Lucy Caulkins was wrong about reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

Sounds like an irrational MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Yes. I'm so tired of the DCUM taunt that if you cared about your children, you would make sure that you teach them everything they should be learning in school but aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

Sounds like an irrational MAGA.

Couldn't be farther from the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

This goes against research (and where do your kids go to school?) Focusing strictly on the mechanics of reading teaches kids to decode, but E.D. Hirsch's work (and others) showed that only works until about 4th grade when kids who lack content knowledge begins to fall further behind each year in reading. Kids need vocabulary and context in order to understand what they are reading and to build additional knowledge. And again, where do your kids go to school where they teach too much science and history content? It sure isn't MCPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

This goes against research (and where do your kids go to school?) Focusing strictly on the mechanics of reading teaches kids to decode, but E.D. Hirsch's work (and others) showed that only works until about 4th grade when kids who lack content knowledge begins to fall further behind each year in reading. Kids need vocabulary and context in order to understand what they are reading and to build additional knowledge. And again, where do your kids go to school where they teach too much science and history content? It sure isn't MCPS!

The great thing about this is that if you want to be one of those gunner parents with advanced kids, instead of saying "A says ahhhh," just learn with them. Watch documentaries, take them to museums (if your'e into that), talk to them about things, travel with them, etc. My oldest doesn't read a lot but has been on a college reading level since maybe fifth grade, and I think that's in part because she does things like read wikipedia and watch art history videos on YouTube in her spare time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Ha yeah, I didn't teach my kids to read because I thought "they will learn that in school." And they did. Sadly they did Lucy Calkins, but they were in the lucky 2/3 of kids who still learn to read despite balanced literacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Ha yeah, I didn't teach my kids to read because I thought "they will learn that in school." And they did. Sadly they did Lucy Calkins, but they were in the lucky 2/3 of kids who still learn to read despite balanced literacy.

What percentage of students do you think will learn to read now that schools are using whole group phonics lessons? Do you expect 100%? 90? What is acceptable? 66% is not, so what do you expect now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Ha yeah, I didn't teach my kids to read because I thought "they will learn that in school." And they did. Sadly they did Lucy Calkins, but they were in the lucky 2/3 of kids who still learn to read despite balanced literacy.

What percentage of students do you think will learn to read now that schools are using whole group phonics lessons? Do you expect 100%? 90? What is acceptable? 66% is not, so what do you expect now?

I’m not sure. You can look at what the scores were before they started doing balanced literacy though. I would expect they would bounce back to that at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

This goes against research (and where do your kids go to school?) Focusing strictly on the mechanics of reading teaches kids to decode, but E.D. Hirsch's work (and others) showed that only works until about 4th grade when kids who lack content knowledge begins to fall further behind each year in reading. Kids need vocabulary and context in order to understand what they are reading and to build additional knowledge. And again, where do your kids go to school where they teach too much science and history content? It sure isn't MCPS!

If they were actually reading, writing, and doing math in those other classes, then maybe. Applied skills are great. But the kids rush around to a million specials so they don't have time to do anything deeply. Certainly not significant reading or writing. Aside from filling in worksheets all day. Maybe they could rotate the specials quarterly and give the kids more time to explore them deeply.

APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Ha yeah, I didn't teach my kids to read because I thought "they will learn that in school." And they did. Sadly they did Lucy Calkins, but they were in the lucky 2/3 of kids who still learn to read despite balanced literacy.

What percentage of students do you think will learn to read now that schools are using whole group phonics lessons? Do you expect 100%? 90? What is acceptable? 66% is not, so what do you expect now?

I’m not sure. You can look at what the scores were before they started doing balanced literacy though. I would expect they would bounce back to that at least.

Ok, here:
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/reading/student-group-scores/?age=9

Since 1971 (phonics) reading scores on the NAEP (Nations report card on reading) have increased by 12% for third graders and 5% for 13 year olds.

I think phonics is the way our language mostly works and should be taught, but my point is that people spin data to prove their own points.

Every time a school system gets a new program someone makes money if it isn't Lucy Caulkins, then it is Wilson or orton-gillingham (ISME).

The hatred for Lucy Caulkins is kind of ridiculous because this is just the way school systems work: new curriculum every 5 years and someone is always having to prove kids are failing to prove their curriculum is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

My point is all reading starts with phonics, learning the sounds of the letters and how they combine to form words. That info should be given to kids very early, if not by parents in the home then at least at preschool. Kids that get this early are able to learn to read in K with almost any reading curriculum. If they don't get it early they should get it in K. Probably Lucy Calkins program works with kids who already had this background and not so well with kids who didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I taught my kids the sounds letters make starting when they were one or two. It was as basic as teaching them that's a picture of a dog, that's an A, A says ahhh. By the time they got to Kindergarten they could read simple books. Learning how letters and words (and numbers) work was just part of what we talked about everyday. They are not geniuses, probably about IQ 120 or so. I'm not sure why everybody doesn't do this. Even if your child struggles with dyslexia or some other learning difficulty at least you would know that early and could provide extra help.

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc.

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday. Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.

Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?

Ha yeah, I didn't teach my kids to read because I thought "they will learn that in school." And they did. Sadly they did Lucy Calkins, but they were in the lucky 2/3 of kids who still learn to read despite balanced literacy.

What percentage of students do you think will learn to read now that schools are using whole group phonics lessons? Do you expect 100%? 90? What is acceptable? 66% is not, so what do you expect now?

I’m not sure. You can look at what the scores were before they started doing balanced literacy though. I would expect they would bounce back to that at least.

Ok, here:
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt/reading/student-group-scores/?age=9

Since 1971 (phonics) reading scores on the NAEP (Nations report card on reading) have increased by 12% for third graders and 5% for 13 year olds.

I think phonics is the way our language mostly works and should be taught, but my point is that people spin data to prove their own points.

Every time a school system gets a new program someone makes money if it isn't Lucy Caulkins, then it is Wilson or orton-gillingham (ISME).

The hatred for Lucy Caulkins is kind of ridiculous because this is just the way school systems work: new curriculum every 5 years and someone is always having to prove kids are failing to prove their curriculum is better.

those aren’t too helpful because they don’t show a before and after of the use of balanced literacy. You do get these stats in this APS report. They are sobering, particularly the stats on the racial disparities.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/BZW3SX0855CF/$file/ELAAC%20Executive%20Summary%20March%202021.pdf