Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.
I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.
Could you please provide more information or a link to what the PRF is and what it tests? I can't find anything on the FCPS website. Thank you.
Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.
I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We no longer use the DRA. We do use the PRF. Reading groups are still a thing, but they will be more focused on phonics and phonemic awareness.
I haven't started small groups yet. The time has been spent assessing (PRFs, iReady, DSA, VGA). I'll start small groups after I finish assessing using the CORE and PASS assessments. The CORE and PASS are given based on how the students do in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections of the iReady.
My kid doesn’t need phonics and phonemic awareness. She needs comprehension now (4th grade).
This is what you parents have been fighting for and now the pendulum has swung - hope you’re happy!
Parents have been fighting for phonics AND a rich knowledge based curriculum. Just wanted to correct this.
We need balanced literacy....it includes phonics/word work, word study/spelling/ and (gasp)
guided reading/book club groups to work in comprehension. Balanced literacy looks different in each grade level. As previous posters said if we go all science of reading we will start to see readers struggling in comprehension. Good luck to all!
Dyslexia parents got ahold of the state legislature and brought in iReady and science of reading. So now suddenly kids will have “comprehension difficulties” starting in 3rd or 4th grade. You will have to form a contingent and go to the state legislature and take control of the schools from they dyslexia parents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
I teach AAP. All of my students are on or above grade level but not one kid got a perfect score on the DSA highest level. I am doing the word study lessons but condensing them because they are too slow for my kids. So 5 lessons I condense to 2-3. But I already see a huge difference in spelling in week 7. I will also be starting our vocabulary program as well. The word study in the upper grades is focused on affixes and greek/latin roots. Even advanced kids can benefit from this instruction.
That sounds great. Thank you.
One of my DC is in AAP and the other one is in MS and both can/could have benefitted from this.
I was an early reader but still remember learning roots, prefixes suffixes, etc. as well as spelling (and grammar rules) in grade school. Even gifted kids/good readers need to be taught some of this stuff.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
I teach AAP. All of my students are on or above grade level but not one kid got a perfect score on the DSA highest level. I am doing the word study lessons but condensing them because they are too slow for my kids. So 5 lessons I condense to 2-3. But I already see a huge difference in spelling in week 7. I will also be starting our vocabulary program as well. The word study in the upper grades is focused on affixes and greek/latin roots. Even advanced kids can benefit from this instruction.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
Honestly, the top reading groups probably do not get much attention from the Teacher because the Teacher needs to be working the kids who are below grade level or just at grade level. Even with the support of a reading specialist, classes today have too wide a divide n kids skills ability so the higher level groups, in reading or math, are far less likely to get much attention from the Teacher. Also, asking Teachers to apply a different type of curriculum for 5-7 groups in their classroom is asking far too much of the Teacher. That means a separate lesson plan for too many groups. The wide gaps in most classrooms is crushing Teachers because of the extra planning that they have to do for all the different groups.
I do wish there was more time for Science and Social Studies. Both would provide opportunities to work on reading comprehension if there was work done to integrate them into the LA curriculum. But again, the planning time has to be hard on Teachers.
I do wish there was more of an effort to group kids into classes based on ability so that Teachers had to deal with smaller ranges of abilities and could do more for the different groups. I know that some people hate this idea but I think that the wide gaps are causing far too much work for Teachers and leading to more gaps in learning for kids because the Teachers are stretched to thin trying to provide lessons that are meaningful for kids who are below grade level, on grade level, and above grade level. We are asking too much and it is hurting the adults and the kids.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
There are multiple posters discussing limits of the phonics curriculum for advanced readers. I am all for a content-rich curriculum with more SS/Science as well as literature. I just wish they would test in K-1 phonemic awareness and provide an alterative LA curriculum for those who have already mastered what is being taught--ideally one with lots of reading at their level and some instruction at their level. Everyone says there will be reading groups, but what are the advanced readers doing during the whole group LA instruction? And how much time is spent in reading groups? And are there targeted growth areas for advanced readers?
I'm well-versed in educational and psychological literature and advocate for the science of reading. However I am also aware that to get the effects researchers will always turn towards what helps the lower group and the middle group--the lower group has the most room to grow and the middle group has the largest numbers of students. If you break out the advanced group and control for dyslexia, there is zero or very limited growth from these evidence-based curriculum--and that's when they are done with great fidelity during research studies. FCPS is rich enough and large enough that it could have a plan and a curriculum for this likely sizeable group in K-2. This is an important time for child development--it's just not wise to have a whole group of kids who showed early aptitude for reading learn to dislike it and school because they have to spend a lot of time every day working on something they don't need with for several years. If those who didn't need phonics from multiple classes were pooled together, there could be a single teacher supporting them while then the kids who did need it (likely the majority, but those numbers may diminish by 2nd grade) could have more targeted support.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
This. The county should be making sure ES students have daily SS/Science blocks instead of sharing 40 mins. Background knowledge is so important with reading comprehension.
Anonymous wrote:A lot of parents wanted a phonics based LA program. I was ecstatic when I heard that they were going to be doing word studies and focusing on spelling and grammar this year. The method that they were using worked for a small group of kids and left a lot of other kids struggling, not just the kids with dyslexia. DS is a smart, capable kid who has not had any corrections to his spelling or grammar in LA for the first 5 years he was in school. That is ridiculous. He knew how to spell the words correctly, we asked him to spell words for us when we saw papers from school, he wasn't doing it because the Teacher didn't correct it and he didn't care. It only started improving when we started making him redo work at home.
At the very least, the way FCPS had been teaching LA was allowing kids to be lazy and that was impacting their writing and reading as they got older. At worst, kids who were slow to read or had LDs struggled for a longer period of time then they needed to. That can cause issues with a kids self esteem and desire to learn.
I have no problem at my 5th grader who is ahead in reading and does well with comprehension and the like (high iReady's and Pass Advanced on the 2 SOLs he has taken, not that either of those are great measures) will be a better reader and writer with what they are doing now. Kids who are ahead in reading will still be in a higher reading group and will still be working on reading comprehension. He reads a lot at home and we discuss what he is reading. He is going to be fine.
Anonymous wrote:Comprehension poster- you might want to check the research on “comprehension strategies” as they’ve been taught in recent years. It looks like they are a lot less effective than an actual content-rich curriculum which is also part of the shifts being encouraged by the supporters of the science of reading work.
Fortunately the move to teaching phonics will be better for the district as a whole. FCPS spent 15-20 years not teaching kids to read. Many of these kids ended up needing special education services and taking up way more resources than the district has, which ultimately harms all students. [b] Not to mention the resources families have had to expend to get proper instruction. Price out a “reading comprehension tutor” vs an OG tutor and therapist for a kid who hasn’t been taught to read and then get back to me.[/b] Or price out a Catholic school vs. a private school for kids with dyslexia. I don’t believe that they will be doing no reading comprehension in 4th grade this year (aside from the fact that every other content area requires reading comprehension), but since your kid can decode, you can work on reading comp at home. [/quote]
Fortunately the move to teaching phonics will be better for the district as a whole. FCPS spent 15-20 years not teaching kids to read. Many of these kids ended up needing special education services and taking up way more resources than the district has, which ultimately harms all students. [b] Not to mention the resources families have had to expend to get proper instruction. Price out a “reading comprehension tutor” vs an OG tutor and therapist for a kid who hasn’t been taught to read and then get back to me.[/b] Or price out a Catholic school vs. a private school for kids with dyslexia. I don’t believe that they will be doing no reading comprehension in 4th grade this year (aside from the fact that every other content area requires reading comprehension), but since your kid can decode, you can work on reading comp at home. [/quote]