S/O: what to do, given that so many schools use Lucy Calkins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster from the Lucy Calkins thread with the 1st grader who is very smart but is struggling with reading and writing.

She is not behind in reading, per se, but given that she tested at 135 FSIQ on the WPPSI with no dips in abilities, I’m not thrilled that she’s currently only able to read level D/E books with some assistance from me.

Her writing is more concerning, though. Her school uses the Handwriting without Tears program, but she still forms letters in very non-conventional ways and often reverses them. I know that’s not out of the range of normal, but she’ll turn 7 in October. My understanding is it’s only normal through 7.

She is in speech therapy and receives Orton-Gillingham tutoring. We also have a neuropsych eval scheduled for October.

I know we will end up learning a lot from that eval, but if there aren’t underlying issues like dyslexia or dysgraphia, how do we make sure she reaches her potential for reading and writing? We can keep up with tutoring, but how effective will that be, if it’s being undermined by ineffective classroom instruction?

Her school seems to use a combination of LC and more phonics-based approaches. Moreover, it seems like switching schools might not help, since so many of them use LC to some extent.

OMG you seriously need to chill. It’s not a switch on and off at 7. There’s a lot of brain wiring that need to happen for reading to click, and some education experts think we push it too soon here in the US, traumatizing all the kids whose brains aren’t quite ready at 5 or 6, and turning them off reading. In Finland, they don’t START teaching reading until 7 and Finnish kids score among the highest in tests of reading proficiency.

Even children who start reading young may not master other important elements u til much later. My eldest started reading at 2. Taught himself after he figured out letter,phonics. But his ability to create pictures in his mind while he read didn’t totally click until late second grade. He has an IQ of 157.

You sound conscientious but also highly anxious. Level D/E at her age is fine. High IQ is not essentially correlated with precocious reading ability. All kids converge around age 8/9 and that’s when you can start seeing the giftedness emerge. My eldest now reads super fast and with unusual comprehension and understanding of emotional nuances.

Please get help for your anxiety now before you damage your child.

The learning specialist at her school and her O-G reading tutor flagged concerns. She also has moderate to severe articulation issues, which is why she’s in speech therapy.

But thanks for your “concerns” about my anxiety.

And no, all kids do not converge at age 8/9. Some kids have underlying issues. Abilities differ. This whole notion all kids will eventually end up on the same level is completely misguided.

You previously presented your child has having a high FSIQ and having no dips in abilities. You said you were dissatisfied with her reading level given that she's smart. You did not share that she had been flagged as having reading issues.

Of course that's a different case. If she does have such issues, it's not about reading being taught poorly at her school(s). It's about meeting her special needs. You presented her as smart and underperforming potentially due to poor instruction at her school. Now it's because she has may have underlying learning disabilities.

Yes, most neurotypical kids do converge on reading around age 8/9. I certainly should have qualified that to except neurodivergent children. However, you were quite disingenuous in how you presented your daughter's reading challenges. If your OG reading tutor has flagged concerns, there's clearly something else besides poor curriculum/teaching going on.

I was not being disingenuous at all. We are in the process of figuring out what is going on.

Everyone on this thread seems to get that except for you.

Sorry but the above poster is right. If there are underlying learning issues, the curriculum is sort of irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster from the Lucy Calkins thread with the 1st grader who is very smart but is struggling with reading and writing.

She is not behind in reading, per se, but given that she tested at 135 FSIQ on the WPPSI with no dips in abilities, I’m not thrilled that she’s currently only able to read level D/E books with some assistance from me.

Her writing is more concerning, though. Her school uses the Handwriting without Tears program, but she still forms letters in very non-conventional ways and often reverses them. I know that’s not out of the range of normal, but she’ll turn 7 in October. My understanding is it’s only normal through 7.

She is in speech therapy and receives Orton-Gillingham tutoring. We also have a neuropsych eval scheduled for October.

I know we will end up learning a lot from that eval, but if there aren’t underlying issues like dyslexia or dysgraphia, how do we make sure she reaches her potential for reading and writing? We can keep up with tutoring, but how effective will that be, if it’s being undermined by ineffective classroom instruction?

Her school seems to use a combination of LC and more phonics-based approaches. Moreover, it seems like switching schools might not help, since so many of them use LC to some extent.

OMG you seriously need to chill. It’s not a switch on and off at 7. There’s a lot of brain wiring that need to happen for reading to click, and some education experts think we push it too soon here in the US, traumatizing all the kids whose brains aren’t quite ready at 5 or 6, and turning them off reading. In Finland, they don’t START teaching reading until 7 and Finnish kids score among the highest in tests of reading proficiency.

Even children who start reading young may not master other important elements u til much later. My eldest started reading at 2. Taught himself after he figured out letter,phonics. But his ability to create pictures in his mind while he read didn’t totally click until late second grade. He has an IQ of 157.

You sound conscientious but also highly anxious. Level D/E at her age is fine. High IQ is not essentially correlated with precocious reading ability. All kids converge around age 8/9 and that’s when you can start seeing the giftedness emerge. My eldest now reads super fast and with unusual comprehension and understanding of emotional nuances.

Please get help for your anxiety now before you damage your child.

The learning specialist at her school and her O-G reading tutor flagged concerns. She also has moderate to severe articulation issues, which is why she’s in speech therapy.

But thanks for your “concerns” about my anxiety.

And no, all kids do not converge at age 8/9. Some kids have underlying issues. Abilities differ. This whole notion all kids will eventually end up on the same level is completely misguided.

You previously presented your child has having a high FSIQ and having no dips in abilities. You said you were dissatisfied with her reading level given that she's smart. You did not share that she had been flagged as having reading issues.

Of course that's a different case. If she does have such issues, it's not about reading being taught poorly at her school(s). It's about meeting her special needs. You presented her as smart and underperforming potentially due to poor instruction at her school. Now it's because she has may have underlying learning disabilities.

Yes, most neurotypical kids do converge on reading around age 8/9. I certainly should have qualified that to except neurodivergent children. However, you were quite disingenuous in how you presented your daughter's reading challenges. If your OG reading tutor has flagged concerns, there's clearly something else besides poor curriculum/teaching going on.

I was not being disingenuous at all. We are in the process of figuring out what is going on.

Everyone on this thread seems to get that except for you.

Sorry but the above poster is right. If there are underlying learning issues, the curriculum is sort of irrelevant.

Yes, but I wasn’t being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster from the Lucy Calkins thread with the 1st grader who is very smart but is struggling with reading and writing.

She is not behind in reading, per se, but given that she tested at 135 FSIQ on the WPPSI with no dips in abilities, I’m not thrilled that she’s currently only able to read level D/E books with some assistance from me.

Her writing is more concerning, though. Her school uses the Handwriting without Tears program, but she still forms letters in very non-conventional ways and often reverses them. I know that’s not out of the range of normal, but she’ll turn 7 in October. My understanding is it’s only normal through 7.

She is in speech therapy and receives Orton-Gillingham tutoring. We also have a neuropsych eval scheduled for October.

I know we will end up learning a lot from that eval, but if there aren’t underlying issues like dyslexia or dysgraphia, how do we make sure she reaches her potential for reading and writing? We can keep up with tutoring, but how effective will that be, if it’s being undermined by ineffective classroom instruction?

Her school seems to use a combination of LC and more phonics-based approaches. Moreover, it seems like switching schools might not help, since so many of them use LC to some extent.

OMG you seriously need to chill. It’s not a switch on and off at 7. There’s a lot of brain wiring that need to happen for reading to click, and some education experts think we push it too soon here in the US, traumatizing all the kids whose brains aren’t quite ready at 5 or 6, and turning them off reading. In Finland, they don’t START teaching reading until 7 and Finnish kids score among the highest in tests of reading proficiency.

Even children who start reading young may not master other important elements u til much later. My eldest started reading at 2. Taught himself after he figured out letter,phonics. But his ability to create pictures in his mind while he read didn’t totally click until late second grade. He has an IQ of 157.

You sound conscientious but also highly anxious. Level D/E at her age is fine. High IQ is not essentially correlated with precocious reading ability. All kids converge around age 8/9 and that’s when you can start seeing the giftedness emerge. My eldest now reads super fast and with unusual comprehension and understanding of emotional nuances.

Please get help for your anxiety now before you damage your child.

The learning specialist at her school and her O-G reading tutor flagged concerns. She also has moderate to severe articulation issues, which is why she’s in speech therapy.

But thanks for your “concerns” about my anxiety.

And no, all kids do not converge at age 8/9. Some kids have underlying issues. Abilities differ. This whole notion all kids will eventually end up on the same level is completely misguided.

You previously presented your child has having a high FSIQ and having no dips in abilities. You said you were dissatisfied with her reading level given that she's smart. You did not share that she had been flagged as having reading issues.

Of course that's a different case. If she does have such issues, it's not about reading being taught poorly at her school(s). It's about meeting her special needs. You presented her as smart and underperforming potentially due to poor instruction at her school. Now it's because she has may have underlying learning disabilities.

Yes, most neurotypical kids do converge on reading around age 8/9. I certainly should have qualified that to except neurodivergent children. However, you were quite disingenuous in how you presented your daughter's reading challenges. If your OG reading tutor has flagged concerns, there's clearly something else besides poor curriculum/teaching going on.

I was not being disingenuous at all. We are in the process of figuring out what is going on.

Everyone on this thread seems to get that except for you.

Sorry but the above poster is right. If there are underlying learning issues, the curriculum is sort of irrelevant.

Yes, but I wasn’t being disingenuous.

Fine, you were being misleading.

[Anonymous]

What about having your child watch a phonics-based television show from back in the day, like Electric Company?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the poster from the Lucy Calkins thread with the 1st grader who is very smart but is struggling with reading and writing.

She is not behind in reading, per se, but given that she tested at 135 FSIQ on the WPPSI with no dips in abilities, I’m not thrilled that she’s currently only able to read level D/E books with some assistance from me.

Her writing is more concerning, though. Her school uses the Handwriting without Tears program, but she still forms letters in very non-conventional ways and often reverses them. I know that’s not out of the range of normal, but she’ll turn 7 in October. My understanding is it’s only normal through 7.

She is in speech therapy and receives Orton-Gillingham tutoring. We also have a neuropsych eval scheduled for October.

I know we will end up learning a lot from that eval, but if there aren’t underlying issues like dyslexia or dysgraphia, how do we make sure she reaches her potential for reading and writing? We can keep up with tutoring, but how effective will that be, if it’s being undermined by ineffective classroom instruction?

Her school seems to use a combination of LC and more phonics-based approaches. Moreover, it seems like switching schools might not help, since so many of them use LC to some extent.

OMG you seriously need to chill. It’s not a switch on and off at 7. There’s a lot of brain wiring that need to happen for reading to click, and some education experts think we push it too soon here in the US, traumatizing all the kids whose brains aren’t quite ready at 5 or 6, and turning them off reading. In Finland, they don’t START teaching reading until 7 and Finnish kids score among the highest in tests of reading proficiency.

Even children who start reading young may not master other important elements u til much later. My eldest started reading at 2. Taught himself after he figured out letter,phonics. But his ability to create pictures in his mind while he read didn’t totally click until late second grade. He has an IQ of 157.

You sound conscientious but also highly anxious. Level D/E at her age is fine. High IQ is not essentially correlated with precocious reading ability. All kids converge around age 8/9 and that’s when you can start seeing the giftedness emerge. My eldest now reads super fast and with unusual comprehension and understanding of emotional nuances.

Please get help for your anxiety now before you damage your child.

The learning specialist at her school and her O-G reading tutor flagged concerns. She also has moderate to severe articulation issues, which is why she’s in speech therapy.

But thanks for your “concerns” about my anxiety.

And no, all kids do not converge at age 8/9. Some kids have underlying issues. Abilities differ. This whole notion all kids will eventually end up on the same level is completely misguided.

You previously presented your child has having a high FSIQ and having no dips in abilities. You said you were dissatisfied with her reading level given that she's smart. You did not share that she had been flagged as having reading issues.

Of course that's a different case. If she does have such issues, it's not about reading being taught poorly at her school(s). It's about meeting her special needs. You presented her as smart and underperforming potentially due to poor instruction at her school. Now it's because she has may have underlying learning disabilities.

Yes, most neurotypical kids do converge on reading around age 8/9. I certainly should have qualified that to except neurodivergent children. However, you were quite disingenuous in how you presented your daughter's reading challenges. If your OG reading tutor has flagged concerns, there's clearly something else besides poor curriculum/teaching going on.

I was not being disingenuous at all. We are in the process of figuring out what is going on.

Everyone on this thread seems to get that except for you.

Sorry but the above poster is right. If there are underlying learning issues, the curriculum is sort of irrelevant.

Yes, but I wasn’t being disingenuous.

Fine, you were being misleading.

No. I was describing the situation. You can choose to be constructive or not in how you react.

[Anonymous]

Apologies if someone already mentioned this, but I highly recommend ordering “Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons.” It teaches phonics and blending. I taught both my children to read this way during the pandemic and it was far easier than I would have expected. You just follow the instructions and go as quickly or slowly as your child wants. No tutor needed.

[Anonymous]

My tier list for at-home intervention:

Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons

if that doesn't seem to be working

All About Reading, which is probably the most comprehensive program readily implementable at home for parents of dylexics. Next step is

Orton- Gillingham tutoring (there are multiple flavors). Would suggest attending at least some of the lessons yourself, so you can better work with the kid at home. If this fails, then

Lindamood-Bell, the last resort. LB can reach severely dyslexic kids whom other programs can't. *Extremely* intensive. Hours a day, five days a week, which helps explain why it's also *extremely* expensive. Friend says she spent the equivalent of buying a house, but at the end she had a kid who could read.

[Anonymous]

I'm tier lady from above, and I will add a few thoughts:

Lucy Caulkins actively encourages bad habits: look at the first letter and guess, examine context clues, etc. So whatever you do at home will be undermined by the school. (I don't have explicit data for Lucy Caulkins, but Reading Recovery, a popular balanced literacy reading intervention program, has been shown in studies to leave children worse off in the long term, and they do the same sorts of things.)

Using a balanced literacy like Caulkins should be a flag of deepest red hue when it comes to a school. It was easier to ignore the evidence a few years ago; but now this is even less tenable. You know that the school is using a terrible reading program - with what certainty can you say that their other curricula are better?

Find something else. Heck, the fundamentalist school down the street may be teaching that the world is only seven thousand years old, but their students are going to be able to read evidence against this without as much outside intervention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm tier lady from above, and I will add a few thoughts:

Lucy Caulkins actively encourages bad habits: look at the first letter and guess, examine context clues, etc. So whatever you do at home will be undermined by the school. (I don't have explicit data for Lucy Caulkins, but Reading Recovery, a popular balanced literacy reading intervention program, has been shown in studies to leave children worse off in the long term, and they do the same sorts of things.)

Using a balanced literacy like Caulkins should be a flag of deepest red hue when it comes to a school. It was easier to ignore the evidence a few years ago; but now this is even less tenable. You know that the school is using a terrible reading program - with what certainty can you say that their other curricula are better?

Find something else. Heck, the fundamentalist school down the street may be teaching that the world is only seven thousand years old, but their students are going to be able to read evidence against this without as much outside intervention.

Great point. Which fundamentalist school is this so we can check it out?

[Anonymous]

If your child doesn't have significant learning differences, it's not super complicated to reinforce phonics at home in the early years