Sold a Story and Phonics instruction

[Anonymous]

The curriculum the PP refers to is used for close reading and writing, which is only about 30 minutes a day at the elementary school where I teach. Phonics is taught using Fundations, which is another 30 minutes, phonological awareness is taught using Heggerty, which takes about 15 minutes. There is also small group reading time, which is about an hour at my school, in which the teacher meets with small groups for reading practice while the rest of the class does independent or group centers. The reading groups used to be guided reading, but the past couple of years we have been moving towards a science of reading approach so we used decodable texts instead of leveled texts and we focus more on word recognition and decoding rather than guessing from context.

[Anonymous]

This is fascinating, and great news! My kids are older. In early ES in DCPS they got only 45-60 mins of “ELA” per day. That was supposed to cover both reading and writing. And in 1st and 2nd there was this big focus on “stamina reading” which meant that the kids were supposed to read leveled books independently for increasingly long periods of time (which of course came out of the time allotted for ELA instruction). My kids were behind in reading from a national standards perspective but above the average in their class (this was not a title 1 school), which seemed problematic to me but the school dismissed as other schools being too focused on testing. I often wondered how the kids were taught when they spent so much time quietly doing “stamina” reading on their own. After listening to the podcast I’m understanding better what was going on in their classroom during those years and why they seemed to have so many friends who struggled with reading, were put on meds to try to fix it, etc.

[Anonymous]

Sounding Out a Better Way to Teach Reading

Schools are returning to phonics and other evidence-based literacy methods, and already there are signs that the
switch is paying off in improved scores.


A student in Cassie Gilboy’s first-grade class in Richmond, Va., where the school district is using an evidence-based
approach to teaching children to read. After one year using the new strategy, Richmond Public Schools raised its
early literacy scores.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/education/learning/schools-teaching-reading-phonics.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a thread in the past few months about this and I posted info about the DCPS reading “curriculum” which was written by teachers willing to make $40/hr over the summer. It’s not good.

I'm not sure what your problem is here. That it was written by teachers? That teachers sometimes get summer jobs?

My problem is that it’s not actually a curriculum and it’s terrible.

Sorry, what is the relationship between that curriculum and fundations? Because my ES only seems to use the latter in terms of whole group literacy instruction.

No relationship. The DCPS reading curriculum is for part of the day frequently referred to as RRW—Reading, Research and Writing. It contains no foundational literacy instruction.

Our school uses Really Great Reading for foundational literacy. We started last year and have seen good results so far.

Got it, thanks! Our school uses Fundations + Heggerty (up to 1st) or RGR (2nd+) + small groups/literacy centers (typically, 5 minute daily check in w/ teacher for 3 groups; 20 minute teacher lesson for each of the other 2; my kid's group only gets 1 20 minute lesson/week, which I sort of hate, but I obviously understand that it's important those behind grade level get more teaching). They also use a LC-influenced WW for writing, which I really don't love... though they do seem to do a more structured version of it. Starting in 3rd grade, the teachers are departmentalized and kids get 1 hour of writing instruction/day and I cannot wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum the PP refers to is used for close reading and writing, which is only about 30 minutes a day at the elementary school where I teach. Phonics is taught using Fundations, which is another 30 minutes, phonological awareness is taught using Heggerty, which takes about 15 minutes. There is also small group reading time, which is about an hour at my school, in which the teacher meets with small groups for reading practice while the rest of the class does independent or group centers. The reading groups used to be guided reading, but the past couple of years we have been moving towards a science of reading approach so we used decodable texts instead of leveled texts and we focus more on word recognition and decoding rather than guessing from context.

Horrifying. More dead-hand control over teachers, less differentiated learning. Sounds like a war on high-functioning girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum the PP refers to is used for close reading and writing, which is only about 30 minutes a day at the elementary school where I teach. Phonics is taught using Fundations, which is another 30 minutes, phonological awareness is taught using Heggerty, which takes about 15 minutes. There is also small group reading time, which is about an hour at my school, in which the teacher meets with small groups for reading practice while the rest of the class does independent or group centers. The reading groups used to be guided reading, but the past couple of years we have been moving towards a science of reading approach so we used decodable texts instead of leveled texts and we focus more on word recognition and decoding rather than guessing from context.

Horrifying. More dead-hand control over teachers, less differentiated learning. Sounds like a war on high-functioning girls.

This has to be a troll, right? "Horrifying" that they're using decodable texts and focusing on word recognition & decoding *rather than guessing*??? This is a war on high-functioning girls??

[Anonymous]

The other issue is how are teachers trained to teach reading. The special education teacher who used Wilson for my child was not Wilson certified! She was coached by another teacher in the school who went to the DCPS training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

He can read at home! That’s where reading books for pleasure takes place. Our DCPS also had plenty of reading in book groups etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

He can read at home! That’s where reading books for pleasure takes place. Our DCPS also had plenty of reading in book groups etc.

If he's not reading at home, that's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

He can read at home! That’s where reading books for pleasure takes place. Our DCPS also had plenty of reading in book groups etc.

Of course kids can and should read at home...but that is also where kids have traditionally done most of the their reading...at school. My grandparents were immigrants who did not speak English at home, both of their children became English professors. That didn't happen because of their home life - where minority languages were thankfully preserved - that happened because of reading books at school (and in the library). If your answer is that elementary kids should do their reading of whole books at home because they are doing phonics worksheets at school - that actually is pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

Well, step one is talking to the teacher instead of relying on your 6-7 year old to faithfully retell what they do all day. Not saying you are wrong, but if DCPS, it is unlikely that they a just doing phonics during all their literacy time every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

He can read at home! That’s where reading books for pleasure takes place. Our DCPS also had plenty of reading in book groups etc.

Of course kids can and should read at home...but that is also where kids have traditionally done most of the their reading...at school. My grandparents were immigrants who did not speak English at home, both of their children became English professors. That didn't happen because of their home life - where minority languages were thankfully preserved - that happened because of reading books at school (and in the library). If your answer is that elementary kids should do their reading of whole books at home because they are doing phonics worksheets at school - that actually is pretty sad.

Oh ffs stop. Kids read books in DCPS. Teaching phonic does not mean they don’t read at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

People like you are the cause of a lot of grief.

Of course kids should read whole books and talk about what things mean, and they need to understand enough about the history of the English language to know that we have several different spelling systems smooshed together.

But most kids also need help with learning how to sound out simple words. Whole language fanatics who ignore the need for phonics are a menace.

If you or your kids learned reading without any phonics, wonderful, but many other kids obviously need some phonics.

News flash: children all over the world - and in this country learned how to read without phonics drilling all day -with these anachronistic thingys called books. Indeed, if you were born before the 1990s, you managed to learn how to read by decoding words, and reading/writing stories, with minimum phonics per day. Some kids do need phonic drills because of learning differences, but most kids do not. And if reading is essentially flatlined in favor of "science" and drills, kids who are capable of reading without phonics are bored and their language learning is stunted. It's not surprising that people on the right (prone to saying things like "people like you") love phonics for certain students - not their own, of course, for students they deem as less capable.

No. Completely wrong and ignorant. I learned with phonics in 1983 and had a perfect English sat score. Yhe modern form
has been around since the seventies. In fact it’s beyond copyright which is why the textbook companies ignore it. You have no idea what you are talking about and are doubling down for no reason.

I said minimum phonics, not no phonics. "Sound it out and think of a word that makes sense" is phonics. We were all taught to do that while reading whole books. You are clearly not a lawyer (especially a copyright one). One phonics book might be in the public domain, and phonics is ONE technique of literacy -but that is a vastly different paradigm than force-feeding phonics drills starting at pre-K and delaying books, and discussion about reading until second grade to focus on the "science of reading" which is ONE theory of how people learn to read. I get that anger and name calling is your clutch - but it is pretty unnecessary - you must have other tools to sublimate your rage at your disposal? The "e" at the end of rage is silent, FYI. But you knew that, since you got a perfect score on the "English SAT."

I'm really perplexed why you would think direct phonics instruction means never reading a whole book or discussing it. Phonics is about 30 minutes. They can read and discuss books at other times of day.

It does though... my first grader never mentions a book he reads or has been read to in school. All i see are phonics worksheets and that he worked on a phonics skill he learned back at the beginning of kindergarten. It was great that phonics taught him to read, but he never actually reads now...

He can read at home! That’s where reading books for pleasure takes place. Our DCPS also had plenty of reading in book groups etc.

Of course kids can and should read at home...but that is also where kids have traditionally done most of the their reading...at school. My grandparents were immigrants who did not speak English at home, both of their children became English professors. That didn't happen because of their home life - where minority languages were thankfully preserved - that happened because of reading books at school (and in the library). If your answer is that elementary kids should do their reading of whole books at home because they are doing phonics worksheets at school - that actually is pretty sad.

what is ACTUALLY sad is kids who don’t learn how to read.

[Anonymous]

This has got to be one of the stupidest DCPS threads ever and that is saying a lot.