Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For kids with limited experiences, learning to decode words that have no meaning is not helpful. You can teach kids to decode, but if words have no meaning, it does no good. That's why lots of approaches is the best approach to teaching reading.

Those who think that phonics is the "be all, end all" solution to teaching reading do not understand this.

Phonics is important, but critical thinking skills are more important. And, you need language for those.

This is a huge issue with second language learners. It is especially difficult with second language learners who have not learned to read in their own language. In this case, you are teaching both the vocabulary (and filling in the background knowledge) and how to read at the same time. It's pretty overwhelming.

I think it's pretty universally understood that children who do not know the language at all before kindergarten need a different program than those that have been exposed to language for 5 years. I do not think this should be the standard however. Most children in the US still are born to English speaking families. We still need to teach children who have had language exposure for five years before school. If that is no longer the norm that is being taught to, than I think we need to make this statement publically so families who already speak the language can make a decision whether public school is really the right fit for their child.

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty universally understood that children who do not know the language at all before kindergarten need a different program than those that have been exposed to language for 5 years. I do not think this should be the standard however. Most children in the US still are born to English speaking families. We still need to teach children who have had language exposure for five years before school. If that is no longer the norm that is being taught to, than I think we need to make this statement publically so families who already speak the language can make a decision whether public school is really the right fit for their child.

No. Second language is not the issue. Language is the issue. Studies have shown that kids who have good language development in their own language can learn to read fairly easily. That said, many of the kids that the ESOL PP is talking about do not have good language development in their own language--and, thus, the double whammy.

Your assumption is incorrect. All kids do not have language development just because English is their first language. You would be surprised to know how many kids have grown up in homes with limited interaction--except for being yelled at, etc. Kids who have not been read to or talked to in conversation.

I taught in a school where kids came from the projects. There were many kids with very limited language. Some did not even know the names of colors when they started school. That may be hard for you to understand, but it happens. If parents have terrible parenting skills and don't interact with their kids properly, it is amazing how little some kids know when they begin school. And, sadly, preschool may help, but it cannot make up for those first two or three years of being ignored.

[Anonymous]

I teach in a major city and what the PP mentioned is absolutely true. I joke that if I tested all incoming kindergarteners, many native English speakers would be in my ESOL courses. In fact, my new ESOL students end up making the same grammatical errors as their classmates who are native English speakers. I have to explain that "ain"t is not a word. "But Larla's mom says it!" Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's this "we"? My kid is in first grade in a DCPS and is getting explicit phonics instruction, along with learning sight words (which aren't pronounced phonetically).

Not case in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach in a major city and what the PP mentioned is absolutely true. I joke that if I tested all incoming kindergarteners, many native English speakers would be in my ESOL courses. In fact, my new ESOL students end up making the same grammatical errors as their classmates who are native English speakers. I have to explain that "ain"t is not a word. "But Larla's mom says it!" Sigh.

Er, "ain't" is a word. Incorrect grammar isn't the same issue as lack of language acquisition.

[Anonymous]

Er, "ain't" is a word. Incorrect grammar isn't the same issue as lack of language acquisition.

Agree. Lack of basic vocabulary is a serious issue with language acquisition with many kids. If you don't know what a zebra is, learning to sound out the word is not going to help.

[Anonymous]

I think it's pretty universally understood that children who do not know the language at all before kindergarten need a different program than those that have been exposed to language for 5 years. I do not think this should be the standard however. Most children in the US still are born to English speaking families. We still need to teach children who have had language exposure for five years before school. If that is no longer the norm that is being taught to, than I think we need to make this statement publicly so families who already speak the language can make a decision whether public school is really the right fit for their child.


No. Second language is not the issue. Language is the issue. Studies have shown that kids who have good language development in their own language can learn to read fairly easily. That said, many of the kids that the ESOL PP is talking about do not have good language development in their own language--and, thus, the double whammy.
Your assumption is incorrect. All kids do not have language development just because English is their first language.
You would be surprised to know how many kids have grown up in homes with limited interaction--except for being yelled at, etc. Kids who have not been read to or talked to in conversation.

I taught in a school where kids came from the projects. There were many kids with very limited language. Some did not even know the names of colors when they started school. That may be hard for you to understand, but it happens. If parents have terrible parenting skills and don't interact with their kids properly, it is amazing how little some kids know when they begin school. And, sadly, preschool may help, but it cannot make up for those first two or three years of being ignored.

This. It's a lack of exposure to early learning opportunities . . . which basically means a lack of language rich interactions with primary adult caregivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's pretty universally understood that children who do not know the language at all before kindergarten need a different program than those that have been exposed to language for 5 years. I do not think this should be the standard however. Most children in the US still are born to English speaking families. We still need to teach children who have had language exposure for five years before school. If that is no longer the norm that is being taught to, than I think we need to make this statement publicly so families who already speak the language can make a decision whether public school is really the right fit for their child.


No. Second language is not the issue. Language is the issue. Studies have shown that kids who have good language development in their own language can learn to read fairly easily. That said, many of the kids that the ESOL PP is talking about do not have good language development in their own language--and, thus, the double whammy.
Your assumption is incorrect. All kids do not have language development just because English is their first language.
You would be surprised to know how many kids have grown up in homes with limited interaction--except for being yelled at, etc. Kids who have not been read to or talked to in conversation.

I taught in a school where kids came from the projects. There were many kids with very limited language. Some did not even know the names of colors when they started school. That may be hard for you to understand, but it happens. If parents have terrible parenting skills and don't interact with their kids properly, it is amazing how little some kids know when they begin school. And, sadly, preschool may help, but it cannot make up for those first two or three years of being ignored.

This. It's a lack of exposure to early learning opportunities . . . which basically means a lack of language rich interactions with primary adult caregivers.

Fine, but is the US so awful these days that ESOL and non-speaking families are the new standard? Put these kids in an intensive language type setting, but set the standard to those kids that come in with an English speaking household.

[Anonymous]

News flash. Poor students have been a majority in public schools for a few years now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/majority-of-us-public-school-students-are-in-poverty/2015/01/15/df7171d0-9ce9-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?utm_term=.9e8a419c5e9e&noredirect=on

[Anonymous]

Well that would explain why public school's academics are more watered down these days. Very sad statistic. Has the level of poverty measured changed over the years? Could that also explain the increase? I've noticed the max income for free and reduced lunches has gone up. I haven't checked it against inflation, but perhaps it's just that the federal government has expanded the level of income they are willing to service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids caught onto reading early and easily, so I do t personally understand your frustrations. I mean, can’t you just be happy that your kid and their kids learn to read at some reasonable time? Do we really have to get pissy about the minutia?
The OP sounds butt-hurt about something, but I can’t tell if it’s because her kid is having trouble reading or she’s having a hard time teaching her students how to read.

OP is most likely "butt-hurt" because her child is dyslexic and the public schools, from he most part, do not teach phonemic awareness, which is what dyslexic people lack and they need explicit instruction in. SO next time, come out of your bubble and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes instead of being a dick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids caught onto reading early and easily, so I do t personally understand your frustrations. I mean, can’t you just be happy that your kid and their kids learn to read at some reasonable time? Do we really have to get pissy about the minutia?
The OP sounds butt-hurt about something, but I can’t tell if it’s because her kid is having trouble reading or she’s having a hard time teaching her students how to read.

OP is most likely "butt-hurt" because her child is dyslexic and the public schools, from he most part, do not teach phonemic awareness, which is what dyslexic people lack and they need explicit instruction in. SO next time, come out of your bubble and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes instead of being a dick.

OP is assuming that phonemic awareness is the solution for dyslexia. It may be the correct way to teach, but, some kids still struggle. There are also kids who struggle with phonemic awareness, so, is it right to deprive them of what they need to learn to read.

The best program for teaching reading is one that includes all sorts of strategies. Programs that rely only on phonics do not work either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids caught onto reading early and easily, so I do t personally understand your frustrations. I mean, can’t you just be happy that your kid and their kids learn to read at some reasonable time? Do we really have to get pissy about the minutia?
The OP sounds butt-hurt about something, but I can’t tell if it’s because her kid is having trouble reading or she’s having a hard time teaching her students how to read.

OP is most likely "butt-hurt" because her child is dyslexic and the public schools, from he most part, do not teach phonemic awareness, which is what dyslexic people lack and they need explicit instruction in. SO next time, come out of your bubble and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes instead of being a dick.

OP is assuming that phonemic awareness is the solution for dyslexia. It may be the correct way to teach, but, some kids still struggle. There are also kids who struggle with phonemic awareness, so, is it right to deprive them of what they need to learn to read.

The best program for teaching reading is one that includes all sorts of strategies. Programs that rely only on phonics do not work either.

Not OP- but if you read the article it isn’t about teaching dyslexic kids, it is about teaching all learners. States that have a sound research-based curriculum are more effective at teaching kids to read regardless of whether they are poor or ELL.

Phonics doesn’t replace all languages arts- teacher still read stories and have a language rich environment. But they don’t encourage guessing what words might be and thethat don’t expect a kids to just “get it”.

[Anonymous]

I find it amazing that in the hundreds of years that children have been attending school and learning how to read, that we still need to have this conversation? How did kids manage to learn to read in the past?

[Anonymous]

Phonics doesn’t replace all languages arts- teacher still read stories and have a language rich environment. But they don’t encourage guessing what words might be and thethat don’t expect a kids to just “get it”.

I taught first grade. I don't ever remember being encouraged by any research or program to expect kids to "just 'get it." And, as for guessing what words might be, that is a valid tool. It has never been the only tool for deciphering words. It aids in reading comprehension. It goes along with predicting what will happen next, and then reading to see if you are correct. I don't know why PP thinks teachers are not including phonics in their instruction.