Reading Groups

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]ALL grades K-6 are implementing word study.[/quote]


Good because I don't think "my 4th grader needs reading comprehension" lady understands how important word study, and understanding things like prefixes, suffixes, latin roots, etc. are to...wait for it....READING COMPREHENSION. This lady doesn't realize that it's a lot easier to understand (comprehend) something if you can figure out what the word means by looking at it.
[/quote]

You’re a moron so I won’t bother to explain anymore. Word study is now taking over reading comprehension, at least at our school. A truly effective LA program needs both.[/quote]

I am sorry that your brilliant decoder child that can read any word but apparently cannot comprehend what they are reading is going to have to sit through content in 4th grade that they find boring. I can’t imagine what that must be like. Fortunately the move to teaching phonics will be better for the district as a whole. FCPS spent 15-20 years not teaching kids to read. Many of these kids ended up needing special education services and taking up way more resources than the district has, which ultimately harms all students. [b] Not to mention the resources families have had to expend to get proper instruction. Price out a “reading comprehension tutor” vs an OG tutor and therapist for a kid who hasn’t been taught to read and then get back to me.[/b] Or price out a Catholic school vs. a private school for kids with dyslexia. I don’t believe that they will be doing no reading comprehension in 4th grade this year (aside from the fact that every other content area requires reading comprehension), but since your kid can decode, you can work on reading comp at home. [/quote]

Just saying, we are actually spending a small fortune to a speech pathologist who is doing the Lindamood Bell “Visualizing and Verbalizing” reading comprehension program for my kid with autism - they are 5 grade levels below but can decode everything. It’s not cheaper! And truthfully, it’s harder to fix true comprehension deficits. The county doesn’t have a great comprehension solution for kids with deep deficits in this area. [/quote]

PP, I am sorry that your child is struggling. I suspect that you are not the prior PP though and the reading groups she wants would not help your child. And, I agree that tutoring for an autistic child with reading comprehension deficits 5 grades below grade level is expensive. I would think that your child also has an IEP and is getting reading pullouts. Not the situation that prior PP is talking about. But a regular tutor for a Gen Ed kid is way less expensive than OG tutors or Lindamood Bell (which is also the system some dyslexic kids use).[/quote]

^^ this is the dyslexia parent I am talking about. [/quote]

Yeah, we dyslexia parents are crazy to want schools to teach our kids how to read, instead of teaching them to guess. I don't think that schools should ONLY be teaching phonics, and from many of the responses on here, that isn't what is happening. And, most reading comprehension doesn't even happen in reading groups. It happens in social studies and science and math. It happens when your child reads at home. But some parents think their kids are "too good" to learn phonics and I have no sympathy for that position when my kid spent 4 years in FCPS not being taught to read. We spent $80,000 to send her to private school for two years so she could actually get proper reading instruction. Your outrage shouldn't be that they are teaching phonics to 4th graders; your outrage should be that they didn't teach this to the current 4th graders when they were in K-2.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]ALL grades K-6 are implementing word study.[/quote]


Good because I don't think "my 4th grader needs reading comprehension" lady understands how important word study, and understanding things like prefixes, suffixes, latin roots, etc. are to...wait for it....READING COMPREHENSION. This lady doesn't realize that it's a lot easier to understand (comprehend) something if you can figure out what the word means by looking at it.
[/quote]

You’re a moron so I won’t bother to explain anymore. Word study is now taking over reading comprehension, at least at our school. A truly effective LA program needs both.[/quote]

I am sorry that your brilliant decoder child that can read any word but apparently cannot comprehend what they are reading is going to have to sit through content in 4th grade that they find boring. I can’t imagine what that must be like. Fortunately the move to teaching phonics will be better for the district as a whole. FCPS spent 15-20 years not teaching kids to read. Many of these kids ended up needing special education services and taking up way more resources than the district has, which ultimately harms all students. [b] Not to mention the resources families have had to expend to get proper instruction. Price out a “reading comprehension tutor” vs an OG tutor and therapist for a kid who hasn’t been taught to read and then get back to me.[/b] Or price out a Catholic school vs. a private school for kids with dyslexia. I don’t believe that they will be doing no reading comprehension in 4th grade this year (aside from the fact that every other content area requires reading comprehension), but since your kid can decode, you can work on reading comp at home. [/quote]

Just saying, we are actually spending a small fortune to a speech pathologist who is doing the Lindamood Bell “Visualizing and Verbalizing” reading comprehension program for my kid with autism - they are 5 grade levels below but can decode everything. It’s not cheaper! And truthfully, it’s harder to fix true comprehension deficits. The county doesn’t have a great comprehension solution for kids with deep deficits in this area. [/quote]

PP, I am sorry that your child is struggling. I suspect that you are not the prior PP though and the reading groups she wants would not help your child. And, I agree that tutoring for an autistic child with reading comprehension deficits 5 grades below grade level is expensive. I would think that your child also has an IEP and is getting reading pullouts. Not the situation that prior PP is talking about. But a regular tutor for a Gen Ed kid is way less expensive than OG tutors or Lindamood Bell (which is also the system some dyslexic kids use).[/quote]

^^ this is the dyslexia parent I am talking about. [/quote]

Yeah, we dyslexia parents are crazy to want schools to teach our kids how to read, instead of teaching them to guess. I don't think that schools should ONLY be teaching phonics, and from many of the responses on here, that isn't what is happening. And, most reading comprehension doesn't even happen in reading groups. It happens in social studies and science and math. It happens when your child reads at home. [b]But some parents think their kids are "too good" to learn phonics and I have no sympathy for that position when my kid spent 4 years in FCPS not being taught to read.[/b] We spent $80,000 to send her to private school for two years so she could actually get proper reading instruction. Your outrage shouldn't be that they are teaching phonics to 4th graders; your outrage should be that they didn't teach this to the current 4th graders when they were in K-2.

[/quote]


You have no sympathy for other parents and only for yourself? I would only admit that on an anonymous forum.

I don’t have outrage. I just watched what happened with the state legislature and know what happens next because public schools are driven by curriculum companies and political whim that like to change everything rather than fix what is not working. We know what works for reading: phonics, studying word patterns and comprehension together make total reading. There are many programs that work for this, not just the packaged phonics and core curriculum programs.

I get the feeling that you are just angry and worried that your daughter has a hard time reading. You have want you want from the legislature, your daughter is not in the primary grades anymore, why crap on other people that have different issues with their kids?

[Anonymous]

A lot of parents wanted a phonics based LA program. I was ecstatic when I heard that they were going to be doing word studies and focusing on spelling and grammar this year. The method that they were using worked for a small group of kids and left a lot of other kids struggling, not just the kids with dyslexia. DS is a smart, capable kid who has not had any corrections to his spelling or grammar in LA for the first 5 years he was in school. That is ridiculous. He knew how to spell the words correctly, we asked him to spell words for us when we saw papers from school, he wasn't doing it because the Teacher didn't correct it and he didn't care. It only started improving when we started making him redo work at home.

At the very least, the way FCPS had been teaching LA was allowing kids to be lazy and that was impacting their writing and reading as they got older. At worst, kids who were slow to read or had LDs struggled for a longer period of time then they needed to. That can cause issues with a kids self esteem and desire to learn.

I have no problem at my 5th grader who is ahead in reading and does well with comprehension and the like (high iReady's and Pass Advanced on the 2 SOLs he has taken, not that either of those are great measures) will be a better reader and writer with what they are doing now. Kids who are ahead in reading will still be in a higher reading group and will still be working on reading comprehension. He reads a lot at home and we discuss what he is reading. He is going to be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of parents wanted a phonics based LA program. I was ecstatic when I heard that they were going to be doing word studies and focusing on spelling and grammar this year. The method that they were using worked for a small group of kids and left a lot of other kids struggling, not just the kids with dyslexia. DS is a smart, capable kid who has not had any corrections to his spelling or grammar in LA for the first 5 years he was in school. That is ridiculous. He knew how to spell the words correctly, we asked him to spell words for us when we saw papers from school, he wasn't doing it because the Teacher didn't correct it and he didn't care. It only started improving when we started making him redo work at home.

At the very least, the way FCPS had been teaching LA was allowing kids to be lazy and that was impacting their writing and reading as they got older. At worst, kids who were slow to read or had LDs struggled for a longer period of time then they needed to. That can cause issues with a kids self esteem and desire to learn.

I have no problem at my 5th grader who is ahead in reading and does well with comprehension and the like (high iReady's and Pass Advanced on the 2 SOLs he has taken, not that either of those are great measures) will be a better reader and writer with what they are doing now. Kids who are ahead in reading will still be in a higher reading group and will still be working on reading comprehension. He reads a lot at home and we discuss what he is reading. He is going to be fine.

What parents don’t understand is that phonics, spelling and grammar work should be combined with comprehension and understanding. Whatever, you are going to get phonics and spelling, but “content-rich” push is coming from companies that are pushing their curriculum. I

Know also that the reason why we don’t have science and social studies is that parents 15 years ago wanted to make sure all kids were reading and doing math, so they lobbied for more reading and math time and science and social studies were cut. Parents get what they ask for eventually, so be careful what you ask for because the education companies and legislature is listening. Because of this public schools will always leave something out for someone. As a previous poster said, “the pendulum has swung” enjoy that you are happy with its direction for the time being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

Honestly, the top reading groups probably do not get much attention from the Teacher because the Teacher needs to be working the kids who are below grade level or just at grade level. Even with the support of a reading specialist, classes today have too wide a divide n kids skills ability so the higher level groups, in reading or math, are far less likely to get much attention from the Teacher. Also, asking Teachers to apply a different type of curriculum for 5-7 groups in their classroom is asking far too much of the Teacher. That means a separate lesson plan for too many groups. The wide gaps in most classrooms is crushing Teachers because of the extra planning that they have to do for all the different groups.

I do wish there was more time for Science and Social Studies. Both would provide opportunities to work on reading comprehension if there was work done to integrate them into the LA curriculum. But again, the planning time has to be hard on Teachers.

I do wish there was more of an effort to group kids into classes based on ability so that Teachers had to deal with smaller ranges of abilities and could do more for the different groups. I know that some people hate this idea but I think that the wide gaps are causing far too much work for Teachers and leading to more gaps in learning for kids because the Teachers are stretched to thin trying to provide lessons that are meaningful for kids who are below grade level, on grade level, and above grade level. We are asking too much and it is hurting the adults and the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

I teach AAP. All of my students are on or above grade level but not one kid got a perfect score on the DSA highest level. I am doing the word study lessons but condensing them because they are too slow for my kids. So 5 lessons I condense to 2-3. But I already see a huge difference in spelling in week 7. I will also be starting our vocabulary program as well. The word study in the upper grades is focused on affixes and greek/latin roots. Even advanced kids can benefit from this instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

Honestly, the top reading groups probably do not get much attention from the Teacher because the Teacher needs to be working the kids who are below grade level or just at grade level. Even with the support of a reading specialist, classes today have too wide a divide n kids skills ability so the higher level groups, in reading or math, are far less likely to get much attention from the Teacher. Also, asking Teachers to apply a different type of curriculum for 5-7 groups in their classroom is asking far too much of the Teacher. That means a separate lesson plan for too many groups. The wide gaps in most classrooms is crushing Teachers because of the extra planning that they have to do for all the different groups.

I do wish there was more time for Science and Social Studies. Both would provide opportunities to work on reading comprehension if there was work done to integrate them into the LA curriculum. But again, the planning time has to be hard on Teachers.

I do wish there was more of an effort to group kids into classes based on ability so that Teachers had to deal with smaller ranges of abilities and could do more for the different groups. I know that some people hate this idea but I think that the wide gaps are causing far too much work for Teachers and leading to more gaps in learning for kids because the Teachers are stretched to thin trying to provide lessons that are meaningful for kids who are below grade level, on grade level, and above grade level. We are asking too much and it is hurting the adults and the kids.

This is exactly why parents push for AAP. Classes of 25-30 kids with needs all over the place is too difficult and no one gets what they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

I teach AAP. All of my students are on or above grade level but not one kid got a perfect score on the DSA highest level. I am doing the word study lessons but condensing them because they are too slow for my kids. So 5 lessons I condense to 2-3. But I already see a huge difference in spelling in week 7. I will also be starting our vocabulary program as well. The word study in the upper grades is focused on affixes and greek/latin roots. Even advanced kids can benefit from this instruction.

That sounds great. Thank you.

One of my DC is in AAP and the other one is in MS and both can/could have benefitted from this.

I was an early reader but still remember learning roots, prefixes suffixes, etc. as well as spelling (and grammar rules) in grade school. Even gifted kids/good readers need to be taught some of this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

I teach AAP. All of my students are on or above grade level but not one kid got a perfect score on the DSA highest level. I am doing the word study lessons but condensing them because they are too slow for my kids. So 5 lessons I condense to 2-3. But I already see a huge difference in spelling in week 7. I will also be starting our vocabulary program as well. The word study in the upper grades is focused on affixes and greek/latin roots. Even advanced kids can benefit from this instruction.

That sounds great. Thank you.

One of my DC is in AAP and the other one is in MS and both can/could have benefitted from this.

I was an early reader but still remember learning roots, prefixes suffixes, etc. as well as spelling (and grammar rules) in grade school. Even gifted kids/good readers need to be taught some of this stuff.

Right. They do, but they did that before also. My AAP kid is in 6th and had spelling and roots/suffixes in 3rd? Maybe it differed across the county, but we had this before the district moved to “science of reading.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.

I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.

My kid doesn’t need phonics and phonemic awareness. She needs comprehension now (4th grade).

This is what you parents have been fighting for and now the pendulum has swung - hope you’re happy!

Parents have been fighting for phonics AND a rich knowledge based curriculum. Just wanted to correct this.

We need balanced literacy....it includes phonics/word work, word study/spelling/ and (gasp)
guided reading/book club groups to work in comprehension. Balanced literacy looks different in each grade level. As previous posters said if we go all science of reading we will start to see readers struggling in comprehension. Good luck to all!
Dyslexia parents got ahold of the state legislature and brought in iReady and science of reading. So now suddenly kids will have “comprehension difficulties” starting in 3rd or 4th grade. You will have to form a contingent and go to the state legislature and take control of the schools from they dyslexia parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.

This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.

There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?

I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.

NP. Do you have a link(s) for this? "If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies." Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.

I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.

Could you please provide more information or a link to what the PRF is and what it tests? I can't find anything on the FCPS website. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.

I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.

Could you please provide more information or a link to what the PRF is and what it tests? I can't find anything on the FCPS website. Thank you.

It’s another diagnostic test in iReady