Anonymous wrote:

You are incorrect. Fluent readers process every letter in a word; they do it so fluently that they do not realize they are doing it (automaticity) so yes, you are correct that we do not laboriously decode words letter by letter. Automaticity does not mean we are reading words by "sight" however.

Wrong.

Back up your assertion with a reference to a reputable, recent reading experts or summary of research. I did.

(Please do not refer to the time you spent "teaching to kids in the projects".)

Children should be at this level (automatic with code) by the end of third grade, with the exception of large, multisyllabic words of Latin and Greek derivation, which should be mastered by fourth grade. (words like psychology are tough to decode until you have learned how -- but certainly shouldn't be memorized as sight words!)

What Accuracy and Fluency with the Code and Connected Text Looks Like:

Children who are automatic with the code:

Identify letter-sound correspondences accurately and quickly.
Identify familiar spelling patterns to increase decoding efficiency.
Apply maximum resources to the difficult task of blending together isolated phonemes to make words.
Apply knowledge of the alphabetic code to identify words in isolation and connected text fluently.

http://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/flu/flu_what.php

The above skills are VITAL and no elementary school teacher should expect to teach reading without teaching children to have a solid grasp of the basic skills above.

If one's objection to Common Core is that one doesn't believe that all children should master the above skills (or are capable of doing so... except for the MOST severely learning disabled) than that is good to know. Again, there's really not much more point in arguing with you if that is the case.

You are incorrect. Fluent readers process every letter in a word; they do it so fluently that they do not realize they are doing it (automaticity) so yes, you are correct that we do not laboriously decode words letter by letter. Automaticity does not mean we are reading words by "sight" however.

Wrong.

Anonymous wrote:It takes far more "valuable mental energy" to decode words than it does to read sight words. We all read by sight. We only use phonics for unfamiliar words. That is, if you read with any speed at all.

You are incorrect. Fluent readers process every letter in a word; they do it so fluently that they do not realize they are doing it (automaticity) so yes, you are correct that we do not laboriously decode words letter by letter. Automaticity does not mean we are reading words by "sight" however.

Anonymous wrote:

So a strong background in decoding skills in grade K-2 will greatly help students be able to master the reading standards by the end of grade 3. They will not need to use valuable mental energy on remembering words by sight and will have mental energy left over for remember what they read. THis will help them get through the text more quickly, and they will be able to skim quickly when they need to, to locate facts that support their opinions (a requirement of Common Core at Grade three -- be able to support your opinion with details from the text.)

This just might be the most ignorant statement I have read on this thread. You obviously have never taken a class in the teaching of reading or taught hundreds of kids to read.

In fact, I am a certified elementary school teacher with years of experience teaching reading (working with very poor children who do not speak English) and also a professional reading tutor. I have successfully remediated many students who have been diagnosed with dyslexia or severe phonological processing difficulties.

Strong decoding skills is the basis for reading fluency, which is the basis for being able to read and comprehend. Here is a basic article on the subject if you wish to read up on it.

http://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/flu/flu_what.php

Comprehension has nothing to do with the method of deciphering words. I've seen kids who could "call" words beautifully and not be able to answer the simplest question about what they have read.

It takes far more "valuable mental energy" to decode words than it does to read sight words. We all read by sight. We only use phonics for unfamiliar words. That is, if you read with any speed at all.

So a strong background in decoding skills in grade K-2 will greatly help students be able to master the reading standards by the end of grade 3. They will not need to use valuable mental energy on remembering words by sight and will have mental energy left over for remember what they read. THis will help them get through the text more quickly, and they will be able to skim quickly when they need to, to locate facts that support their opinions (a requirement of Common Core at Grade three -- be able to support your opinion with details from the text.)

This just might be the most ignorant statement I have read on this thread. You obviously have never taken a class in the teaching of reading or taught hundreds of kids to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Which Common Core standards require teachers to use phonics exclusively? Specific standards, please.

There are a number of them. It doesn't say exclusively--but if teachers and students are to be judged on them, more time will be spent teaching the kids to answer the questions on the test than learning to read. That is what is happening these days.

By the time the standardized tests are being used (i.e the PARCC) in 3rd grade, the standard to be met is simply that students are able to read grade level text fluently. Whether they know that "ee" usually represents the "long e" sound, etc., will not be important, as long as they are fluently reading and able to comprehend what they are reading.

Of course, being strong in decoding skills is a key factor that influences whether a child is able to read text fluently, especially text that contains unfamiliar words of more than one or two syllables. So a strong background in decoding skills in grade K-2 will greatly help students be able to master the reading standards by the end of grade 3. They will not need to use valuable mental energy on remembering words by sight and will have mental energy left over for remember what they read. THis will help them get through the text more quickly, and they will be able to skim quickly when they need to, to locate facts that support their opinions (a requirement of Common Core at Grade three -- be able to support your opinion with details from the text.)

Anonymous wrote:

Which of these standards require teachers to use phonics exclusively?

How about you show me the standards that provide for other ways to learn to read? I cannot find them. Therefore, I guess it is exclusive.

Well, the one section of the standards that was linked above includes a standard about sight words:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.3.G
Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.

and a standard about context cues:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.4.C
Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary.

Context cues also come up in the Language section of the standards under this:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.1.4.A
Use sentence-level context as a clue to the meaning of a word or phrase.

Of course there are also 6 other sections to the first grade literacy standards, two of which (Reading: Literature and Reading: Informational Text) are about making meaning from the text. Overall there are 31 literacy standards, 1 of which is completely phonics (RF1.2: Phonological Awareness) and 2 of which is partially phonics (RF1.3: Phonics and Word Recognition, and L1.1: which includes spelling).

In addition, if you look at the K-1 section of Appendix B (http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf), you'll see that the sample texts that they give are not the phonics heavy texts found in phonics only programs. Instead, they expect Kindergarteners and First Graders to be working with texts similar to: Little Bear, Fly Guy, and poems by Langston Hughes.

Looking at the standards as a whole, it seems to me that Common Core requires that students demonstrate certain specific phonics skills, and that it's logical that students who don't yet have these skills would be supported in developing them. In first grade those skills would be reading 1 syllable words with digraphs (e.g. ee, or sh), words with inflectional endings (e.g. the "ing" in the word reading), and some two syllable words that are easily divided such as cowboy or rabbit.

Nowhere does the document say that phonics should be the only strategy that students use, and in fact a student whose only strategy was phonics, and who had only the listed skills, wouldn't be able to read the texts they suggest.

Anonymous wrote:

Which of these standards require teachers to use phonics exclusively?

How about you show me the standards that provide for other ways to learn to read? I cannot find them. Therefore, I guess it is exclusive.

Here's a standard about sight words for K:

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/K/3/c/

Here's a standard about irregularly-spelled words for 1:

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/3/g/

Here's another one for 2:

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/2/3/f/

More to the point -- the Common Core has standards for reading. Not just learning-to-read strategies; actual reading. If you, as a teacher, want a child to meet those standards for actual reading, and phonics won't work for that child, what are you going to do? Use phonics exclusively, nonetheless, because the Common Core doesn't mention any other strategy specifically (although actually the Common Core does)?

How does the saying go- " when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me?"

Anonymous wrote:

Which of these standards require teachers to use phonics exclusively?

How about you show me the standards that provide for other ways to learn to read? I cannot find them. Therefore, I guess it is exclusive.

Wow that's quite a reach.

There are many different strategies to teach reading not included in CC.

Which of these standards require teachers to use phonics exclusively?

How about you show me the standards that provide for other ways to learn to read? I cannot find them. Therefore, I guess it is exclusive.