Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veteran FCPS elementary teacher here. We used to have language arts books and workbooks, different from reading books. So we worked through chapters on punctuation and parts of speech and so forth, and then they took the books away, and said, teach a mini-lesson as things come up naturally. Right. Hey, the wind is blowing from the west today, and I have ten extra minutes, so I’ll talk about proper nouns today with whatever materials I can come up with, or just the whiteboard.

It went away with the spelling books, and after they took spelling off the report cards. No need to keep grades? No time to teach? No materials to easily use? Just skip it.

I'd be curious to hear more (from teachers) about why these changes from FCPS. I would also think that if teachers felt strongly about it they'd keep it...

They only teach to the ‘test’, the SOL test. That test does not need cursive writing, spelling, or knowing the difference between coordinating or subordinating conjunctions! Thus, this material will not be taught. Goodbye material.

Is this a cynical take or the truth? Teachers?

Anonymous wrote:They start them at grade level and your child should move through them quickly. Consider a good review - even though you think your child reads fluently, this is always going to be helpful. I catch my kid reading words out loud in a completely different way they should are pronounced, even though she's in 4th and reads things like Harry Potter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lexia has 5 areas of instruction. My understanding is that it places the student at the lowest level they score in any one area, because the program doesn’t allow different levels for different areas. (Power Up, the 6th and up program, does allow kids to be in different levels for, say, grammar and comprehension.)

So if they score below grade level for comprehension but on or above for everything else— it’s going to place them below grade level. The good news is if they focus and pay attention, they should move up quickly.

Teachers CAN manually advance kids’ levels or reset the pretest. But the district doesn’t advertise that to the teachers and it’s possible that some schools have that feature turned off.

I teach AAP and check my kids’ progress weekly. I had a bunch of my kids retake the pretest in September, since they hadn’t taken it since the beginning of last year, and all but one were placed higher than their current levels. I have also manually advanced kids who are breezing through the material with high accuracy and speed. I do this very quietly because our reading specialist has discouraged it. (Teachers— go to the “manage” tab on our student list and click on the pencil to edit, then pick “reading program.”)

I also have kids who insist that what they’re doing is too easy, but when I check their progress and observe them using the program, they are in fact placed appropriately.

One tip— Lexia assigns the required weekly minutes based on how quickly they are moving through the material and whether they are likely to finish the grade level material by the end of the year. If the child tries to game the system by letting the program run while “multitasking” or screwing around and randomly picking answers until they eventually hit the right ones, the program assumes they are working very slowly and assigns then extra minutes to compensate.

The best bet to get assigned fewer minutes is to completely focus and finish as many activities accurately as possible during the assigned time. Once I figured this out and explained it to my kids, a bunch of them went from being assigned 70 minutes per week to 40 (the standard) or even 20 (for kids who are ahead of schedule) within a month.

Wow, what an incredibly informative answer, thank you!

So given all of this it sounds like the best approach is to let things be and DC will catch up fast if focusing, not multi-tasking, etc. I can only imagine what the teacher's reaction would be if I gave her some of these tips. Maybe an anonymous email...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veteran FCPS elementary teacher here. We used to have language arts books and workbooks, different from reading books. So we worked through chapters on punctuation and parts of speech and so forth, and then they took the books away, and said, teach a mini-lesson as things come up naturally. Right. Hey, the wind is blowing from the west today, and I have ten extra minutes, so I’ll talk about proper nouns today with whatever materials I can come up with, or just the whiteboard.

It went away with the spelling books, and after they took spelling off the report cards. No need to keep grades? No time to teach? No materials to easily use? Just skip it.

I'd be curious to hear more (from teachers) about why these changes from FCPS. I would also think that if teachers felt strongly about it they'd keep it...

They only teach to the ‘test’, the SOL test. That test does not need cursive writing, spelling, or knowing the difference between coordinating or subordinating conjunctions! Thus, this material will not be taught. Goodbye material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veteran FCPS elementary teacher here. We used to have language arts books and workbooks, different from reading books. So we worked through chapters on punctuation and parts of speech and so forth, and then they took the books away, and said, teach a mini-lesson as things come up naturally. Right. Hey, the wind is blowing from the west today, and I have ten extra minutes, so I’ll talk about proper nouns today with whatever materials I can come up with, or just the whiteboard.

It went away with the spelling books, and after they took spelling off the report cards. No need to keep grades? No time to teach? No materials to easily use? Just skip it.

I'd be curious to hear more (from teachers) about why these changes from FCPS. I would also think that if teachers felt strongly about it they'd keep it...

Anonymous wrote:Veteran FCPS elementary teacher here. We used to have language arts books and workbooks, different from reading books. So we worked through chapters on punctuation and parts of speech and so forth, and then they took the books away, and said, teach a mini-lesson as things come up naturally. Right. Hey, the wind is blowing from the west today, and I have ten extra minutes, so I’ll talk about proper nouns today with whatever materials I can come up with, or just the whiteboard.

It went away with the spelling books, and after they took spelling off the report cards. No need to keep grades? No time to teach? No materials to easily use? Just skip it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly believe my son got a bad placement because of misunderstanding the questions or something. He is an excellent reader, as evidenced by my own observations plus standardized test scores, but Lexia placed him barely at grade level. I wish I had made a fuss about it, honestly. It made school miserable for him.

Near the end of fifth grade I did tell the teacher I didn’t want him to do Lexia and insisted he read hardcover books instead during that time. This was because I pulled him out of school for a year and a half and when he resumed lexia, he just started up at the beginning of fifth grade where he left off off in third grade instead of getting a new placement test. I hated to be a high-maintenance parent but the teacher and principal didn’t have a problem with it.

Lexia is great for a lot of kids but I don’t think it’s good for advanced readers. Yes there will be things they learn that they don’t already know, like some Greek affixes, but for my son that happened about one in every twenty lessons.

I'm sorry--and terrified--to hear that. Sounds excruciating. I hope the teacher was open to your child reading books instead, although it's shocking they didn't do another placement test upon your child's return to school. But if the earlier teacher poster is right, it should be possible to advance quickly if one focuses and avoids silly errors. The case of the child who started at 9 in grade 2 and advanced to 18 within a year gives one hope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason FCPS does not teach grammar in elementary? Is this a science-based decision? I ask as someone who never explicitly learned grammar but somehow learned to write at an advanced level. I'm not knocking grammar instruction but I wonder if it is really necessary if children are actually spending a lot of time reading and learning implicitly (which children are very adept at doing).

Not everyone learns grammar implicitly to a high enough degree, ime at a top law school.

Ok, but that might be because they didn't get enough input (reading). Do not tell me you think some people are "explicit learners" and some are "implicit learners". That would be as wrong-headed as "learning styles". The brain is wired for implicit learning, given good input.

NP. I think it’s like reading instruction. Some kids learn how to read with very little instruction, and others need explicit instruction. I don’t think we don’t know why, but unlike learning styles, it’s a documented phenomenon.

I actually did a test with one of my kids. My mom was this strict prescriptive grammarian and I hated how she always corrected my grammar. I decided never to correct my daughter’s grammar to see if she would just pick up good speech. Verbally, she is brilliant (she actually scored a 142 on the verbal section of an IQ test, I think WISC?). She is a voracious reader and her reading comprehension scores are always in the 99th percentile. And she didn’t pick up on many grammar rules! It was fascinating. She always said “me and my friend” and used incorrect plurals and such, well into late elementary years. This is a sample size of one but not every child will pick up on grammar rules, even with plentiful inputs.

That's an interesting experiment, but there's an alternative explanation. Your daughter learned grammar well (as evidenced by her comprehension and vocab, both of which are aided by strong understanding of grammar). She could say things like "me and my friend" because she inferred this is a case that defies rules, as it is quite common speech (and largely acceptable, at least in colloquial speech).

What you really mean is your daughter didn't implicitly learn (or learn to prefer) the more formal ways of speaking and writing that are contrasted by colloquial speech and writing. Children start to implicitly learn grammar before the age of two and implicit learning informs a lot of learning in reading, writing, and spelling, much more than many realize.

Okay you are correct, but when I was using the word "grammar" I really meant "usage." Learning usage is important and won't always be picked up without explicit instruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason FCPS does not teach grammar in elementary? Is this a science-based decision? I ask as someone who never explicitly learned grammar but somehow learned to write at an advanced level. I'm not knocking grammar instruction but I wonder if it is really necessary if children are actually spending a lot of time reading and learning implicitly (which children are very adept at doing).

Not everyone learns grammar implicitly to a high enough degree, ime at a top law school.

Ok, but that might be because they didn't get enough input (reading). Do not tell me you think some people are "explicit learners" and some are "implicit learners". That would be as wrong-headed as "learning styles". The brain is wired for implicit learning, given good input.

NP. I think it’s like reading instruction. Some kids learn how to read with very little instruction, and others need explicit instruction. I don’t think we don’t know why, but unlike learning styles, it’s a documented phenomenon.

I actually did a test with one of my kids. My mom was this strict prescriptive grammarian and I hated how she always corrected my grammar. I decided never to correct my daughter’s grammar to see if she would just pick up good speech. Verbally, she is brilliant (she actually scored a 142 on the verbal section of an IQ test, I think WISC?). She is a voracious reader and her reading comprehension scores are always in the 99th percentile. And she didn’t pick up on many grammar rules! It was fascinating. She always said “me and my friend” and used incorrect plurals and such, well into late elementary years. This is a sample size of one but not every child will pick up on grammar rules, even with plentiful inputs.

That's an interesting experiment, but there's an alternative explanation. Your daughter learned grammar well (as evidenced by her comprehension and vocab, both of which are aided by strong understanding of grammar). She could say things like "me and my friend" because she inferred this is a case that defies rules, as it is quite common speech (and largely acceptable, at least in colloquial speech).

What you really mean is your daughter didn't implicitly learn (or learn to prefer) the more formal ways of speaking and writing that are contrasted by colloquial speech and writing. Children start to implicitly learn grammar before the age of two and implicit learning informs a lot of learning in reading, writing, and spelling, much more than many realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a 6yo who was moving up the levels and is now at level 9. I don’t think she is moving levels anymore. She is currently in 1st grade and assuming she started at level 1 in kindergarten as she couldn’t read when she started kindergarten.

I take it back. I just asked my daughter and she said she is level 11. She is a fluid reader.

Anonymous wrote:I have a 6yo who was moving up the levels and is now at level 9. I don’t think she is moving levels anymore. She is currently in 1st grade and assuming she started at level 1 in kindergarten as she couldn’t read when she started kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a reason FCPS does not teach grammar in elementary? Is this a science-based decision? I ask as someone who never explicitly learned grammar but somehow learned to write at an advanced level. I'm not knocking grammar instruction but I wonder if it is really necessary if children are actually spending a lot of time reading and learning implicitly (which children are very adept at doing).

It seems like your question is contradictory. should your first sentence say “is there a reason why FCPS teachers grammar?” I’m asking because I’m not in FCPS (although we use Lexia) so I just want to clarify.

But for what it’s worth, I used to think that grammar instruction beyond parts of speech and other simple things wasn’t necessary. Then I studied up on writing instruction in anticipation of homeschooling my son, and I learned that it can be extremely valuable. One resource i highly recommend, even for parents who aren’t homeschooling, is The Writing Revolution. It contains lessons on specific grammar principles that can really bolster writing ability once mastered. One example is appositives, which help with concision and sentence variety. A lot of people do just pick it up but sprinkling in grammar lessons here and there and giving kids practice using them will improve their writing, and as we all know that is very much a weak spot for Americans right now.