Anonymous wrote:Decoding is not that hard for most kids. It's a start, not an end for learning to read. I don't understand these arguments at all. Of course other methods are used. Decoding is just a start just like learning what numbers are and what they represent is a start to learning math.

I strongly advocate decoding as a basis for learning to read but care less about what else is also included. The problem with making this a debate about decoding alone or decoding + other stuff is that you're ignoring that many students just aren't taught to read and they don't learn how to read until they are taught to decode. I know more than the average parent and most of the early ES teachers I've talked to about reading acquisition and I understand what science backs up whole word and what backs up decoding. The scientific studies don't actually disagree, they just show that students who pick up reading easily pick it up in a manner similar to "whole word". The mind boggling situation is why we've tailored ES reading instruction to teach only the kids who learn to read easily and meanwhile teach the teachers to put off parents who are rightly concerned that their child may have a LD and delay evaluation. I know a lot of parents whose kids have dyslexia and I have yet to hear a single story of a K or 1st grade teacher who listened to a parent's concerns, much less raised a flag themself.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

I am the teacher to whom you are responding.

How many subjects do you need in order for the observations to not be "anecdotal?"

I taught over 500 5-7 year olds to read. During the time I taught, I experienced at least three different methods preferred and studied by "experts." My conclusion: no one method is the best for all kids. A balanced approach is best. And, yes, phonics and decoding is included in that balance. But, if you think that method should be exclusively used, I strongly disagree.
I assume that you are the parent of the dyslexic child who has spent lots of money on tutors. I am glad your child is succeeding. I'm sorry his teachers did not include decoding in their instruction, but decoding alone is not the best method. And, I suspect that his tutoring includes instruction one-on-one and/or very small groups. You do understand that you are offering "anecdotal" justification for your preferred method?

Anonymous wrote:Early education is so trend driven. Someone somewhere writes a book or a paper about something, and suddenly there is a “new and better” way of doing something. Young kids learn how to read by being read to. Parents today are too busy to actually spend time with their kids during the day, and are then shocked when their first grader can’t read a chapter book. Kids need more one on one teaching than your daycare (or kindergarten!) can give your kid. Read to your kid (and not just a couple books at bedtime), show them words during the day, talk to them and label things in your house. I’m so sick of ineffective early education majors preaching (and of course simultaneously complaining) their newest jargon. Educated parents of the world, Just ACTUALLY spend time with your kids ages 0-5 and they will be Fine!

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do not (as advanced readers) decode every word. We read by sight. The earlier a child can do this the better. Kids can not comprehend well until they are reading by sight. Children (nor adults) do not need to sound out long words. We scan the whole word as well as the words after the word to guess the meaning of that unknown word. We are doing this constantly.

Phonics is fine to get a start.

Spanish and Latin is great for strengthening reading skills later in middle or high school.

It's true that, as proficient readers, we no longer need to decode every word. Just as in math, we no longer have to think about what 5 + 7 is (most of us don't). We have solved that problem often enough to realize it is 12. We have seen the phonogram "igh" together in words so often, we just "know" that they represent the "long I" sound in most words. So we see a word like sigh, or high, or flight, and the word just pops into our brains. We don't have to sound it out.

However, if we are reading, say, a fantasy or science fiction novel and see a nonsense word for example, "Mr. Depsigh", we might need to fall back on our basic decoding skills.

I strongly disagree with the second bolded statement. Poor readers who never properly learned to read phonetically? Yes they need to be constantly scanning ahead to try to guess meaning of words. Because they didn't learn to decode.

If you have learned to decode properly and thoroughly, you seldom need to guess a word from context.

If you have learned to decode syllables efficiently, you do not need to sound out long words. You can quickly look at each syllable and chunk it. The syllables are based on Latin and Green roots, prefixes and suffixes. A key way to improve reading comprehension in grades 4+ is to be sure students can quickly decode these roots and affixes, and know their meaning.

-tion, -ture, aqua- circum - graph, photo, chron-, hypo-

Once you are able to decode the above roots and affixes such as the ones above, you can read almost any word in the English language -- no scanning or guessing based on context necessary. In this manner, you are able to learn by reading. You don't need to ask anyone what a new word is, because you don't need them to read it out loud to you. You have the magic of decoding at your fingertips, and you can read the word to yourself.

If you can decode, you can read "synchronicity", "indeterminate", "hypothyroidism", "aquaculture". No guessing required.

I have studied the science of reading. Good readers decode sentences at a time—not words at a time. Readers scan ahead. It’s not guessing per se. it’s efficiency. It’s much faster. Decoding is slow. For kids with low working memory it’s doing them no favors. Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but if I employ you with my tax dollars, I don't want your anecdotal experience. Teach the way the experts say to teach.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

My DCPS also teaches FUNdations (phonics) as well as trick words (ones that don’t follow the rules). They also in first grade teach specific decoding strategies ( tap it out, chunk it, look for word parts you know).

DC uses Fundations, which is considered a good program, explicitly teaching decoding, a bit remedial. And yet DC still has low proficiency rates, high rates of illiteracy.

As some PP's have said, decoding is very important. But comprehension is more important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, what is wrong with teaching other techniques along with decoding?

Decoding would be the most efficient strategy. Other strategies such as "look for the word within the word" or "scan and guess for context" should be used but only once you have reached the limits of decoding, and still don't know the word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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).

My DCPS also teaches FUNdations (phonics) as well as trick words (ones that don’t follow the rules). They also in first grade teach specific decoding strategies ( tap it out, chunk it, look for word parts you know).