Why do you think most higher-SES kids pick reading up earlier and faster? Because their brains are that different? No. It's because they are exposed to it more frequently. It's the regular contact hours that makes it work - initially reading to kids and showing kids everyday sight words, and then going over new words with them using phonics, and teaching them the tools for decoding and understanding.

Absolutely. Plus spoken vocabulary.

Years of care and attention make the child appear to leapfrog. However, I agree with what you say.

^ That's exactly the incremental learning that happens in homes in preschool and before, the PP seems to be not understanding that.

Anonymous wrote:

If a kid has less art in 2nd grade so that he can get back on track for 3rd, so what? It's not as though that will stunt him for life. Art is one of those areas where you can for the most part pick up and put down anywhere. Reading isn't. Reading on the other hand requires incremental steps and the foundational building blocks like phonics are CRUCIAL. If that kid is left to struggle in 2nd, and then is even farther behind in 3rd, it just compounds from there and IS a big deal and he WILL likely be struggling not just throughout the rest of school, but likely in life and career after school.

The process of learning to read is not the same for all kids. Why? Because our brains are not exactly the same. Far from it.

Regardless of learning processes, kids typically don't just leapfrog fullbore into reading. The advance incrementally. They need to be exposed to the skills and toolbox, piece by piece. And also, if you aren't exposing them to any of it in a meaningful, robust and continuous way, that likely means that their reading development is going to be even SLOWER.

Why do you think most higher-SES kids pick reading up earlier and faster? Because their brains are that different? No. It's because they are exposed to it more frequently. It's the regular contact hours that makes it work - initially reading to kids and showing kids everyday sight words, and then going over new words with them using phonics, and teaching them the tools for decoding and understanding.

Look, reading is important. I would say, however, that very specific standards for it in grades K-1 are not helpful. Kids develop differently and some kids come to K with no preschool experience. That puts the kid behind because K is now academic. The kid with no preschool is much more likely to fail the standards . . . and that is not the K teacher's fault.

Also, your idea that reading has to follow some "incremental step" method is wrong. Some kids know how to read before K and it's not because there was an "incremental step" method used. People learn in very different ways.

AGAIN NOBODY SAID GET RID OF ART AND MUSIC.

Maybe YOU need some improvement in your reading comprehension skills!

If a kid has less art in 2nd grade so that he can get back on track for 3rd, so what? It's not as though that will stunt him for life. Art is one of those areas where you can for the most part pick up and put down anywhere. Reading isn't. Reading on the other hand requires incremental steps and the foundational building blocks like phonics are CRUCIAL. If that kid is left to struggle in 2nd, and then is even farther behind in 3rd, it just compounds from there and IS a big deal and he WILL likely be struggling not just throughout the rest of school, but likely in life and career after school.

The process of learning to read is not the same for all kids. Why? Because our brains are not exactly the same. Far from it.

A kid that can read well will get a lot more out of art, music and other aspects of school too, since they will be more well equipped to go on that exploration.

I disagree. Preliterate kids get A LOT out of art and music.

Again, nobody said get rid of art and music!

And, we aren't talking about PRESCHOOL, we are talking about elementary school.

Bottom line still remains that if you give short schrift to reading, I GUARANTEE you are setting them up for later failure.

Not to mention, while reading is more important than art and music,

No, it is not---especially not for a kid who has not had those experiences in preschool. Those kids NEED art and music more than ever because they didn't get the fine motor control that comes with drawing, cutting, etc. that others had in preschool. They haven't had the listening and group focus that comes with music. Preschool is all about music, rhyme, art, movement, play, etc. Some kids still need that (especially in K-2). If you hone in on reading too soon, they miss the development that they need from those other activities. If you push them to read before they are ready, reading is not enjoyable. To everything there is a season. If you force people to do things before they are ready (and this is at any age), you cause resentment, behavior issues, and later on, self esteem issues. Let the kids have some time to play and laugh and smile. Society will be better for it.

+100 Holy cow. The PP makes reading out to be nothing but boring drudgework.

It is when you know your friends are in music, art, PE or at recess while you have to go to reading again. A young child's emotional, social, and physical well being are just as important (not less). Children don't have the perspective that you have. They are just as much, if not more emotional, social, and physical creatures as they are intellectual. Many of them NEED these other classes to stay well. Reading has to happen later for some kids. Kids do not come in standardized sizes. Just like kids have growth spurts with their bodies, there are growth spurts with their cognitive development. Forcing something that a kid is not ready for is a waste of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Suspicion based on ??? (the data). Because data = validation of suspicions.

There will always be students who do not meet the standards and that won't necessarily be the result of "inappropriate substandard reading education".

Your logic is faulty.

Also, adding more reading class means taking away electives and fun and inspiring activities like art, music, etc. Those activities do a lot for the overall well being of a child (but they certainly don't raise reading test scores which are so important).

But if students are reading way below grade level, maybe they will benefit more from reading intervention than from art and music. Or maybe they won't; I don't know. Nonetheless, while art and music do a lot for the overall well-being of a child, so does being able to read.

+100 Holy cow. The PP makes reading out to be nothing but boring drudgework. Reading can be a creative release for kids full of adventure, imagination, fun and enjoyment. A kid that can read well will get a lot more out of art, music and other aspects of school too, since they will be more well equipped to go on that exploration.

Not to mention, while reading is more important than art and music, nobody said get rid of art and music altogether. They said BALANCE. If a kid has less art in 2nd grade so that he can get back on track for 3rd, so what? It's not as though that will stunt him for life. Art is one of those areas where you can for the most part pick up and put down anywhere. Reading isn't. Reading on the other hand requires incremental steps and the foundational building blocks like phonics are CRUCIAL. If that kid is left to struggle in 2nd, and then is even farther behind in 3rd, it just compounds from there and IS a big deal and he WILL likely be struggling not just throughout the rest of school, but likely in life and career after school.

Also, adding more reading class means taking away electives and fun and inspiring activities like art, music, etc. Those activities do a lot for the overall well being of a child (but they certainly don't raise reading test scores which are so important).


I suspect it because in my experience I have seen a lot of watered-down elementary reading programs, for example overreliance on sight words, weak phonics programs, et cetera. And while yes, I agree that it's good and important to have kids do art and music, this really needs to be in balance - if you think it's more important for kids to do finger painting for most of elementary school then indeed they will be struggling for most of the rest of their school experience - and not just in reading, but also history and other subjects that rely on good reading skills. Literacy and math need to be more of a priority. Not to mention, kids will have a better chance of life success and earning potential via good literacy skills than they will through good art and music skills. You frankly have a better chance of being struck by lightning than you do of being able to support yourself as a professional artist or musician.

Most people don't expect their kids to become artists and musicians based on taking those courses in grades K-12. However, they do understand that those classes help children learn self expression and enjoyment of life. If a kid is struggling to read, it may be nice to give him some pleasurable and uplifting experiences in school. If the other kids get to go off to music and art while he has to go to remedial reading, what does that say to the kid? Hey kid, you're not going to be a professional artist or musician anyway and that's what those classes are for?

And, just an FYI, art is not about "finger painting for most of elementary school". Some of the skills learned in art (how to see something and draw it on paper using your imagination) are incredibly related to literature and math (proportion, perspective, etc.). a person who is "educated" has been exposed to all of this.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/18-common-core-loveless

The 2012 Brown Center Report predicted, based on empirical analysis of the effects of state standards, that the CCSS will have little to no impact on student achievement. Supporters of the Common Core argue that strong, effective implementation of the standards will sweep away such skepticism by producing lasting, significant gains in student learning. So far, at least—and it is admittedly the early innings of a long ballgame—there are no signs of such an impressive accomplishment.

Loveless thinks you can draw conclusions.

I agree with Loveless that you can draw conclusions. The question is, what conclusions?

As it happens, I think it's unlikely that the Common Core standards will produce lasting, significant gains in student learning. That doesn't mean that the Common Core standards are bad. It means that

1. there are many factors that have a much bigger effect on educational outcomes than the standards do -- child poverty being the biggest. If I wanted my cause to be improving educational outcomes in the US, that's where I'd start.
2. the US has yet to implement any lasting educational reform. Even if the Common Core standards were practically perfect in every way (which they're not, nothing is except Mary Poppins), it still wouldn't be long before we move on to the next big idea, whatever it turns out to be.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/18-common-core-loveless

The 2012 Brown Center Report predicted, based on empirical analysis of the effects of state standards, that the CCSS will have little to no impact on student achievement. Supporters of the Common Core argue that strong, effective implementation of the standards will sweep away such skepticism by producing lasting, significant gains in student learning. So far, at least—and it is admittedly the early innings of a long ballgame—there are no signs of such an impressive accomplishment.


Loveless thinks you can draw conclusions.

Is this clear enough for you?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/18-common-core-loveless

The 2012 Brown Center Report predicted, based on empirical analysis of the effects of state standards, that the CCSS will have little to no impact on student achievement. Supporters of the Common Core argue that strong, effective implementation of the standards will sweep away such skepticism by producing lasting, significant gains in student learning. So far, at least—and it is admittedly the early innings of a long ballgame—there are no signs of such an impressive accomplishment.

Loveless thinks you can draw conclusions.