Is DCPS tanking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: These early reading children had a level of fluency in reading and had acquired a breadth of substantive knowledge thru their reading that makes it difficult for other kids to "catch up."

This is just not true. There's a wide range of normal with respect to when kids (including smart kids) start reading and, ultimately, it makes little or no difference in whether a kid starts reading for content in 1st or 3rd grade. Teaching your kid to read as soon as possible may yield bragging rights in the short-term, but not much else. If you look at the kids who are at the top of their class at the end of high school, you're going to see a different group than the ones who were reading before 1st grade. (Some overlap, of course, but there will be lots of kids who weren't early readers and a number of early readers will be missing).

Long story short, don't choose a school based on how early it teaches reading. And don't worry that your kid will be left in the dust if s/he doesn't read fluently by the end of 1st grade. Pushing a kid to read can really turn kids off of reading. And leading a kid to believe that early reading is a sign of his or her intellectual superiority can lead to a real let down by 3rd grade when being able to read ceases to be a noteworthy accomplishment.

It's not how fast or soon you read that matters, it's how well. And reading isn't just about decoding -- it's about interpretation, sensitivity to nuances of language, the ability to analyze how a text is put together, etc. A kid who is read to in the early elementary school years may be learning more of those kinds of skills than a kid who is being pushed to read for him or herself.

Actually, all the data suggests that 3rd grade is a very significant year for reading. Children that are having trouble reading in 3rd grade are at a very high risk of being poor readers by 8th grade. And children that are poor readers in 8th have the highest likelihood of dropping out.

Not that I don't understand and appreciate your argument that those who are the first to read are not necessarily the best readers. However, your facts are not straight. Those who are struggling in 3rd are in REAL trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Long story short, don't choose a school based on how early it teaches reading.

But what if your child IS reading early, independently of the school? Are the DC public schools going to be teaching reading in kindergarten to the children who already know the letters and their sounds? According to 21:59, it doesn't sound like they were willing to differentiate much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Long story short, don't choose a school based on how early it teaches reading.

But what if your child IS reading early, independently of the school? Are the DC public schools going to be teaching reading in kindergarten to the children who already know the letters and their sounds? According to 21:59, it doesn't sound like they were willing to differentiate much.

Mine started reading in Pre-K, not because of the school but because I taught her. She could be in DCPS, MoCo, Fairfax, or Beauvoir and I'd still be the most important reading teacher she'll ever have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Those who are struggling in 3rd are in REAL trouble.

Yes, that's why I said it didn't matter if they were reading for content in 1st vs 3rd. 3rd wasn't some randomly chosen grade on my part. And the context of the discussion here was the claim that your kid could be irredeemably behind in the earliest years of elementary school.

[Anonymous]

I don't think that K necessarily has to teach early readers a differentiated curriculum. DD learned to read-- by herself-- at 3.5 and entered K reading for content. She wasn't bored in private Pre-K because they taught other things that reading hadn't shown her, like how to differentiate and describe different kinds of leaves or flowers or zoo animals, how to build things, how to create and describe new colors of paint. Letter lessons didn't bother her even though she could read and comprehend at a higher level.

Fortunately k is language immersion, and she has plenty to learn even as a kindergartener reading at around 2d/3d grade level. She isn't bored and the language is part of why. The other part is that school is more than reading.

Don't be fooled that the readers are the "most academically advanced" kindergarteners or that they have nothing else to learn. Kids learn many, many skills and concepts in early education, but we parents have a hard time distinguishing them because they seem so much more basic or abstract than reading, which the kids can demonstrate before your eyes.

So your kid reads early-- mine too. So your kid does math early-- mine too. In K they are learning to learn and learning to be students. Very few children are too "advanced" to need that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: These early reading children had a level of fluency in reading and had acquired a breadth of substantive knowledge thru their reading that makes it difficult for other kids to "catch up."

This is just not true. There's a wide range of normal with respect to when kids (including smart kids) start reading and, ultimately, it makes little or no difference in whether a kid starts reading for content in 1st or 3rd grade. Teaching your kid to read as soon as possible may yield bragging rights in the short-term, but not much else. If you look at the kids who are at the top of their class at the end of high school, you're going to see a different group than the ones who were reading before 1st grade. (Some overlap, of course, but there will be lots of kids who weren't early readers and a number of early readers will be missing).

Long story short, don't choose a school based on how early it teaches reading. And don't worry that your kid will be left in the dust if s/he doesn't read fluently by the end of 1st grade. Pushing a kid to read can really turn kids off of reading. And leading a kid to believe that early reading is a sign of his or her intellectual superiority can lead to a real let down by 3rd grade when being able to read ceases to be a noteworthy accomplishment.

It's not how fast or soon you read that matters, it's how well. And reading isn't just about decoding -- it's about interpretation, sensitivity to nuances of language, the ability to analyze how a text is put together, etc. A kid who is read to in the early elementary school years may be learning more of those kinds of skills than a kid who is being pushed to read for him or herself.

I think this would be more persuasive with some data to back it up. Otherwise you can hardly blame the PP for wanting to maintain her DC's early edge in reading.

[Anonymous]

People with the "must maintain DC's early edge" mentality aren't like to be persuaded by data. Eventually, reality whups most of them upside the head and common sense kicks it. After all, what would it mean to have had a 1.5 or 2.5 year "edge" on reading when you are, say 22 -- much less 42? Do anybody know whether/which of the adults you consider intelligent and well-educated were early readers? No -- because it just doesn't matter in the long-run.

Just wanted to give the PP who is worried about her kid starting Pre-K in DCPS next year a different perspective on what is and isn't at stake in that decision. Presumably she'll do her own research, consult her own experience, and make her own decision. But sometimes the neurotic/hypercompetitive groupthink here passes itself off as expertise when it just isn't.

[Anonymous]

So, are you saying there is no data?

Not all of us here are "neurotic/hypercompetitive groupthinkers" you know. Speaking for myself, I just like people to back up their claims with something objective. It's a useful tool in discerning fact from opinion.

For example, it is a an objective fact supported by studies that children who are poor readers in third grade are at high risk for real and serious difficulties in school. The studies are easy to find. Okay, good. I can go fetch a few if necessary.

Now someone is saying that early reading confers no special benefit and that the best readers in, say, high school may be comprised of a different set of "best readers" from early primary.

Okay, that's an interesting assertion. I might be willing to believe it but I don't really know. I'd certainly like to see some data please, a study to substantiate the claim. Otherwise it's just an assertion unsupported by (for all I know) anything other than your personal wish for it to be true.

I'm not asking to be a pain in the *ss, you know. It's not an unreasonable request.

[Anonymous]

It's the asymmetry of the request for data that struck me. Both positions (must maintain early edge vs. early reading doesn't predict later performance) were assertions, yet you'll assume one and require proof for the other.

I suggested consulting your own experience. Mine (as a student, as a teacher, as a colleague, and as a parent) has been pretty consistent.

Some early readers read early because they are very smart and self-directed and those early readers remain smart and self-directed. Other early readers read early because they or their parents are really invested in them reading early. I've seen many of those kids burn out at various stages along the way because, at a certain point, being able to read is just normal. You don't get praise for it. And the stuff you have to do to stand out is harder to learn (and to teach).

And, of course, there are plenty of smart and self-directed kids who don't read early because they'd rather write or play with numbers or observe nature or analyze what people do and why. And once those kids start reading, they remain smart and self-directed. So they're not much different from the smart and self-directed readers, except that some may have a better developed repertoire of other ways of acquiring and analyzing information.

Has your experience been different?

[Anonymous]

YAWN....

Can we say that DCPS sucks now or not?

[Anonymous]

Oh and re academic studies. No, I don't expect to find research saying "early reading doesn't matter." Studies have to get funded and they have consequences in the real world. For both reasons, it seems unlikely that this kind of research would be undertaken. Very lucrative industries have grown up around teaching reading and no ed school prof wasn't to be the person cited for the proposition that early reading isn't significant.

For what it's worth, the pro-early reading studies I've seen tend to focus on kids who are considered at risk for academic failure (based on SES, ESL, parents lack of education, etc.) and argue that early intervention to promote reading substantially increases the odds that these kids will stay in school. And, in general, I agree that failure in academic contexts at an early age can have a devastating effect, especially in cases where the family is willing to write off education as a pathway to success (either generally or for a particular kid). That's also why early intervention for learning disabilities is important.

But the flip side of this is if we pathologize normalcy and treat the kid who doesn't read by 1st grade as behind, we grossly overdiagnose learning disabilities and marginalize kids (especially boys) who would have been fine had parents/school systems not been pushing them to read as early as possible.

And, of course, the issue we're talking about has still another layer which is what do you focus on as the markers of academic performance. Are more/faster/ahead/behind really the relevant categories?

[Anonymous]

PP 19:04 here.

You may have me mixed up with another PP, because I have not asserted anything other than that difficulty reading by 3rd grade puts a student at high risk.

Here's some data to support my claim:

"The evidence is strong that young people who are not fluent readers and writers by the end of third grade may never catch up to their peers. Dr. Connie Juel (Univ. of Va.) found that first graders who were not on grade level by the end of the year had only a 1 in 10 chance of ever achieving grade level reading proficiency."

(http://www.cliontheweb.org/investing1.html)

I have not made any claims that the earliest readers are the best readers.

Having said that, see the extract from the journal below:

"On average, absolute performance levels at the end of kindergarten positioned students for trajectories of later reading performance that exceeded the 50th percentile on the majority of measures."

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ796803&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ796803

As for my personal experience, it happens that I was both an early reader and an excellent reader, thus the two are highly correlated from my historical viewpoint. Surely this is irrelevant however, as not only does correlation not equal causation, but more importantly: the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP 19:04 here.

You may have me mixed up with another PP, because I have not asserted anything other than that difficulty reading by 3rd grade puts a student at high risk.

Here's some data to support my claim:

"The evidence is strong that young people who are not fluent readers and writers by the end of third grade may never catch up to their peers. Dr. Connie Juel (Univ. of Va.) found that first graders who were not on grade level by the end of the year had only a 1 in 10 chance of ever achieving grade level reading proficiency."

(http://www.cliontheweb.org/investing1.html)

I have not made any claims that the earliest readers are the best readers.

Having said that, see the extract from the journal below:

"On average, absolute performance levels at the end of kindergarten positioned students for trajectories of later reading performance that exceeded the 50th percentile on the majority of measures."

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ796803&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ796803

As for my personal experience, it happens that I was both an early reader and an excellent reader, thus the two are highly correlated from my historical viewpoint. Surely this is irrelevant however, as not only does correlation not equal causation, but more importantly: the plural of anecdote is not data.

That's some compelling food for thought.

[Anonymous]

>>But what if your child IS reading early, independently of the school? Are the DC public schools going to be teaching reading in kindergarten to the children who already know the letters and their sounds? According to 21:59, it doesn't sound like they were willing to differentiate much.<<

To this poster: no, our DCPS upper NW top tier school did not at all differentiate in K for my already-reading child. To the poster whose child is at an immersion school: makes sense that your child is stimulated and interested in learning even if there's lots of explicit reading instruction going on. We didn't have an immersion option and I was unable to get him into a charter school. All I needed to hear from my child was, "I am bored" repeatedly in order to give me the nudge I needed to move to Montgomery County (which I just did).

For what it's worth, I don't think that my child is Einstein, nor that it would be difficult to engage him in a genuine love of learning. His PreK teacher, btw, was phenomenal, whether or not she taught my DS how to read (probably my kid was just ready to roll). She is, ironically, the school union rep; I loved her in spite of this. She really 'got' my DS and made sure he was not only loved, but that his social/emotional/academic needs were met.

I taught in DC back when Barbara Bullock was stealing DC teacher pensions. I loathe the DC teachers' union. I also taught in California and the teachers' union there? Funded and operated fantastic professional development (including, ironically, excellent reading intervention strategies for older readers who hadn't learned to read in the early grades). I also had the opportunity to opt out of the teachers' union in CA (which I didn't do, since it was functional). Not so in DC - you can't teach unless you pony up the $800 a year! I agree that the union didn't drive me out, though. It was that the curriculum didn't align with the standards didn't align with the tests. Kafkaesque nightmare.

--former young, energetic, innovative (non-TFA!) DCPS teacher

PS Rhee is well aware of the need to differentiate instruction. But she told me in a community meeting that she doesn't yet see true differentiation happening in any DCPS classrooms. She noted that it happens in MoCo classrooms (and yes, that's when I started my housing search).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish Janey would come back. Boring, methodical but slowly making effective change. In fact, when I think about it-- Tony Williams : Adrian Fenty as Janey : Rhee.

Now, here's a claim I'd like seen backed up with some data/evidence. What slow, effective change was Janey making? And how do we know that the sort of change Rhee is making won't pay/isn't paying off? It's true that Janey had only two years (if that) in the position, so we'll never know what he could have done. But Rhee has also been here only two years; why is there so much investment in her failure? After 8 superintendents in 10 years, what sort of gross malpractice/misconduct is Rhee accused of that would merit yet another change?

(Also worth noting that Tony Williams, whom I voted for and generally liked, was accused of the same sort of arrogance and secrecy that Fenty is (rightfully) taking hits for now. WIlliams did hard, important work for the city, and he's not as personally flashy as Fenty, but he also went on a lot of expensive trips and routinely stonewalled the press. So I think the "let's go back to the good old days of Tony" thing that seems popular around here now is not really supported by historical fact. That said, I do miss his annual cannonball.)