Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who might not know why balanced literacy is bad, just FYI, a lot of kids who aren’t explicitly taught decoding learn it anyway, maybe 70%. The problem is, of course, the other 30% who never learn how to read properly.

Lots of people looked at the way good readers read, and think, oh, hey, we should teach kids to do what good readers do. But that’s like saying “expert bakers just know by instinct when something is done so we will just teach people to use their instincts to know when something is done.”

When people have a skill down, they use shortcuts, like glancing at the shape of a word to know what it’s said. But that doesn’t mean shortcuts should be taught as the actual skill.

This and the same goes for math.

Anonymous wrote:For people who might not know why balanced literacy is bad, just FYI, a lot of kids who aren’t explicitly taught decoding learn it anyway, maybe 70%. The problem is, of course, the other 30% who never learn how to read properly.

Lots of people looked at the way good readers read, and think, oh, hey, we should teach kids to do what good readers do. But that’s like saying “expert bakers just know by instinct when something is done so we will just teach people to use their instincts to know when something is done.”

When people have a skill down, they use shortcuts, like glancing at the shape of a word to know what it’s said. But that doesn’t mean shortcuts should be taught as the actual skill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

For books with information that goes against the party line:

- Why kids don’t like school (this is mostly for teachers wanting to incorporate principles of cognitive science into their instruction but shows how balanced literacy and such is not good)

- The Knowledge gap.

Yeah, what Wexler and Hanaford and Willingham argue for isn’t new, but it is weirdly unpopular. Imagine if FCPS went with curriculum that follows their well-evidenced arguments. That would actually lead to gains in equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

For books with information that goes against the party line:

- Why kids don’t like school (this is mostly for teachers wanting to incorporate principles of cognitive science into their instruction but shows how balanced literacy and such is not good)

- The Knowledge gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Quote from the article I posted which is a good example of reliance on pictures. A person riding a animal. On what planet can pony resemble horse as a word? Whoa. A child who misreads horse as pony does not need to check the letters or decide if it looks right. That child needs to stop guessing and learn to decode words. A semantic substitution error like horse read as pony occurs when the child is guessing based on “cues”.

And why people are desperate for charters. 24-25k cost per pupil per year , children in school all day, and the majority still cannot read. Sorry it's from the New York Post but where else can you get this info that goes against the Party line? https://nypost.com/2021/06/16/troubled-nyc-school-told-mom-to-pull-her-smart-son-out/

No one needs to afterschool in early grades for basics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Do you need to look at a picture to decipher content? You can't decipher the verbage/keys/labels or anything else on the tables, graphs, or maps unless you are a competent reader. The pedagogical entrepreneur 's methods had poor objective results. https://seidenbergreading.net/2019/12/06/lucy-calkins-on-the-attack/

...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever time I see that darn Balanced Literacy poster, I think of this.

Can you post a link to the creator of this? I would love to share it and want to give appropriate credit.

DP, but googling the tag on there gives:

https://mobile.twitter.com/lucyfalsekins

Which looks like a fun follow!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.

Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.

+1,000

My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."

Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.

It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).

Okay there hold your horses. It isn’t really evidence that she has dyslexia- that requires a TON of other evidence as kids can guess many things when reading, but it doesn’t mean they are dyslexia. Though your child may indeed have its

Exactly. Dyslexia is very hard to identify/diagnose for multiple reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Reading involves looking at letters and converting them to sounds. Pictures are only in books for little kids. As they get older the pictures will go away and all they will be left with is letters. If they can’t connect them to sounds, they will have had a huge disservice done to them by letting them use pictures to avoid actually reading.

This. The idea that pictures are somehow integral to learning to read is ridiculous. For generations, children learned to read from just regular books, often the family bible.

And many learn to read from picture books, not the bible.

Not by "reading" the pictures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Good readers also look at tables, graphs, maps, etc when reading...so why not pictures?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Why would good readers ignore either one?

Reading involves looking at letters and converting them to sounds. Pictures are only in books for little kids. As they get older the pictures will go away and all they will be left with is letters. If they can’t connect them to sounds, they will have had a huge disservice done to them by letting them use pictures to avoid actually reading.

This. The idea that pictures are somehow integral to learning to read is ridiculous. For generations, children learned to read from just regular books, often the family bible.

And many learn to read from picture books, not the bible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."

Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.

Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.

Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.

+1,000

My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."

Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.

It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).

Okay there hold your horses. It isn’t really evidence that she has dyslexia- that requires a TON of other evidence as kids can guess many things when reading, but it doesn’t mean they are dyslexia. Though your child may indeed have its