Lucy Calkins alarmists

[Anonymous]

Which (so-called) "Singapore Math" curriculum did not work? Was it "Math in Focus"? I want to know which curricula to avoid for my kids.

It is in vogue to claim any math curriculum is Singapore Math, because SG has consistently strong math results on the PISA tests. However, SG math as actually taught in Singapore has lots of repetition, lots of rote memorization of math procedures, lots of direct instruction, and is not at all "exploratory".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which (so-called) "Singapore Math" curriculum did not work? Was it "Math in Focus"? I want to know which curricula to avoid for my kids.

It is in vogue to claim any math curriculum is Singapore Math, because SG has consistently strong math results on the PISA tests. However, SG math as actually taught in Singapore has lots of repetition, lots of rote memorization of math procedures, lots of direct instruction, and is not at all "exploratory".

We supplement with Singapore Math workbooks at home and they seem great. Lots of practice, methodical introduction of new concepts, and direct instruction. It's not exploratory at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

No one has said that parents shouldn't work on reading and literacy with young kids to the extent they are able (which varies greatly). The complaint with LC is that it entirely left all reading and writing skills development to parents because it doesn't teach anything. It expects kids to divine the skills on their own. Some kids are helped when parents teach them skills. But the LC curriculum doesn't teach anything. It gives kids the opportunity to try reading and writing, but doesn't *teach* reading or writing. Schools need to teach.

+1. I agree with this! Sadly, I witnessed this at our elementary school for 7 years. Very weak instruction, if any at all. And, we are a highly sought after elementary school. Parents were supplementing like crazy and dropping 5-10 year olds off at all kinds of tutoring places. I have never seen this type of behavior and have lived in many states. The teaching was that poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

Parents have to read to their kids. Schools cannot produce strong readers and writers without home support

This simply isn’t true. Of course children with bad parents, no parents, incarcerated parents, busy parents, etc can learn to read! They need to be taught properly, and they can learn. But if school has an ineffective curriculum the only kids who will learn are those with parents who have the know-how and time to teach them.

Why would you want that? Sometimes I think the people with this attitude must benefit from having a functionally illiterate underclass, even if the benefit is just a feeling or moral and financial superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s based one fake research. What more could you need to know?

Listen to sold a story, read any of the articles, form your own opinion….

As a parent, former teacher, curriculum specialist there’s no way I would want my kids at a school that uses this approach. It’s likely a huge part of why we see so many young adults who are failure to launch kids and why we see so many kids unprepared for college and career. Kids of all kinds need direct instruction!

https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-a-call-for-rejecting-the-newest-reading-wars/

Critics have said Sold A Story is overly pushing phonics alone. They say if you teach phonics and bring in supplementary material, Calkins, writers workshop, F&P can be great.

Sold a Story is from a few years ago. It's important because it largely broke the story, but is far from the last word. There's been more research since then that has identified more serious issues with the LC curriculum, including a lack of vocabulary instruction, a lack of spelling and grammar instruction, a lack of writing instruction, a lack of rigor, a lack of instructional content, etc. It's terrible. And you're hearing directly from parents on this thread that I own it failed their kids. No link will overcome our first hand experience.

Wow you are very hyped up about this reading war thing. While balanced literacy has some bad points, I found it my job to supplement at home. Both of my kids read in Kindergarten and we used hooked in phonics at home with whatever the school used at school. Isn’t that our job as parents? It is not in my ethos to think a school will do all the educating of my children and I don’t relate to parents who believe they shouldn’t have to parent their kids.

Using phonics or balanced literacy doesn’t change that we as parents need to support our kids through school. There always will be holes in mass education.

It's so strange to see parents defend the curriculum saying they can just teach their kid at home. I've seen the difference after our schools switched to a better curriculum and it's night and day. My kids are less frustrated with reading and writing, learning more, more excited to go to school, and coming home with better written work product. Why should are you making excuses that it only "has some bad points" when there are really good options out there that serve students better?

It did have bad points- why is that defending it or making excuses? I’m talking about my kids experience. They learned with phonics in pre-k/kindergarten through the hooked on phonics app at home with me. We read bob books and phonics readers. When they got to school, I liked that my kids were reading real books on their level (balanced literacy), not basal readers. It worked for my kids. They seem fine with writing (in middle school AAP classes) and I never supplemented writing. I did supplement math because kids need math facts down cold to do higher level math. If there are holes, I don’t see why any parent on this board wouldn’t supplement. I do understand why ESL parents and parents with low literacy skills themselves don’t supplement, but again, do you not see it as your job as a parent to supplement your kids education? Maybe it is generational, but I do think it is my job.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize this was only about writing! I didn’t realize sold a story the first group of episodes were not about writing and as the podcast was mentioned in several posts, I assumed reading was included in the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

Parents have to read to their kids. Schools cannot produce strong readers and writers without home support

This simply isn’t true. Of course children with bad parents, no parents, incarcerated parents, busy parents, etc can learn to read! They need to be taught properly, and they can learn. But if school has an ineffective curriculum the only kids who will learn are those with parents who have the know-how and time to teach them.

Why would you want that? Sometimes I think the people with this attitude must benefit from having a functionally illiterate underclass, even if the benefit is just a feeling or moral and financial superiority.

Every single person who lives in the United States benefits from having a underclass. It is just that the underclass lives in other countries. (Manufacturing in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc)
Of course almost all kids can learn to read (leaving out severe disability kids). But that isn’t your kid. Your personal child isn’t the underclass. To the point of home support, you don’t supplement at all? It is surprising to me that people on this board think it isn’t their job as parents. Curriculum aside, do you not supplement at all at home? No educational apps, no flash cards, no reading a book and asking questions about it, no sounding out words, no handwriting practice, no going over class work together? I’m honestly surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see both sides of the argument. I've also met Lucy at a conference in the flesh. Writers workshop works well for students that are already well established readers. The issue is the pipeline of creating readers became very broken when we started expecting first grade in kindergarten and a myriad of other reasons... Of course students that can't read can't do writers workshop. People are blaming one lady instead of seeing the whole forest...

No, it doesn't work well. It's a crap curriculum that doesn't teach kids to write. It assumes they'll figure out how to write all on their own, which very very few kids can do.

I taught my kid phonics at home so she was a strong reader. She is a voracious reader, but she was absolutely failed by LC writing curriculum. It doesn't teach anything. It just expects kids to figure it out themselves.

Exactly.

I put my kids in a less-than-stellar small private school and was stunned by how far behind my kids were wrt writing. In everything else they were ahead of this school but their writing skills were atrocious. I hired an well recommended tutor to help, but he was brainwashed in the same stuff. My kids never recovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

No one has said that parents shouldn't work on reading and literacy with young kids to the extent they are able (which varies greatly). The complaint with LC is that it entirely left all reading and writing skills development to parents because it doesn't teach anything. It expects kids to divine the skills on their own. Some kids are helped when parents teach them skills. But the LC curriculum doesn't teach anything. It gives kids the opportunity to try reading and writing, but doesn't *teach* reading or writing. Schools need to teach.

+1. I agree with this! Sadly, I witnessed this at our elementary school for 7 years. Very weak instruction, if any at all. And, we are a highly sought after elementary school. Parents were supplementing like crazy and dropping 5-10 year olds off at all kinds of tutoring places. I have never seen this type of behavior and have lived in many states. The teaching was that poor.

Same in my county in the Va suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

Parents have to read to their kids. Schools cannot produce strong readers and writers without home support

This simply isn’t true. Of course children with bad parents, no parents, incarcerated parents, busy parents, etc can learn to read! They need to be taught properly, and they can learn. But if school has an ineffective curriculum the only kids who will learn are those with parents who have the know-how and time to teach them.

Why would you want that? Sometimes I think the people with this attitude must benefit from having a functionally illiterate underclass, even if the benefit is just a feeling or moral and financial superiority.

Every single person who lives in the United States benefits from having a underclass. It is just that the underclass lives in other countries. (Manufacturing in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc)
Of course almost all kids can learn to read (leaving out severe disability kids). But that isn’t your kid. Your personal child isn’t the underclass. To the point of home support, you don’t supplement at all? It is surprising to me that people on this board think it isn’t their job as parents. Curriculum aside, do you not supplement at all at home? No educational apps, no flash cards, no reading a book and asking questions about it, no sounding out words, no handwriting practice, no going over class work together? I’m honestly surprised.

I'm not the pp but your post is insane. You seem to be supporting poor educational practices as a way to make sure some kids are ahead. You personally need an "underclass" so your kid looks better? Nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which (so-called) "Singapore Math" curriculum did not work? Was it "Math in Focus"? I want to know which curricula to avoid for my kids.

It is in vogue to claim any math curriculum is Singapore Math, because SG has consistently strong math results on the PISA tests. However, SG math as actually taught in Singapore has lots of repetition, lots of rote memorization of math procedures, lots of direct instruction, and is not at all "exploratory".

We supplement with Singapore Math workbooks at home and they seem great. Lots of practice, methodical introduction of new concepts, and direct instruction. It's not exploratory at all.

Which ones? Publisher or name or....?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which (so-called) "Singapore Math" curriculum did not work? Was it "Math in Focus"? I want to know which curricula to avoid for my kids.

It is in vogue to claim any math curriculum is Singapore Math, because SG has consistently strong math results on the PISA tests. However, SG math as actually taught in Singapore has lots of repetition, lots of rote memorization of math procedures, lots of direct instruction, and is not at all "exploratory".

We supplement with Singapore Math workbooks at home and they seem great. Lots of practice, methodical introduction of new concepts, and direct instruction. It's not exploratory at all.

Which ones? Publisher or name or....?

This one: https://www.singaporemath.com/pages/programs-dimensions-math-pk-5-for-homeschool?srsltid=AfmBOooc74gssbTZJC5FKLyBG5ZFa2tcDAkAh5hLEi9It1oGYeqmmasS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're referring to the Writing Workshop, that is generally considered good. Of course we all now know her reading curriculum was garbage and did considerable harm.

Disagree. Teacher admitted privately that with Writers Workshop she was forbidden to even mark corrections for spelling or grammar on students submissions, unlike the previous curriculum. She said all the teachers had been told it was not allowed because it would prevent their 2nd graders from "thinking big thoughts".

She suggested privately that we help our DC with explicit spelling and grammar instruction at home. At least at that school, grammar and spelling was not corrected until after WW ended at the very end of 3rd grade. We were grateful for the tip, which was provided only after we politely had asked direct questions why DD's work was not being corrected.

I don’t think it’s a big deal that spelling and grammar aren’t the main focus until 3rd grade. Future bureaucrats might not need to “think big thoughts” but to emphasize putting thoughts on paper at this very early age over spelling is not a big deal.

Putting "big thoughts" on paper is easier when you've been taught to write. It's much harder if you give a kid a pencil and expect them to teach themselves. LC lacks more than just spelling and grammar rules. LC doesn't teach kids to sort or organize their thoughts or information. It's all stream of consciousness and it doesn't include any teaching. Without instruction, kids' writing doesn't improve. They continue to write terrible, unclear drivel with no improvement year after year.

My own daughter found it so overwhelming to be told to write without being taught how, she'd just sit and stare at her paper. She brought home a lot of blank pages or pages with only one sentence--her teachers just said she'd write when she was ready. She's a smart kid and has grown so much with a knowledge-based curriculum and instruction. LC is rubbish.

The very early years they should be allowed to write freely. A lot of kids start to write around age 4 spontaneously, others don’t start til kindergarten. You wouldn’t comment on the spelling or no capitals, you would praise the work done.

I remember writing a lot in 3rd grade, not much before that. I still remember my first book report on Mao Zedong, the former communist dictator in China. I also remember grammar being intensely drilled all through middle school, especially 8th grade. It was a long process. If we waited until we had learned perfect structure, grammar and spelling we would never have written anything until high school.

Obviously there needs to be instruction on learning how to properly write a research paper or any kind,of paper but at what grade do you think is appropriate.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s based one fake research. What more could you need to know?

Listen to sold a story, read any of the articles, form your own opinion….

As a parent, former teacher, curriculum specialist there’s no way I would want my kids at a school that uses this approach. It’s likely a huge part of why we see so many young adults who are failure to launch kids and why we see so many kids unprepared for college and career. Kids of all kinds need direct instruction!

https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-a-call-for-rejecting-the-newest-reading-wars/

Critics have said Sold A Story is overly pushing phonics alone. They say if you teach phonics and bring in supplementary material, Calkins, writers workshop, F&P can be great.

Sold a Story is from a few years ago. It's important because it largely broke the story, but is far from the last word. There's been more research since then that has identified more serious issues with the LC curriculum, including a lack of vocabulary instruction, a lack of spelling and grammar instruction, a lack of writing instruction, a lack of rigor, a lack of instructional content, etc. It's terrible. And you're hearing directly from parents on this thread that I own it failed their kids. No link will overcome our first hand experience.

Wow you are very hyped up about this reading war thing. While balanced literacy has some bad points, I found it my job to supplement at home. Both of my kids read in Kindergarten and we used hooked in phonics at home with whatever the school used at school. Isn’t that our job as parents? It is not in my ethos to think a school will do all the educating of my children and I don’t relate to parents who believe they shouldn’t have to parent their kids.

Using phonics or balanced literacy doesn’t change that we as parents need to support our kids through school. There always will be holes in mass education.

It's so strange to see parents defend the curriculum saying they can just teach their kid at home. I've seen the difference after our schools switched to a better curriculum and it's night and day. My kids are less frustrated with reading and writing, learning more, more excited to go to school, and coming home with better written work product. Why should are you making excuses that it only "has some bad points" when there are really good options out there that serve students better?

It did have bad points- why is that defending it or making excuses? I’m talking about my kids experience. They learned with phonics in pre-k/kindergarten through the hooked on phonics app at home with me. We read bob books and phonics readers. When they got to school, I liked that my kids were reading real books on their level (balanced literacy), not basal readers. It worked for my kids. They seem fine with writing (in middle school AAP classes) and I never supplemented writing. I did supplement math because kids need math facts down cold to do higher level math. If there are holes, I don’t see why any parent on this board wouldn’t supplement. I do understand why ESL parents and parents with low literacy skills themselves don’t supplement, but again, do you not see it as your job as a parent to supplement your kids education? Maybe it is generational, but I do think it is my job.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize this was only about writing! I didn’t realize sold a story the first group of episodes were not about writing and as the podcast was mentioned in several posts, I assumed reading was included in the discussion.

The entire curriculum is a deep dark hole. It doesn't just have gaps. It doesn't teach reading or writing at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

Parents have to read to their kids. Schools cannot produce strong readers and writers without home support

This simply isn’t true. Of course children with bad parents, no parents, incarcerated parents, busy parents, etc can learn to read! They need to be taught properly, and they can learn. But if school has an ineffective curriculum the only kids who will learn are those with parents who have the know-how and time to teach them.

Why would you want that? Sometimes I think the people with this attitude must benefit from having a functionally illiterate underclass, even if the benefit is just a feeling or moral and financial superiority.

Every single person who lives in the United States benefits from having a underclass. It is just that the underclass lives in other countries. (Manufacturing in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc)
Of course almost all kids can learn to read (leaving out severe disability kids). But that isn’t your kid. Your personal child isn’t the underclass. To the point of home support, you don’t supplement at all? It is surprising to me that people on this board think it isn’t their job as parents. Curriculum aside, do you not supplement at all at home? No educational apps, no flash cards, no reading a book and asking questions about it, no sounding out words, no handwriting practice, no going over class work together? I’m honestly surprised.

My kids just don’t need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The important piece is that the youngest children (K-2) are also having phonics-based instruction. I heard Lucy Calkins adapted her curriculum to include phonics - is that accurate?

The issue is that phonics isn't the only thing wrong with the curriculum. It is all based on theory that kids will teach themselves because everyone is intrinsically a reader, which is total nonsense. You can't do a short phonics lesson, hand a kid a book, and expect them to teach themselves to read. It's awful, even with a phonics add on.

Different kids need different things. But no one can get anything different so everyone must get the same thing so no one will get what they need.

They've done studies. Something like 5-10% of kids can learn to read using LC. I'm sure a few more can make progress with some additional phonics. But the curriculum still assumes kids teach themselves, and that is a recipe for failure for most kids.

More parent used to read to their kids and teach them at home. Expecting school to teach your kid to read is a recipe for failure for most kids.

I expect schools to teach my kids to read and they have. I don’t know why you think parents stopped reading to their kids. My kids went to preschool and i read to them from day one, went to libraries, book stores, puzzles, games, they were prepared for school. Kids don’t teach themselves on their own. They are surrounded by the written language since they were born. Schools start formal reading.

Some kids have dyslexia and will need extra help, probably in all subjects. Other forms of learning disabilities will also require specialized help beyond classroom work. Phonics is the best way for schools to teach early reading.

1. Reading to your kids is nice but proven to have zero effect on their reading and writing ability.
2. Schools were invented to teach kids because parents could not - because they either didn't know or were busy working. That hasn't changed.

+1 seriously, my mom did not speak much English when I was learning to read and certainly didn't teach me. There was zero expectation that she should teach me to read. She also didn't really read to me. My DH had a similar situation growing up

Schools exist in large part to teach kids to read. The notion that if kids don't learn it is because they have bad parents is gross and probably a little bit racist since we all know which parents some of y'all have in mind. Stop blaming the parents when you fail at the basic thing you are paid to do.

DP. Parent. It's not blaming to indicate that parents should play a role in early literacy. Used books are some of the cheapest used items you can buy. At my local library you can buy 3-4 for the price of a candy bar. And there are charities that give them out or mail them to your house. And schools often give them out and quietly look after allowances for kids without pocket money at book fair time. The schools usually send home material that suggests what the parents can do to help. So in this kind of environment, it seems like intentional disregard to leave all the work to the schools.

Parents have to read to their kids. Schools cannot produce strong readers and writers without home support

This simply isn’t true. Of course children with bad parents, no parents, incarcerated parents, busy parents, etc can learn to read! They need to be taught properly, and they can learn. But if school has an ineffective curriculum the only kids who will learn are those with parents who have the know-how and time to teach them.

Why would you want that? Sometimes I think the people with this attitude must benefit from having a functionally illiterate underclass, even if the benefit is just a feeling or moral and financial superiority.

Every single person who lives in the United States benefits from having a underclass. It is just that the underclass lives in other countries. (Manufacturing in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc)
Of course almost all kids can learn to read (leaving out severe disability kids). But that isn’t your kid. Your personal child isn’t the underclass. To the point of home support, you don’t supplement at all? It is surprising to me that people on this board think it isn’t their job as parents. Curriculum aside, do you not supplement at all at home? No educational apps, no flash cards, no reading a book and asking questions about it, no sounding out words, no handwriting practice, no going over class work together? I’m honestly surprised.

I'm not the pp but your post is insane. You seem to be supporting poor educational practices as a way to make sure some kids are ahead. You personally need an "underclass" so your kid looks better? Nuts.

Maybe, I am insane, but can you deny that the USA relies on the underclass in other countries to get all the things we sell and buy? I didn’t say it was OK, I’m just asking you to see reality here. You, me and everyone reading this site benefits from a underclass of workers around the globe. Debating curriculum in schools in the USA isn’t going to change that.

To frame a debate about reading curriculum in the USA around whether or not someone wants a underclass is a gross stretch. The underclass we rely on isn’t in our country, it is in other countries and yes we absolutely have people who work in horrible labor situations who make our goods.

My point is your kid isn’t the one working as a child in a clothing factory in Bangladesh. Your kid is learning in a school in the USA. Your kid is a child of a parent who reads this blog. Do you think helping your kid learn to read or do basic math is not an expected to do because schools should be doing it? I think most parents on this board supplement. I’m surprised that so many parents are so angry because they expected schools to do all the teaching. I was helped by my immigrant mother and I in turn helped my kids, but parents on here seem upset that they need to supplement. I’m surprised by that. Maybe it sounds nuts to you it is about perspective because- the parents who believe schools should do everything and expect amazing outcomes sound nuts to me.