Sold a Story podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older daughter was "taught to read" using this shit approach and is STILL behind and not reading well. F_ her kindergarten teacher.

You could take part of the blame as well. It’s not all on teachers.

Why? This was my first child and I trusted the school to teach my child how to read, and I trusted them when I said "she can't read these specific beginner books, is that a problem?" and they said "nope, she's right where she should be." How was I to know any better? I think he moral of the story here is you can't trust educators, which is so, so sad.

Spot on, that's why parents have to be the primary source of teaching for their children until they can fly solo (hopefully by middle school). Listen to, be respectful, but take teacher feedback with some skepticism; you as a parent can (and should) independently assess your kid at a young age and draw your own conclusions in addition to teacher, to reduce risk.

That’s fine and all but in a two parent working household why all the high property taxes to fund schools whose employees now say ‘do it yourself’. If we are Home Depot’ing it than please let’s cut the 3 billion dollar budgets of MCPS and FCPS and we will redirect funds to teach ourselves the science of learning or find a tutor immersed in direct instruction, phonics, abacus method for math, et al.

No one is saying “do it yourself”. All the posts say things need to happen at school and home.

Unfortunately in our experience, the school said my 1st grader was reading “just fine”, and the report card showed it—mostly all 4s in LA! We transferred him to a Catholic school (not for this reason), and his teacher was alarmed by his (lack of) reading progress. He was immediately put into a FIVE days per week reading intervention. I felt like such an idiot for not pushing my concerns with his 1st grade teacher. And, I’m not blaming the teacher. She may not have known better, and it’s likely my son was performing similar to his peers. The whole thing is frustrating, for all involved.

I could have written this post myself. I share your frustrations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

That is fascinating to me as a teacher because no Balanced literacy gave teachers more leeway to fail and we were very definitely held accountable. That was the entire point of the testing movement.

The phonics programs are entirely scripted and delivered whole group. I taught Kindergarten with an entirely scripted Fundations like program, and read aloud literacy last year. Our small groups were also mostly scripted with room to substitute different letters children were working on during a lesson. I had no agency in what I was saying as I was teaching. How do I bear responsibility/accountability for success or failure when I made no instructional decisions?

Why do you need to make instructional decisions when you are teaching the very basics? I'm a parent - I'm very happy with the accountability in programs like Fundations. I know exactly what my kids are learning and how I can reinforce it at home -- isn't that what PPs are telling us we should be doing???

I’m not the PP I was responding to the person who was saying balanced literacy gave teachers no accountability. I’m saying I have no agency with the current phonics based instruction and therefore I can not now have accountability. If I am
Making no decisions logically I cannot be held accountable for decisions. Last year central office in my district gave us a list of kids who needed intervention. There were kids on the list who were reading after 3 months of kindergarten. There were kids not in the list who needed explicit integrated instruction. We had to fight to get the kids who needed help the help. But if you are right and I the person who knows the kids and sees them shouldn’t make instruction decision, then I have no accountability for what happens next. To be accountable for something you must have agency. With scripted phonics there isn’t agency so
I argue I have no accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

That is fascinating to me as a teacher because no Balanced literacy gave teachers more leeway to fail and we were very definitely held accountable. That was the entire point of the testing movement.

The phonics programs are entirely scripted and delivered whole group. I taught Kindergarten with an entirely scripted Fundations like program, and read aloud literacy last year. Our small groups were also mostly scripted with room to substitute different letters children were working on during a lesson. I had no agency in what I was saying as I was teaching. How do I bear responsibility/accountability for success or failure when I made no instructional decisions?

Why do you need to make instructional decisions when you are teaching the very basics? I'm a parent - I'm very happy with the accountability in programs like Fundations. I know exactly what my kids are learning and how I can reinforce it at home -- isn't that what PPs are telling us we should be doing???

I’m not the PP I was responding to the person who was saying balanced literacy gave teachers no accountability. I’m saying I have no agency with the current phonics based instruction and therefore I can not now have accountability. If I am
Making no decisions logically I cannot be held accountable for decisions. Last year central office in my district gave us a list of kids who needed intervention. There were kids on the list who were reading after 3 months of kindergarten. There were kids not in the list who needed explicit integrated instruction. We had to fight to get the kids who needed help the help. But if you are right and I the person who knows the kids and sees them shouldn’t make instruction decision, then I have no accountability for what happens next. To be accountable for something you must have agency. With scripted phonics there isn’t agency so
I argue I have no accountability.

Curious who from central did this and did they base it on PALS? Are you referring to EIRI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older daughter was "taught to read" using this shit approach and is STILL behind and not reading well. F_ her kindergarten teacher.

You could take part of the blame as well. It’s not all on teachers.

Why? This was my first child and I trusted the school to teach my child how to read, and I trusted them when I said "she can't read these specific beginner books, is that a problem?" and they said "nope, she's right where she should be." How was I to know any better? I think he moral of the story here is you can't trust educators, which is so, so sad.

Spot on, that's why parents have to be the primary source of teaching for their children until they can fly solo (hopefully by middle school). Listen to, be respectful, but take teacher feedback with some skepticism; you as a parent can (and should) independently assess your kid at a young age and draw your own conclusions in addition to teacher, to reduce risk.

That’s fine and all but in a two parent working household why all the high property taxes to fund schools whose employees now say ‘do it yourself’. If we are Home Depot’ing it than please let’s cut the 3 billion dollar budgets of MCPS and FCPS and we will redirect funds to teach ourselves the science of learning or find a tutor immersed in direct instruction, phonics, abacus method for math, et al.

No one is saying “do it yourself”. All the posts say things need to happen at school and home.

So what happens to the kids whose parents don't speak English well? Or read themselves? Or who work 80 hour jobs to put food on the table and don't have time for enrichment for their kids, or money to buy games and puzzles? We just assume those kids will fail? This is why public schools were created in America - to help ALL the kids learn - not just the ones whose parents can do part of the teaching at home.

You are using an example that is over 200 years old. Poor people and immigrants have always received less, in public education and in society. This is not a new problem - even in FCPS. You know what happens because it’s been going on forever. School is for all, but a superior education is for the rich. So now, what are you going to do about it? Public education is not changing any time soon.

The expectations were a lot lower back then. Kindergarten was a half-day and some kids never even went to kindergarten (my mom didn't; my grandfather said he wasn't going to send his kid to school to play). Now, the same age kids, are expected to be reading and writing. Now, the majority of students in public schools live in poverty. So they are further behind than kids used to be AND the expectations are much higher.

Expectations do not equal reality. No school district in the country is meeting parent expectations. And with the teacher exodus, it’s clear those expectations are not reasonable. Get tutors, go private, whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

Yeah this is totally ridiculous and did not play out in actual practice. Still had to worry about test scores, etc.

[Anonymous]

Yeah this is totally ridiculous and did not play out in actual practice. Still had to worry about test scores, etc.

Same. I have always worked in high poverty, high ESOL schools and we are very much taken to task for students’ progress or lack thereof. For decades we teachers have begged for research-based programs designed to target and rapidly accelerate these students.

Still waiting, by and large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My older daughter was "taught to read" using this shit approach and is STILL behind and not reading well. F_ her kindergarten teacher.

You could take part of the blame as well. It’s not all on teachers.

Why? This was my first child and I trusted the school to teach my child how to read, and I trusted them when I said "she can't read these specific beginner books, is that a problem?" and they said "nope, she's right where she should be." How was I to know any better? I think he moral of the story here is you can't trust educators, which is so, so sad.

Spot on, that's why parents have to be the primary source of teaching for their children until they can fly solo (hopefully by middle school). Listen to, be respectful, but take teacher feedback with some skepticism; you as a parent can (and should) independently assess your kid at a young age and draw your own conclusions in addition to teacher, to reduce risk.

That’s fine and all but in a two parent working household why all the high property taxes to fund schools whose employees now say ‘do it yourself’. If we are Home Depot’ing it than please let’s cut the 3 billion dollar budgets of MCPS and FCPS and we will redirect funds to teach ourselves the science of learning or find a tutor immersed in direct instruction, phonics, abacus method for math, et al.

No one is saying “do it yourself”. All the posts say things need to happen at school and home.

So what happens to the kids whose parents don't speak English well? Or read themselves? Or who work 80 hour jobs to put food on the table and don't have time for enrichment for their kids, or money to buy games and puzzles? We just assume those kids will fail? This is why public schools were created in America - to help ALL the kids learn - not just the ones whose parents can do part of the teaching at home.

You are using an example that is over 200 years old. Poor people and immigrants have always received less, in public education and in society. This is not a new problem - even in FCPS. You know what happens because it’s been going on forever. School is for all, but a superior education is for the rich. So now, what are you going to do about it? Public education is not changing any time soon.

The expectations were a lot lower back then. Kindergarten was a half-day and some kids never even went to kindergarten (my mom didn't; my grandfather said he wasn't going to send his kid to school to play). Now, the same age kids, are expected to be reading and writing. Now, the majority of students in public schools live in poverty. So they are further behind than kids used to be AND the expectations are much higher.

Expectations do not equal reality. No school district in the country is meeting parent expectations. And with the teacher exodus, it’s clear those expectations are not reasonable. Get tutors, go private, whatever.

Many parents would rather just keep on keeping on with their kid's fake grades.

[Anonymous]

We have a teacher who gives fake grades just to make the parents happy and to make herself look good. They get to the next grade and the teachers are shocked. Then the parents are shocked that their kids need intervention.

[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:My older daughter was "taught to read" using this shit approach and is STILL behind and not reading well. F_ her kindergarten teacher.

You could take part of the blame as well. It’s not all on teachers.

Why? This was my first child and I trusted the school to teach my child how to read, and I trusted them when I said "she can't read these specific beginner books, is that a problem?" and they said "nope, she's right where she should be." How was I to know any better? I think he moral of the story here is you can't trust educators, which is so, so sad.

Spot on, that's why parents have to be the primary source of teaching for their children until they can fly solo (hopefully by middle school). Listen to, be respectful, but take teacher feedback with some skepticism; you as a parent can (and should) independently assess your kid at a young age and draw your own conclusions in addition to teacher, to reduce risk.

That’s fine and all but in a two parent working household why all the high property taxes to fund schools whose employees now say ‘do it yourself’. If we are Home Depot’ing it than please let’s cut the 3 billion dollar budgets of MCPS and FCPS and we will redirect funds to teach ourselves the science of learning or find a tutor immersed in direct instruction, phonics, abacus method for math, et al.

No one is saying “do it yourself”. All the posts say things need to happen at school and home.

So what happens to the kids whose parents don't speak English well? Or read themselves? Or who work 80 hour jobs to put food on the table and don't have time for enrichment for their kids, or money to buy games and puzzles? We just assume those kids will fail? This is why public schools were created in America - to help ALL the kids learn - not just the ones whose parents can do part of the teaching at home.

Presumably they end up dyslexic and incarcerated like they deserve for not attending school faithfully enough like a PP suggested.

I'm not fighting back against this crap only for my kid, it's for these kids. These people exist and lots of them are doing everything they possibly can and then some. They are not less worthy of a basic education than the rest of us.

Right, but remember that during the election when people attack CRT and reading programs. Sorry to make this political, but education is a mix of politics and money at all times.

Phonics is not going to cure poverty and dyslexia. Can it help to have more systematic phonics instruction? Yes a little
Is it going to rid the world of these issues? Absolutely not.

Republican strategy is to get upset about school decisions and say no one is listening to parents and parent rights should rule. Meanwhile laws have already been passed mandating phonics in Virginia.

The larger game is that Republicans are trying to get people to vote for Republicans under the premise that they will pass already passed laws and give “parent’s rights”. Once they are elected into the state legislature and school boards, the plan is give to school vouchers to private schools and open charters which will lead to the erosion of public school systems.

You can of course write this off crazy and are currently free to vote how you would like to. Republicans watched Youngkin win on this platform and it is working well for them in other places so they will continue to use it.

I'm not sure I follow this post, but I haven't kept up with who pushed the phonics legislation. But I agreeing with the PP that public schools should serve all. Are you saying Republicans pushed the phonics legislation through while also trying to dismantle the same public schools? If so, I didn't know that.

^^I meant I know they are pushing vouchers. I'm not following the rest of the post.

Sorry, I’m saying creating more discord around public schooling only serves Republican purpose more. (Hence the focus on CRT). Parents who are ragingly upset about phonics/reading instruction when legislation has already passed in VA are only serving to stoke those fires and outrage at this point. That may or may not be intentional on the part of parents/posters, but it is a consequence of the teacher, reading instruction and school bashing that happens here and other places.

I think Republicans are counting on the fact that no one realizes that legislation was already passed and want to tap into the outrage to garner votes. They do have a strong history of being able to do that.

Republicans are counting on the fact that suburban parents open their eyes and realize that the schools are not infallible. They jumped right on board the latest fad being pushed by the teacher colleges and they’re doing it again w grading for equity/std based grading. This whole literacy scandal should be a wake up call for parents. We must demand research and data when we see new trends being pushed.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the entire thread, but I wanted to point out that I think the major push towards reading in kindergarten really fit into the push for whole language reading. When you are essentially just training kids to memorize books or be good at guessing what the next page is going to say, you can get a kid to the point where they look like they are reading a lot sooner.

I always compare phonics-based reading to a roller coaster. There is a long, slow, slog up a steep hill, then at some point they reach the tipping point (where they are able to decode enough words quickly enough to actually comprehend each sentence) and that’s when the fun starts! But that slog can take a long time, and if teachers aren’t allowed to take the time they need to teach in a developmentally appropriate way, then it’s a lot more tempting to say that this kid who has memorized several of the beginner level readers in their classroom is a reader because they can turn the pages of a book and say the words that are on those pages, even if they’re not actually able to decode any individual words outside of that context.

MThe problem with pushing kids to do things before it is developmentally appropriate is that all of their future learning is built on the shaky foundation. This is true with how we teach reading, but it’s also true with a lot of issues in school, a big one being classroom behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the entire thread, but I wanted to point out that I think the major push towards reading in kindergarten really fit into the push for whole language reading. When you are essentially just training kids to memorize books or be good at guessing what the next page is going to say, you can get a kid to the point where they look like they are reading a lot sooner.

I always compare phonics-based reading to a roller coaster. There is a long, slow, slog up a steep hill, then at some point they reach the tipping point (where they are able to decode enough words quickly enough to actually comprehend each sentence) and that’s when the fun starts! But that slog can take a long time, and if teachers aren’t allowed to take the time they need to teach in a developmentally appropriate way, then it’s a lot more tempting to say that this kid who has memorized several of the beginner level readers in their classroom is a reader because they can turn the pages of a book and say the words that are on those pages, even if they’re not actually able to decode any individual words outside of that context.

MThe problem with pushing kids to do things before it is developmentally appropriate is that all of their future learning is built on the shaky foundation. This is true with how we teach reading, but it’s also true with a lot of issues in school, a big one being classroom behavior.

Agree. I cringe every time someone recommends leveled readers which rely on pictures *by design*. Or like in the podcast where the adult is supposed to read the book first. Or the book is a dog did X, a cat did X with pictures. Smart kids or kids exposed to a lot of reading can easily fake reading those kinds of books, which will come back to bite them just about the time when they're supposed to be finished learning to read and fully into reading to learn.

In my experience a good decodable reader says a dog DID X, the cat HAD Y, then you can tell when they're not attending to the words and work on that. Yes, it will take longer and look unsuccessful for longer, but the kids will be better off in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

That is fascinating to me as a teacher because no Balanced literacy gave teachers more leeway to fail and we were very definitely held accountable. That was the entire point of the testing movement.

The phonics programs are entirely scripted and delivered whole group. I taught Kindergarten with an entirely scripted Fundations like program, and read aloud literacy last year. Our small groups were also mostly scripted with room to substitute different letters children were working on during a lesson. I had no agency in what I was saying as I was teaching. How do I bear responsibility/accountability for success or failure when I made no instructional decisions?

Why do you need to make instructional decisions when you are teaching the very basics? I'm a parent - I'm very happy with the accountability in programs like Fundations. I know exactly what my kids are learning and how I can reinforce it at home -- isn't that what PPs are telling us we should be doing???

I’m not the PP I was responding to the person who was saying balanced literacy gave teachers no accountability. I’m saying I have no agency with the current phonics based instruction and therefore I can not now have accountability. If I am
Making no decisions logically I cannot be held accountable for decisions. Last year central office in my district gave us a list of kids who needed intervention. There were kids on the list who were reading after 3 months of kindergarten. There were kids not in the list who needed explicit integrated instruction. We had to fight to get the kids who needed help the help. But if you are right and I the person who knows the kids and sees them shouldn’t make instruction decision, then I have no accountability for what happens next. To be accountable for something you must have agency. With scripted phonics there isn’t agency so
I argue I have no accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

That is fascinating to me as a teacher because no Balanced literacy gave teachers more leeway to fail and we were very definitely held accountable. That was the entire point of the testing movement.

The phonics programs are entirely scripted and delivered whole group. I taught Kindergarten with an entirely scripted Fundations like program, and read aloud literacy last year. Our small groups were also mostly scripted with room to substitute different letters children were working on during a lesson. I had no agency in what I was saying as I was teaching. How do I bear responsibility/accountability for success or failure when I made no instructional decisions?

Why do you need to make instructional decisions when you are teaching the very basics? I'm a parent - I'm very happy with the accountability in programs like Fundations. I know exactly what my kids are learning and how I can reinforce it at home -- isn't that what PPs are telling us we should be doing???

I’m not the PP I was responding to the person who was saying balanced literacy gave teachers no accountability. I’m saying I have no agency with the current phonics based instruction and therefore I can not now have accountability. If I am
Making no decisions logically I cannot be held accountable for decisions. Last year central office in my district gave us a list of kids who needed intervention. There were kids on the list who were reading after 3 months of kindergarten. There were kids not in the list who needed explicit integrated instruction. We had to fight to get the kids who needed help the help. But if you are right and I the person who knows the kids and sees them shouldn’t make instruction decision, then I have no accountability for what happens next. To be accountable for something you must have agency. With scripted phonics there isn’t agency so
I argue I have no accountability.

With a structured phonics program, the scope and sequence is defined. Each child’s place within that scope and sequence needs to be determined by skilled teachers who can provided additional instruction necessary to master the pattern or provide enrichment for those who have mastered the pattern. In many cases the lessons are scripted to protect the kids from teachers saying things like “when 2 vowels go walking, the first one does the talking”.

If teacher preparation programs taught them properly, scripted programs wouldn’t be necessary. But nobody holds professors in colleges of education accountable, so here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Relevant quote from Steve Dykstra, PhD. Psychologist:

"The entire design of instruction under Whole Language and its close relative, Balanced Literacy, ensured that adults would succeed even if children did not. The vague role of the instructor means that so long as they provide enough books and opportunities, they have succeeded. If the child fails to read, the fault is with the child who didn't try hard enough, the family that didn't read to the child, the community that didn't fund the school, or society that couldn't eradicate poverty. The responsibility, and solution, lies elsewhere, never with the instruction.

A fundamental difference between Structured Literacy and Whole Language is where the responsibility falls when things go wrong. That shift in thinking and behavior can be very challenging, and feel like an attack."

That is fascinating to me as a teacher because no Balanced literacy gave teachers more leeway to fail and we were very definitely held accountable. That was the entire point of the testing movement.

The phonics programs are entirely scripted and delivered whole group. I taught Kindergarten with an entirely scripted Fundations like program, and read aloud literacy last year. Our small groups were also mostly scripted with room to substitute different letters children were working on during a lesson. I had no agency in what I was saying as I was teaching. How do I bear responsibility/accountability for success or failure when I made no instructional decisions?

Why do you need to make instructional decisions when you are teaching the very basics? I'm a parent - I'm very happy with the accountability in programs like Fundations. I know exactly what my kids are learning and how I can reinforce it at home -- isn't that what PPs are telling us we should be doing???

I’m not the PP I was responding to the person who was saying balanced literacy gave teachers no accountability. I’m saying I have no agency with the current phonics based instruction and therefore I can not now have accountability. If I am
Making no decisions logically I cannot be held accountable for decisions. Last year central office in my district gave us a list of kids who needed intervention. There were kids on the list who were reading after 3 months of kindergarten. There were kids not in the list who needed explicit integrated instruction. We had to fight to get the kids who needed help the help. But if you are right and I the person who knows the kids and sees them shouldn’t make instruction decision, then I have no accountability for what happens next. To be accountable for something you must have agency. With scripted phonics there isn’t agency so
I argue I have no accountability.

With a structured phonics program, the scope and sequence is defined. Each child’s place within that scope and sequence needs to be determined by skilled teachers who can provided additional instruction necessary to master the pattern or provide enrichment for those who have mastered the pattern. In many cases the lessons are scripted to protect the kids from teachers saying things like “when 2 vowels go walking, the first one does the talking”.

If teacher preparation programs taught them properly, scripted programs wouldn’t be necessary. But nobody holds professors in colleges of education accountable, so here we are.

Thank you. That's the standard we need to get to in schools and dyslexia legislation so far is a good start but not enough until this training issue is addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the entire thread, but I wanted to point out that I think the major push towards reading in kindergarten really fit into the push for whole language reading. When you are essentially just training kids to memorize books or be good at guessing what the next page is going to say, you can get a kid to the point where they look like they are reading a lot sooner.

I always compare phonics-based reading to a roller coaster. There is a long, slow, slog up a steep hill, then at some point they reach the tipping point (where they are able to decode enough words quickly enough to actually comprehend each sentence) and that’s when the fun starts! But that slog can take a long time, and if teachers aren’t allowed to take the time they need to teach in a developmentally appropriate way, then it’s a lot more tempting to say that this kid who has memorized several of the beginner level readers in their classroom is a reader because they can turn the pages of a book and say the words that are on those pages, even if they’re not actually able to decode any individual words outside of that context.

MThe problem with pushing kids to do things before it is developmentally appropriate is that all of their future learning is built on the shaky foundation. This is true with how we teach reading, but it’s also true with a lot of issues in school, a big one being classroom behavior.

I’m a kinder teacher and I agree. I am happy with going back to this phonics focus.

You have to go slow to go fast!