Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

What you are getting wrong is that it makes no sense to label kids who are still learning/ have been poorly taught phonics “the lower performing bottom”.

What you are getting wrong is that instead of force feeding phonics to the majority of kids who are already reading by 1st and definitely by 2nd, DCPS should do either pull out or push in for the kids who can’t read, have dyslexia, etc…

But of course above is not happening.

The 2nd grade Fundations lessons are 15 minutes at the beginning of the day. My kid has a Lexile score around 1000 and doesn’t complain about them.

PP here. Ok but your kid and all the other kids in 2nd grade who can read would be much better served by actually spending those 15 minutes on doing a spelling lists, learning actual grammar and sentence structure, or doing compositional writing.

I would also argue that 15 minutes of phonics is also not enough time to target the kids who are not reading by 2nd grade. They actually need much more time than that and really should be in pulled out groups.

Lastly, I also suspect that kids in poorly performing schools, where majority are not reading, are not getting just 15 minutes of phonics. The overwhelming majority of the time in ELA is likely spent on phonics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

What you are getting wrong is that it makes no sense to label kids who are still learning/ have been poorly taught phonics “the lower performing bottom”.

What you are getting wrong is that instead of force feeding phonics to the majority of kids who are already reading by 1st and definitely by 2nd, DCPS should do either pull out or push in for the kids who can’t read, have dyslexia, etc…

But of course above is not happening.

The 2nd grade Fundations lessons are 15 minutes at the beginning of the day. My kid has a Lexile score around 1000 and doesn’t complain about them.

I listened to Sold a Story last year on my commute and it made me so sick at heart to hear what has happened to reading instruction in schools and how high the numbers of students who are functionally illiterate.

I was taught to read with phonics instruction back in the 70s in Massachusetts schools and I tested at the graduate school level for reading comprehension by the time I was a freshman in high school. I routinely read monster sized novels from pulp fiction junk like Danielle Steele and Stephen King novels to classics like Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishment and those were the many dozens of books I read every year outside of assigned reading for school.

It honestly breaks my heart to think how many kids are being failed by the whole language approach to reading, because reading is the one ticket by which a working class kid can escape poverty of ideas and experience the world no matter what other opportunities life presents to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

What you are getting wrong is that it makes no sense to label kids who are still learning/ have been poorly taught phonics “the lower performing bottom”.

What you are getting wrong is that instead of force feeding phonics to the majority of kids who are already reading by 1st and definitely by 2nd, DCPS should do either pull out or push in for the kids who can’t read, have dyslexia, etc…

But of course above is not happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

What you are getting wrong is that it makes no sense to label kids who are still learning/ have been poorly taught phonics “the lower performing bottom”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

Typo not needed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

True but the problem is that kids who are already reading don’t need as nauseam basic phonics instruction. Time is better spent on analysis, comprehension, writing, etc…..

It’s the lower performing bottom who needs repetitive phonics instruction and why DCPS is extending it into 2nd grades.

Don’t get me wrong, I support phonics instruction and it’s needed for kids reading chapter books. It really doesn’t help with spelling. What helps is actually having weekly spelling lists or learning actual spelling diagrams. The basic phonics being taught in DCPS is not it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sad part of Lucy caulkins was that she tried to equate developing a passion for reading with how to learn how to read.

We teach kids math, we don’t simply expect them to develop a passion for it.

Great point about teaching phonics simply because it's good for kids. They don't have to love it. It's like eating broccoli or learning to play scales on the piano. But if kids are learning how to decode and are simultaneously exposed to the "romantic" aspects of reading -- the book nooks, storytime, etc., most kids will come to love reading at some point.

I do have to say that the SoldaStory podcast was an eye opener regarding Lucy Calkins. Calkins herself explains her motivations.
They are definitely mixed as motivations usually are...but there was a lot going on that seemed to be about her personal needs -- not what was best for children. Listen to these segments of the story:"The Superstar" and "The Company" and "The Reckoning". https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/11/03/sold-a-story-e4-the-superstar.

And speaking of doing what's best for children, I hope the extremes won't start politicizing the teaching of phonics. Saw this headline today - "With Moms for Liberty Endorsement, ‘Science of Reading’ Faces More Political Controversy". No! A more balanced view: "How to Ensure the Phonics Renaissance Succeeds" https://raisingamericans.substack.com/p/the-american-reading-crisis-and-how

Yup, it’s devastating to “politicize” phonics. It does not belong to a political party for godsakes. Those moms for liberty can stuff it. Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sad part of Lucy caulkins was that she tried to equate developing a passion for reading with how to learn how to read.

We teach kids math, we don’t simply expect them to develop a passion for it.

Great point about teaching phonics simply because it's good for kids. They don't have to love it. It's like eating broccoli or learning to play scales on the piano. But if kids are learning how to decode and are simultaneously exposed to the "romantic" aspects of reading -- the book nooks, storytime, etc., most kids will come to love reading at some point.

I do have to say that the SoldaStory podcast was an eye opener regarding Lucy Calkins. Calkins herself explains her motivations.
They are definitely mixed as motivations usually are...but there was a lot going on that seemed to be about her personal needs -- not what was best for children. Listen to these segments of the story:"The Superstar" and "The Company" and "The Reckoning". https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/11/03/sold-a-story-e4-the-superstar.

And speaking of doing what's best for children, I hope the extremes won't start politicizing the teaching of phonics. Saw this headline today - "With Moms for Liberty Endorsement, ‘Science of Reading’ Faces More Political Controversy". No! A more balanced view: "How to Ensure the Phonics Renaissance Succeeds" https://raisingamericans.substack.com/p/the-american-reading-crisis-and-how

Anonymous wrote:The sad part of Lucy caulkins was that she tried to equate developing a passion for reading with how to learn how to read.

We teach kids math, we don’t simply expect them to develop a passion for it.

Good point about teaching phonics simply because kids benefit even if they don't love it - kind of like eating broccoli.

I do have to say that the SoldaStory podcast was an eye opener regarding Lucy Calkins. Calkins herself explains her motivations.
They are definitely mixed as motivations usually are...but there was a lot going on that seemed to be about HER -- not what was best for children. Listen to this segments of the story:"The Superstar" and "The Company" and "The Reckoning".
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/11/03/sold-a-story-e4-the-superstar.

The sad part of Lucy caulkins was that she tried to equate developing a passion for reading with how to learn how to read.

We teach kids math, we don’t simply expect them to develop a passion for it.

Anonymous wrote:Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.

This is it! It is important to teach all children the reading building blocks.

Anonymous wrote:Very depressing to see the lifeblood being sucked out of reading in favor of PARCC scores and "science." The pendulum will surely tilt back in favor of whole language, but it sounds like it will too late for most of our kids. Comprehension is critical. Writing skills are critical. Developing a love of reading - critical. Learning buzzwords like "R Blends" are not.

This is sadly a misguided response. Children can be taught the skills to be good readers and then they will enjoy. It is a fallacy that most kids will simply learn to read well by osmosis.

*dose

Some kids need a good does of phonics as initial scaffolding and then need less as time goes on. Some kids a good deal more. Other don’t need it at all. But it hurts no one and helps most (even if not with reading, certainly with spelling. And it doesn’t be require that much time to implement along side broader reading comprehension works. So seems like a win-win.