Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

The current "trend" is science of reading. You can't get behind that?

And the curriculum is Wit and Wisdom which doesn’t include any phonics instruction at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

Which curriculum is this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

The current "trend" is science of reading. You can't get behind that?

And the curriculum is Wit and Wisdom which doesn’t include any phonics instruction at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

The current "trend" is science of reading. You can't get behind that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Nope. I have a problem with the people making the decisions. They don’t know anything about how kids learn to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

Right? I'm saying that right now, this year, my kid is reading primary and secondary sources in social studies, reading novels or stories related to the social studies content, and reading novels or stories unrelated to the social studies content. I have no idea what the "using math to teach english" comment even means.

PP here and yes I am baffled. The only thing I can imagine she is coming from is a writing assignment in math class. I've never heard of that happening or even suggested in APS. And while I think that's a bit much for elementary school, it is actually a very good idea. We relegate writing to English class so a lot of us never learn technical writing, and that's a very valuable (and inherently rewarding) skill to have. (Just a plug for a book if anybody is interested: William Zissner talks about writing in different subjects in Writing to Learn and he includes really great essays about different topics. I didn't finish the book but I read an essay by Einstein on how euclidian geometry is not a representation of our physical reality. It blew my mind and it's pretty amazing that I was able to understand it since I have very little background in math or physics.)

NP. My kid is immersion in APS in 1st grade. She's advanced in math, so gets extension activities. Most of these have been Spanish language word problems to stretch her language skills and her reading skills, as well as her math skills.

My recollection is that my older child wrote word problems for some extension math activities in the early grades. They'd trade the problems they wrote with classmates and solve each other's problems.

I wouldn't say either activity is meant to teach reading, but both sets of activities reinforce other non-math skills too. Personally, I'm fine with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

You have a problem with science-backed LA programs / teaching phonics?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personallye r learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

Plenty of teachers didn’t believe this BS way of teaching but we are required to teach the curriculum. That’s our job. The problem started (like it almost always does) with the higher ups making decisions based on fads. The current fad is equity. Our LA curriculum is based on equity. Once our district heard that the curriculum is a knowledge building curriculum designed to promote equity and they bought it. Does it meet the needs of our students? Nope. Will they listen to us? Nope. So we are stuck with it and have to use it. Don’t assume we don’t what which end is up. We know but unless parents complain, nothing will change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

Right? I'm saying that right now, this year, my kid is reading primary and secondary sources in social studies, reading novels or stories related to the social studies content, and reading novels or stories unrelated to the social studies content. I have no idea what the "using math to teach english" comment even means.

PP here and yes I am baffled. The only thing I can imagine she is coming from is a writing assignment in math class. I've never heard of that happening or even suggested in APS. And while I think that's a bit much for elementary school, it is actually a very good idea. We relegate writing to English class so a lot of us never learn technical writing, and that's a very valuable (and inherently rewarding) skill to have. (Just a plug for a book if anybody is interested: William Zissner talks about writing in different subjects in Writing to Learn and he includes really great essays about different topics. I didn't finish the book but I read an essay by Einstein on how euclidian geometry is not a representation of our physical reality. It blew my mind and it's pretty amazing that I was able to understand it since I have very little background in math or physics.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isnt news. Maybe i am late to the party but just wanted to share anyway.
And has now incorporated phonics in its revised curriculum. But its too late for the students who struggled because of her. It’s appalling that our kid’s education is just a money making business and mcps continues to pick sub par curriculums over and over again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html

As a mom, I think it’s very important for parents to be paying attention to their little kids’ early reading, writing and math skills. Some of the school fads are ridiculous. It’s pretty easy to see when it’s not working and to help your own kid. It’s also really, really fun and satisfying!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personally learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

My kid figured it out on their own at age three. Smart kid, not genius. We read to them and pointed out the words and did language apps and videos but, yes some kids just figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling to me that any competent teacher could ever believe that "good readers" look at the pictures and guess and only consider the letters/sounds as a last resort. Did they never reflect on how they personally learned to read? Consider that for centuries people learned to read from books without pictures?

My kid figured it out on their own at age three. Smart kid, not genius. We read to them and pointed out the words and did language apps and videos but, yes some kids just figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still can't believe we will have a generation of kids who struggle with reading/writing because of this crap.

WTAF?!

It's not just because of this. Fiction has been downgraded and devalued across the board since all of us went to school.

The big irony of that is that reading and discussing fiction is what develops empathy, understanding different perspectives, writing and critical thinking. The very things we claim are important.

Also science and history, "content", has been devalued. First children are taught how to read (or not taught how to read) and then later they are given interesting things to learn.

When we were growing up, we learned how to read by reading content. No longer.

Huh? My kids have had way more science and history content in ES than I did. I actually think it's too much and they should cut back to do more reading/writing/math.

My kid's reading and science/social studies were almost always integrated with ELA. So they are studying the American Revolution and reading a historical novel set during that time. Or they are studying westward expansion and reading tall tales.

So in this best case scenario, it's an ancillary add on to science and history with no specific discussion and texts chosen more for their topical relevence than their literary merit?

No. They also read other novels in ELA that are chosen for theme, literary merit, or whatever. And I studied tall tales when I was a kid decades ago; I think that's a pretty standard part of an American lit curriculum.

But they don't anymore.

We use fiction to teach history and math to teach english nowadays.

????

Right? I'm saying that right now, this year, my kid is reading primary and secondary sources in social studies, reading novels or stories related to the social studies content, and reading novels or stories unrelated to the social studies content. I have no idea what the "using math to teach english" comment even means.