Anonymous wrote:Teacher here. Over the years, I have had many more students who struggled to decode than couldn't comprehend. I teach in a Title One school and our phonics program leaves a lot to be desired with phonological awareness. The kids score low on DIBELS and it takes them longer to even get to decoding. By that point, phonics instruction is over and our one reading intervention teacher was cut last year. So we have kids in 3rd grade and up who still cannot quickly decode. If you can't quickly decode, you will never read fluently enough to comprehend.

This is the problem with holding off decoding. The curriculum just keeps going and getting more difficult and then there's no time to catch up and teach phonics. You can catch up easier on comprehension once you can decode through reading and experience.

There is no right way to teach reading as every kid learns differently. Mine picked it up himself without teaching and was very much a sight word kid. He was taught phonics later on but no idea if it helped. Other kids need formal teaching in a variety of ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

Bingo!Some people lose sight of the fact that decoding words does no good if you don't comprehend.

I posted earlier. I remember one kid who could "call" words pretty well--but, ask him what he just read and there were blank stares. His parents bragged that he had "learned to read" in preschool. A background of experience is much more important than identifying sounds and letters.

It's not uncommon for comprehension to lag decoding, or for decoding to lag comprehension.

If you cannot understand why the chicken crossed the road, decoding isn't going to help. I can teach a child to read if he has a rich vocabulary and an understanding of his surroundings. But, decoding words without understanding the world around you is not helpful. Kids who struggle with reading comprehension frequently struggle with comprehension in general. Not always, but usually. Speaking vocabulary and experience should come before decoding. Some people don't understand that.

Tell that to the Title One schools full of students who have very little vocabulary and background knowledge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

Bingo!Some people lose sight of the fact that decoding words does no good if you don't comprehend.

I posted earlier. I remember one kid who could "call" words pretty well--but, ask him what he just read and there were blank stares. His parents bragged that he had "learned to read" in preschool. A background of experience is much more important than identifying sounds and letters.

It's not uncommon for comprehension to lag decoding, or for decoding to lag comprehension.

If you cannot understand why the chicken crossed the road, decoding isn't going to help. I can teach a child to read if he has a rich vocabulary and an understanding of his surroundings. But, decoding words without understanding the world around you is not helpful. Kids who struggle with reading comprehension frequently struggle with comprehension in general. Not always, but usually. Speaking vocabulary and experience should come before decoding. Some people don't understand that.

Are you saying a child shouldn’t be taught to decode if they don’t have experience? And what if they never gain “experience”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

Bingo!Some people lose sight of the fact that decoding words does no good if you don't comprehend.

I posted earlier. I remember one kid who could "call" words pretty well--but, ask him what he just read and there were blank stares. His parents bragged that he had "learned to read" in preschool. A background of experience is much more important than identifying sounds and letters.

It's not uncommon for comprehension to lag decoding, or for decoding to lag comprehension.

If you cannot understand why the chicken crossed the road, decoding isn't going to help. I can teach a child to read if he has a rich vocabulary and an understanding of his surroundings. But, decoding words without understanding the world around you is not helpful. Kids who struggle with reading comprehension frequently struggle with comprehension in general. Not always, but usually. Speaking vocabulary and experience should come before decoding. Some people don't understand that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

Bingo!Some people lose sight of the fact that decoding words does no good if you don't comprehend.

I posted earlier. I remember one kid who could "call" words pretty well--but, ask him what he just read and there were blank stares. His parents bragged that he had "learned to read" in preschool. A background of experience is much more important than identifying sounds and letters.

It's not uncommon for comprehension to lag decoding, or for decoding to lag comprehension.

Teacher here. Over the years, I have had many more students who struggled to decode than couldn't comprehend. I teach in a Title One school and our phonics program leaves a lot to be desired with phonological awareness. The kids score low on DIBELS and it takes them longer to even get to decoding. By that point, phonics instruction is over and our one reading intervention teacher was cut last year. So we have kids in 3rd grade and up who still cannot quickly decode. If you can't quickly decode, you will never read fluently enough to comprehend.

Anonymous wrote:I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

Bingo!Some people lose sight of the fact that decoding words does no good if you don't comprehend.

I posted earlier. I remember one kid who could "call" words pretty well--but, ask him what he just read and there were blank stares. His parents bragged that he had "learned to read" in preschool. A background of experience is much more important than identifying sounds and letters.

There is not just one way.

I find it so interesting that most online reading discussions talk only about decoding. The iceberg under the ocean's surface is reading comprehension. Anyone with a brain can teach decoding. Comprehension is much, much, much harder. I teach kindergarten and while we use phonics and phonemic awareness instruction (obviously) and sight word memorization to teach decoding, we focus heavily on comprehension. Heavily. Our kids have zero trouble with their accuracy (decoding). But comprehension is a whole different ballgame.

12 year veteran of teaching kids to read in first grade. It's been years since I taught, but I do not share the opinions of the writer--or the "experts" she interviewed.
I taught kids who struggled and I taught kids who picked up reading quickly. I taught kids who came from very, very poor homes with no books or reading materials, and kids who had lots of advantages.
One thing I learned: all kids do not learn in the same way.

Here is where I agree:
1. Reading is not a "natural" process. Some kids may appear to pick it up on their own--but, there is likely a lot of exposure that is not being documented. (Those that "pick it up" have likely been read to a lot. They have also likely been exposed to alphabet books and had parents who asked guided questions while they were reading to them. The parents likely taught them left to right when reading to them and also used books with rhyming words. These are the same parents who likely pointed out signs on the road and encouraged kids to talk about them.
2. Phonics instruction is very important.

Where I disagree:
1. Phonics is not the be all end all in learning to read. It is necessary to have good word attack skills, but some kids struggle with it and, while they should be taught phonics, they also need other options.
2. Whole language has some good points. (I agree it should not be the exclusive approach.)
3. Sight words have their place.

Reading is a complex process and there is not magic bullet.
Why have scores gone down with testing? Kids are being taught to pass tests--not to learn to read. Those are two different skills.

I'm not sure why, OP. It's a bummer. I see so many comments, questions, concerns about dyslexia from parents on DCUM and, while I do believe some are legitimate cases, I believe many are situations where the child just hasn't learned to read well. As the kids get older, it gets more difficult and they get more defensive and defiant. Refusal and low-self esteem kick in.

Some kids pick up reading really easily with little hands-on instruction. Many kids needs explicit phonics works. Breaking words into chunks. Blending sounds. Learning complex and complicated rules and patterns. Site words don't work well.

Someone on DCUM saved me when I was concerned about my daughter and this one person gave me the most valuable advice ever about teaching my child to read.

Who's this "we"? My kid is in first grade in a DCPS and is getting explicit phonics instruction, along with learning sight words (which aren't pronounced phonetically).

I thought the comments were even more interesting. Most of the comments said that more than just phonics or just whole language instruction is needed to teach children to read.

Interesting op ed in the NY Times bemoaning the lack of phonics instruction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/phonics-teaching-reading-wrong-way.html

Our children aren’t being taught to read in ways that line up with what scientists have discovered about how people actually learn.

It’s a problem that has been hiding in plain sight for decades. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, more than six in 10 fourth graders aren’t proficient readers. It has been this way since testing began. A third of kids can’t read at a basic level.

How do we know that a big part of the problem is how children are being taught? Because reading researchers have done studies in classrooms and clinics, and they’ve shown over and over that virtually all kids can learn to read — if they’re taught with approaches that use what scientists have discovered about how the brain does the work of reading. But many teachers don’t know this science.

What have scientists figured out? First of all, while learning to talk is a natural process that occurs when children are surrounded by spoken language, learning to read is not. To become readers, kids need to learn how the words they know how to say connect to print on the page. They need explicit, systematic phonics instruction. There are hundreds of studies that back this up.