processing, but there are a lot of kids who struggle with it to a lesser degree.

It is difficult to realize just how deprived some of these kids are. Think about it--if you have never been exposed to nursery rhymes, then rhyming words with a different beginning letter is a foreign concept. Yes, kids can learn it, but it has to be taught. While some kids have had this with them since infancy, for others it is a new concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I totally understand there will be kids who have difficulty with sensory/visual processing and therefore issues with phonics, but this should be rather exceptional, no?

It should be exceptional, but is far more common than you realize. Of course, there are some with extreme issues with auditory and visual processing, but there are a lot of kids who struggle with it to a lesser degree.

It is difficult to realize just how deprived some of these kids are. Think about it--if you have never been exposed to nursery rhymes, then rhyming words with a different beginning letter is a foreign concept. Yes, kids can learn it, but it has to be taught. While some kids have had this with them since infancy, for others it is a new concept.

I can only imagine. I distinctly remember the phase where my child didn't know anything about rhyming and it took a while for the concept to sink in. And I remember having fun with teaching the rhyming of words with different first letters. We used a lot of nonsense words to make it fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that researchers often oversell their findings, so they sound like they'd solve a lot of problems with little effort. But what I don't understand is why it hasn't become obvious yet that there are no quick fixes. It's just wishful thinking. I'm also not convinced of what someone said earlier on this thread, that some kids don't do well with phonics and need other approaches. I think that's part of the problem--thinking that there needs to be something special and new to help the kids who just can't learn with conventional approaches, or who have the wrong "mindse

1. When I was in grad school, one of my professors stressed the "halo effect" for pilot programs. Pilot programs are frequently successful because of the motivation and attention given to them. That leads to "overselling" the findings.
When a program makes it to the classroom without all the bells and whistles, then reality sets in.

2. I said that some kids struggle with phonics in a post earlier. (I taught hundreds of kids to read in first grade and K.) Some kids have auditory processing issues. That does not mean that we don't teach them phonics--it just means that instruction should not be limited to phonics. Sight words have their place. Context clues have their place. But, there is no question that phonics should be the premier teaching tool for reading instruction. There are people who are posting who think that nothing but phonics should be taught. Phonics should be the backbone, but there are other things that kids should learn in order to read with comprehension.

Rhyming words is a first step.

Some kids also have visual processing issues. If they cannot sort out "alike" and "different" with letters, they are not going to learn the sounds of those letters. These are the baby steps that most people on here take for granted--but if children have not been exposed to rich language and visual stimulation of printed materials, there are many steps that must be taken in order to teach them to read.

If you are an English speaker, take some time and look at Chinese characters or Arabic and see how easy it is to distinguish them from one another. If a child has not been exposed to letters, it is not automatic. It must be taught.

Interesting, thanks. I totally understand there will be kids who have difficulty with sensory/visual processing and therefore issues with phonics, but this should be rather exceptional, no? I taught my son solely using phonics (sound/letter matching with pictures I drew!) And the rest he got from using early readers frequently and we learned about words that couldn't quite be sounded out but we never spent much time "studying" sight words. I'm not trying to suggest that what worked for him would work for everyone but phonics really seems foundational. One interesting thing I discovered recently (that you probably already know) is that phonics is baked into the alphabet! Many (most?) letters in the alphabet originated as pictures/symbols that corresponded to some object whose name had relevant sound. So for example, 'A' is 'aleph' which means ox ('A' originated as a pictograph of an ox head).

Re: the halo effect for pilots, no doubt. Also, researchers careers loom large. Lucy Calkins is a prime example. I don't want to lump Carol Dweck in with Calkins, but there are many scientists who are more interested in getting famous and making $ than properly testing their theories and interventions before they are unleashed on the world.

DP. I posted up thread about my anecdotal experience. I taught both of my kids to read at 4-4.5 before kindergarten. They both already knew their letters, sounds and names. They both could already rhyme and clap syllables. I bought some highly regarded phonics readers (MCP, excellent books) and my first read through them and then was a fluent reader entering kindergarten. My second couldn't make heads or tales of CVC. Just didn't even know where to start, he didn't get it. So I bought some newer readers that used the "Look at the _____ snake, truck, caterpillar" with pictures and he got the idea. Then we went back to the phonics readers and then he had the idea and read through them and was a fluent reader.

No issues with dyslexia or visual processing or a vocabulary poor environment. Just a different sort of brain than his brother. He needed phonics and something else, too.