If You Want to Get Away From Lucy Caulkins/Balanced Literacy For Reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.

Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.

+1,000

My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."

Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.

It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).

Okay there hold your horses. It isn’t really evidence that she has dyslexia- that requires a TON of other evidence as kids can guess many things when reading, but it doesn’t mean they are dyslexia. Though your child may indeed have its

Exactly. Dyslexia is very hard to identify/diagnose for multiple reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Reading involves looking at letters and converting them to sounds. Pictures are only in books for little kids. As they get older the pictures will go away and all they will be left with is letters. If they can’t connect them to sounds, they will have had a huge disservice done to them by letting them use pictures to avoid actually reading.

This. The idea that pictures are somehow integral to learning to read is ridiculous. For generations, children learned to read from just regular books, often the family bible.

And many learn to read from picture books, not the bible.

But pictures won’t help my kid read Harry Potter at age 5 since it has very few pictures (we don’t own the illustrated version). Isn’t bragging about tots reading HP a key part of DCUM?

Seriously though, you have to read some non-illustrated books sometimes. Phonics helps you tackle unfamiliar words in those too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

[Anonymous]

For people who might not know why balanced literacy is bad, just FYI, a lot of kids who aren’t explicitly taught decoding learn it anyway, maybe 70%. The problem is, of course, the other 30% who never learn how to read properly.

Lots of people looked at the way good readers read, and think, oh, hey, we should teach kids to do what good readers do. But that’s like saying “expert bakers just know by instinct when something is done so we will just teach people to use their instincts to know when something is done.”

When people have a skill down, they use shortcuts, like glancing at the shape of a word to know what it’s said. But that doesn’t mean shortcuts should be taught as the actual skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Reading involves looking at letters and converting them to sounds. Pictures are only in books for little kids. As they get older the pictures will go away and all they will be left with is letters. If they can’t connect them to sounds, they will have had a huge disservice done to them by letting them use pictures to avoid actually reading.

This. The idea that pictures are somehow integral to learning to read is ridiculous. For generations, children learned to read from just regular books, often the family bible.

And many learn to read from picture books, not the bible.

Not by "reading" the pictures.

Listen, proper reading instruction is for snobs who teach their own children, enroll them in private, or hire tutors.

All the other people who want to learn together in the spirit of equity and intersectional identity go with the status quo and are happy about it, Trumper!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.

Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.

+1,000

My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."

Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.

It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).

Okay there hold your horses. It isn’t really evidence that she has dyslexia- that requires a TON of other evidence as kids can guess many things when reading, but it doesn’t mean they are dyslexia. Though your child may indeed have its

Exactly. Dyslexia is very hard to identify/diagnose for multiple reasons.

Not really. Dyslexia can be reliably diagnosed in children as young as 5. Kids at high risk of being dyslexic can be identified in preschool. Structured instruction in phonemic awareness and literacy is sort of like fluoride, it harms nobody and is critical for kids at risk of reading disabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever time I see that darn Balanced Literacy poster, I think of this.

Can you post a link to the creator of this? I would love to share it and want to give appropriate credit.

DP, but googling the tag on there gives:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lucyfalsekins

Which looks like a fun follow!

Yes, it's from Lucy Falsekins. The image seems to be broken now -- I guess twitter doesn't like me embedding images -- but here's the source for those of you who want to see what the rest are talking about: https://twitter.com/LucyFalsekins/status/1312532652105162753

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

For books with information that goes against the party line:

- Why kids don’t like school (this is mostly for teachers wanting to incorporate principles of cognitive science into their instruction but shows how balanced literacy and such is not good)

- The Knowledge gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

For books with information that goes against the party line:

- Why kids don’t like school (this is mostly for teachers wanting to incorporate principles of cognitive science into their instruction but shows how balanced literacy and such is not good)

- The Knowledge gap.

Yeah, what Wexler and Hanaford and Willingham argue for isn’t new, but it is weirdly unpopular. Imagine if FCPS went with curriculum that follows their well-evidenced arguments. That would actually lead to gains in equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

For books with information that goes against the party line:

- Why kids don’t like school (this is mostly for teachers wanting to incorporate principles of cognitive science into their instruction but shows how balanced literacy and such is not good)

- The Knowledge gap.

Yeah, what Wexler and Hanaford and Willingham argue for isn’t new, but it is weirdly unpopular. Imagine if FCPS went with curriculum that follows their well-evidenced arguments. That would actually lead to gains in equity.

Silly PP, FCPS doesn't actually care about equity. They spend all their time/resources/effort virtue-signaling (spending money on school name changes, revamping admission policies for TJHSST, tweeting about the Israel-Palestine conflict), but it's too hard to stand up to the lobbyists and educrats that push junk curriculum. Plus, what would all those extraneous Gatehouse employees do if FCPS were to choose a well-researched curriculum, and then stick with it? They have to change to the latest fad every 5-10 years and waste teachers' time on useless, fad-based professional development, rather than training teachers how to use the science of reading to teach kids to read!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For people who might not know why balanced literacy is bad, just FYI, a lot of kids who aren’t explicitly taught decoding learn it anyway, maybe 70%. The problem is, of course, the other 30% who never learn how to read properly.

Lots of people looked at the way good readers read, and think, oh, hey, we should teach kids to do what good readers do. But that’s like saying “expert bakers just know by instinct when something is done so we will just teach people to use their instincts to know when something is done.”

When people have a skill down, they use shortcuts, like glancing at the shape of a word to know what it’s said. But that doesn’t mean shortcuts should be taught as the actual skill.

This and the same goes for math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who might not know why balanced literacy is bad, just FYI, a lot of kids who aren’t explicitly taught decoding learn it anyway, maybe 70%. The problem is, of course, the other 30% who never learn how to read properly.

Lots of people looked at the way good readers read, and think, oh, hey, we should teach kids to do what good readers do. But that’s like saying “expert bakers just know by instinct when something is done so we will just teach people to use their instincts to know when something is done.”

When people have a skill down, they use shortcuts, like glancing at the shape of a word to know what it’s said. But that doesn’t mean shortcuts should be taught as the actual skill.

This and the same goes for math.

YES!

Which is why more people need to be looking at VMPI and saying not just "Why these blended 'Essentials Concepts' courses?" and "What are you doing about accelerated tracks?" but also "How are you teaching kids addition, subtraction, mutliplication, division, fractions, and decimals? Is THAT evidence based? Or is it all going to be tiling a floor projects without a foundation?"

[Anonymous]

^^^

If you want to contact VDOE on VMPI, link here:
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/mathematics/vmpi/index.shtml

Form here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSesz3YtqVqXtAioJKX0xtYbPxUW6l7dfpbwfdbQyEQ5eTgZMQ/viewform?usp=sf_link

Email here:
[e-mail]

Contact them about early math education and the studies/research they are using that shows it will help kids with dyscalculia and ALL students.