Reply to Lucy Caulkins was wrong about reading

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Lucy Caulkins was wrong about reading"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

Some people have multiple small children and jobs and parents who need help, etc etc. [/quote]

My life is equally busy and I have two children but it didn't keep me from interacting with them about letters, words, numbers, and reading to and with them everyday.  Not acceptable to neglect your child's education yourself and then blame the public schools when they struggle.[/quote]
Ok, great. But the reality is that many parents don't. So what is your solution? We cannot legislate parenting, but we CAN legislate that curriculums used in schools are evidence-based and aligned to science and doing, y'know, their basic function of educating students. If they're not then what is their purpose?[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/quote]Most of the time curriculum shifts are from meh to meh.  Neither is perfect, but both have some attractive feature.  LC was special in that it not only didn't teach kids to read (kids were expected to figure it out on their own) but it actively taught them unhelpful habits (e.g., look at pictures and guess).  There are many anecdotes of kids regressing in their reading after starting school with LC.  It really is far worse than usual and hung on with way more penetration into schools system than it ever should have gotten.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics