Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

I don't need them to read Dickens (they would hate that!), just something roughly at their level and not have to endure phonics lessons they don't need and get some meaningful instruction at their level between K-2 in language arts. They LIKE age appropriate books (current K kid is devouring Ivy+Bean and Borrowers' series right now)--just have seen how my older kid who was similarly advanced in reading suffered through reading instruction in K-2 and dreading what it will be like for my younger one if they add even more phonics in and remove more of the writer's workshops/readers' workshops which were the only thing he liked. I wish there was more differentiation in K-2 as that's where the developmental differences in reading really show up and that's where kids form their attitudes towards school, learning etc.

I can understand how it would be frustrating if your kid was reading Borrowers (which is not a kindergarten book by any stretch, main character is 13 and it's more an upper ES book though content-appropriate for any age). However have a little thought for the 60% of kids who will be at risk of not reading well (with a huge gradient of what "not well" means) if they don't get phonics instruction. I had to work like crazy to get one of my kids out of the habit of "look at the picture and guess" so she didn't end up with an incorrect dyslexia label down the road.

Writer's workshop is horrible for actually teaching writing. Maybe your kid is as good at intuiting sentence structure, paragraph structure, spelling, and the like as they are at reading complex material, but your kid is not the norm. You're basically asking for multiplication in kindergarten, but from language arts.

I absolutely support some phonics instruction and agree that it's needed and important for reading. But there are a diversity of kids' abilities in K-2, with a fairly high percentage of strong readers in FCPS, and given all the tests/screeners they are given there could be meaningful differentiation based on results. I don't think they have to meet exactly at my kids' level, but at least just let them read and talk about books with other readers and do open-ended writing prompts with feedback etc. while others are doing phonics support. I think it's just as important to develop voice, expression of ideas early on as it is to spell accurately and write grammatically. The latter are important and easier to measure, but the former need to be supported also. It's easy to get overly reductive with reading/writing instruction.

They ARE doing this. They have independent reading time, and they have "reading buddies" and reading groups, even in Kindergarten. Maybe your child hasn't told you about this, but it's happening.

Anonymous wrote:I've posted here before. I taught first grade for years --very low income kids for a few years, and a more diverse group for a number of years. I strongly believe in the value of phonics. Every child should be exposed to it and instructed in it.

That said, there are some kids who just don't get it. Demanding that only phonics be used to teach kids will leave those kids out.

I think the problem with the "Balanced Instruction" is many teachers have left out the phonics portion. My philosophy: Balanced instruction with a strong phonics emphasis. But, don't leave out all the other tools. Some kids need those other tools.

I recall some kids who could sound out words perfectly--but had no idea what they were reading. They needed lots of instructions to develop comprehension that did not include just sounding out words.

Yup - this was the problem for my older child, ZERO phonics instruction and we thought he had a learning disability because he was struggling so much with reading. We would say "sound out that word" and he had no idea what we were talking about because they never talked about sounding things out at school. I'm embarrassed that I didn't figure this out earlier, but we spent a year on twice weekly OG tutoring and he's back up to speed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

I don't need them to read Dickens (they would hate that!), just something roughly at their level and not have to endure phonics lessons they don't need and get some meaningful instruction at their level between K-2 in language arts. They LIKE age appropriate books (current K kid is devouring Ivy+Bean and Borrowers' series right now)--just have seen how my older kid who was similarly advanced in reading suffered through reading instruction in K-2 and dreading what it will be like for my younger one if they add even more phonics in and remove more of the writer's workshops/readers' workshops which were the only thing he liked. I wish there was more differentiation in K-2 as that's where the developmental differences in reading really show up and that's where kids form their attitudes towards school, learning etc.

My THIRD grader is reading those books right now, they're not age appropriate for Kindergarten. Phonics instruction, BOB books, Elephant and Piggie, I Can Read... books, those ARE appropriate for Kindergarten. Your expectations are really, really off, PP.

Anyway, the phonics instruction in Kindergarten is a HUGE win for parents this year. My third grader didn't get that, she was taught using Lucy Calkins and it was really hard for us to undo the "guess based on the first letter and picture" stuff. She did catch up, she's at grade level, but she would be ahead if they'd taught basic phonics instruction back then. Anyway, I would venture to guess that at least half, and probably a lot more than half, of children come into Kindergarten not knowing how to read. My current Kindergartener came in knowing only how to read simple CVC books, so the current phonics review in K is totally appropriate for him.

If you want to challenge your child, then give him/her those books to read at home, but to expect a kindergarten teacher to be teaching your advanced reader at a third grade level is not realistic in ANY situation. You're way off base here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

Wit and Wisdom is such a slog. We use it in my district and it is not appropriate for K-2 IMO. The lessons are 90 minutes long and even if you break it in half, the kids grown when you bring out the same book for the 4th, 5th and 6th read.

Agreed--that's the issue with science sometimes--it tracks what it studies (growth in targeted reading skills) and not what it doesn't (how much kids hate it).

Also, approved by who and with what criteria? For instance,
Wit & Wisdom is approved by Colorado as only a supplemental curriculum and as not including foundations by edreports.org

Superkids is approved by Colorado, and ranked quite low by edreports.org


Does anyone have experience with Core Knowledge Language Arts or Into Reading? These both score higher on multiple reviewers than Benchmark.
Also, something I know is important in FCPS is that everything has to meet the Universal Design for Learning standards and some curricular materials are still clunky/non-compliant with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

Wit and Wisdom is such a slog. We use it in my district and it is not appropriate for K-2 IMO. The lessons are 90 minutes long and even if you break it in half, the kids grown when you bring out the same book for the 4th, 5th and 6th read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

I want to know how they landed on these options? With the exception of Amplify- this is all the balanced literacy nonsense.

What happens to the few elementary schools that have good programs like Wilson’s Fundations. Do those go away?

I don't know the answer. However, in the past, in another school system, I have known people on text selection committees. Follow the money! It may just be a dinner or two, but it is out there. This is true of many, many contracts let in school systems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

I want to know how they landed on these options? With the exception of Amplify- this is all the balanced literacy nonsense.

What happens to the few elementary schools that have good programs like Wilson’s Fundations. Do those go away?

I doubt it but it is tough to say. Did you fill out the review form? I am OP and was really hoping for strong, informed community response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason stuff like Wilson Foundations isn't on there?

That's what I want to know! Or Wit and Wisdom, or really any approved curriculum.

I want to know how they landed on these options? With the exception of Amplify- this is all the balanced literacy nonsense.

What happens to the few elementary schools that have good programs like Wilson’s Fundations. Do those go away?

You mean they just didn't have a large enough vocabulary (language comprehension), or they couldn't join the individual decoded words into concepts in their minds?

Both. Depended on the student. I am thinking of one particular student who would just give a blank stare when asked a question about what he had just read aloud. In that case, I think it was joining the individual decoded words into concepts. But, certainly, I had many who did not have a large enough vocabulary.

Beginning reading instruction involves lots of things. We used to use the term "reading readiness." It involved many things:

visual discrimination--child must be able to tell one letter from another
auditory discrimination--being able to distinguish one sound from another
vocabulary--hard to comprehend if you don't know what the words mean
left to right progression
ability to follow directions
Sequencing

These are just a few examples.

Anonymous wrote:Can we please get away from the reductive view of reading? It isn’t just about adding phonics. Try looking at Scarborough’s reading rope for a more accurate depiction of the many components of skilled reading.

Differentiation can happen as kids master the different components. Read alouds can support work on comprehension with higher level texts until everyone’s decoding has caught up.

https://righttoreadproject.com/2019/06/02/part-2-complicating-the-simple-view-of-reading/

Writing is another whole topic and Lucy Calkins Writer’s Workshop is disastrous for most kids because it doesn’t provide effective instruction. And she should be ashamed of her recent phonics patches to her reading program. She still doesn’t get it.

ILY

Can we please get away from the reductive view of reading? It isn’t just about adding phonics. Try looking at Scarborough’s reading rope for a more accurate depiction of the many components of skilled reading.

Differentiation can happen as kids master the different components. Read alouds can support work on comprehension with higher level texts until everyone’s decoding has caught up.

https://righttoreadproject.com/2019/06/02/part-2-complicating-the-simple-view-of-reading/

Writing is another whole topic and Lucy Calkins Writer’s Workshop is disastrous for most kids because it doesn’t provide effective instruction. And she should be ashamed of her recent phonics patches to her reading program. She still doesn’t get it.

Anonymous wrote:I've posted here before. I taught first grade for years --very low income kids for a few years, and a more diverse group for a number of years. I strongly believe in the value of phonics. Every child should be exposed to it and instructed in it.

That said, there are some kids who just don't get it. Demanding that only phonics be used to teach kids will leave those kids out.

I think the problem with the "Balanced Instruction" is many teachers have left out the phonics portion. My philosophy: Balanced instruction with a strong phonics emphasis. But, don't leave out all the other tools. Some kids need those other tools.

I recall some kids who could sound out words perfectly--but had no idea what they were reading. They needed lots of instructions to develop comprehension that did not include just sounding out words.

You mean they just didn't have a large enough vocabulary (language comprehension), or they couldn't join the individual decoded words into concepts in their minds?

I've posted here before. I taught first grade for years --very low income kids for a few years, and a more diverse group for a number of years. I strongly believe in the value of phonics. Every child should be exposed to it and instructed in it.

That said, there are some kids who just don't get it. Demanding that only phonics be used to teach kids will leave those kids out.

I think the problem with the "Balanced Instruction" is many teachers have left out the phonics portion. My philosophy: Balanced instruction with a strong phonics emphasis. But, don't leave out all the other tools. Some kids need those other tools.

I recall some kids who could sound out words perfectly--but had no idea what they were reading. They needed lots of instructions to develop comprehension that did not include just sounding out words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

I don't need them to read Dickens (they would hate that!), just something roughly at their level and not have to endure phonics lessons they don't need and get some meaningful instruction at their level between K-2 in language arts. They LIKE age appropriate books (current K kid is devouring Ivy+Bean and Borrowers' series right now)--just have seen how my older kid who was similarly advanced in reading suffered through reading instruction in K-2 and dreading what it will be like for my younger one if they add even more phonics in and remove more of the writer's workshops/readers' workshops which were the only thing he liked. I wish there was more differentiation in K-2 as that's where the developmental differences in reading really show up and that's where kids form their attitudes towards school, learning etc.

I can understand how it would be frustrating if your kid was reading Borrowers (which is not a kindergarten book by any stretch, main character is 13 and it's more an upper ES book though content-appropriate for any age). However have a little thought for the 60% of kids who will be at risk of not reading well (with a huge gradient of what "not well" means) if they don't get phonics instruction. I had to work like crazy to get one of my kids out of the habit of "look at the picture and guess" so she didn't end up with an incorrect dyslexia label down the road.

Writer's workshop is horrible for actually teaching writing. Maybe your kid is as good at intuiting sentence structure, paragraph structure, spelling, and the like as they are at reading complex material, but your kid is not the norm. You're basically asking for multiplication in kindergarten, but from language arts.

I absolutely support some phonics instruction and agree that it's needed and important for reading. But there are a diversity of kids' abilities in K-2, with a fairly high percentage of strong readers in FCPS, and given all the tests/screeners they are given there could be meaningful differentiation based on results. I don't think they have to meet exactly at my kids' level, but at least just let them read and talk about books with other readers and do open-ended writing prompts with feedback etc. while others are doing phonics support. I think it's just as important to develop voice, expression of ideas early on as it is to spell accurately and write grammatically. The latter are important and easier to measure, but the former need to be supported also. It's easy to get overly reductive with reading/writing instruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what kind of - as far as I can tell meh - curriculum FCPS is looking at here: https://www.fcps.edu/node/36853

Weigh in your strong support of anything that's backed by the science of reading (according to Colorado it's not Benchmark, which is what FCPS plans to buy), clear and specific instruction on letter formation in K-2, grammar, real spelling based on phonics, and all the other good stuff here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe6jNE_7EAHKbjvUoFDIVhT735SCnsUX9MdBYqHs6_dUyxOtA/viewform.

I also want materials that help ground and sustain a lifelong interest in reading and develop ongoing critical reflection/comprehension. My kids could both read before K--I want options that don't bore them to death. That's not reflected in the science.

You should consider home schooling. Your children aren't going to be reading Dickens in Kindergarten, PP.

I don't need them to read Dickens (they would hate that!), just something roughly at their level and not have to endure phonics lessons they don't need and get some meaningful instruction at their level between K-2 in language arts. They LIKE age appropriate books (current K kid is devouring Ivy+Bean and Borrowers' series right now)--just have seen how my older kid who was similarly advanced in reading suffered through reading instruction in K-2 and dreading what it will be like for my younger one if they add even more phonics in and remove more of the writer's workshops/readers' workshops which were the only thing he liked. I wish there was more differentiation in K-2 as that's where the developmental differences in reading really show up and that's where kids form their attitudes towards school, learning etc.

I can understand how it would be frustrating if your kid was reading Borrowers (which is not a kindergarten book by any stretch, main character is 13 and it's more an upper ES book though content-appropriate for any age). However have a little thought for the 60% of kids who will be at risk of not reading well (with a huge gradient of what "not well" means) if they don't get phonics instruction. I had to work like crazy to get one of my kids out of the habit of "look at the picture and guess" so she didn't end up with an incorrect dyslexia label down the road.

Writer's workshop is horrible for actually teaching writing. Maybe your kid is as good at intuiting sentence structure, paragraph structure, spelling, and the like as they are at reading complex material, but your kid is not the norm. You're basically asking for multiplication in kindergarten, but from language arts.