Joanne Yatvin was a teacher, a principal, a superintendent, and president of the National Council of Teachers of English. She was a member of the National Reading Panel in 1998, which endorsed phonics, but she wrote a dissent. I am posting her views to generate a healthy discussion. I have never taught anyone to read except my own children, who were reading before they started school, mostly I think, because I read to them every day and shared with them my love of reading.
Yatvin writes:
Phooey on Phonics!
What is expected of students who are being taught phonics is the ability to sound out letters grouped together and to translate them into a single word. In contrast, students in public schools are taught the pronunciation of a word, not it’s spelling. Thus they become able to make sense of many written words quickly, and to remember them without sounding out their letters. That system turns out to be much easier for teachers to use, and far more successful for students to learn than phonics.
What teachers in regular classrooms do is to take students through the process of recognizing and remembering new words. Steady and pleasurable practice with poems, songs, and games will provide them with the ease and satisfaction of recognizing and remembering words when they see them again.
I am sorry to have to say it, but Michael Petrilli is not the expert we can trust when it comes to determining the best way to teach reading. Continually, he denies the reality of readers’ instant word recognition, and maintains his belief in the necessity to blend letter sounds together until they become a word. Then, he suggests repeating the process until all the words grouped together become a sentence, and all sentences become a message. As a successful teacher of reading in four elementary schools, and later, a school principal in two states, I am disturbed by Petrilli’s descriptions of the reading process, and his frequent claims of successful instruction using phonics. Even though teaching phonics has never been prominent in our public schools, its supporters have consistently claimed that it is the right way to teach reading there.
Today most respected reading specialists believe that children with difficulty learning to read will not do any better by undergoing phonics instruction. They are more likely to become more confused and dismayed than they were before.
Finally, I don’t know of any university professor who claims that phonics will work when the ordinary teaching of reading has not yet succeeded. Only phonics teachers and their supporters have maintained that belief. Moreover, all the law suits that have attempted to push phonics into public schools have been unsuccessful thus far.
I have a friend who taught reading intervention for years and he talks about how there are leaps in learning to read that simply can’t be taught. Some kids get it, some don’t. All you can do is use every tool in your toolbox until things click for each kid. Why is a circle with a tall line on the left a b, while a circle with a tall line on the right is a d? Why does b sound like “buh” and d sounds like “duh”? How do you go from “buh-a-duh” to bad? Phonics helps some kids make those leaps, while it just confuses things for other kids.
I can’t find the source, but I remember reading a study in which struggling readers in English were taught Chinese characters, while struggling Chinese readers were taught English using phonics. IIRC, both groups improved their reading ability. So some kids are apparently more wired for phonics while some kids are more wired for sight-reading.
Some students have auditory processing or auditory memory problems. These students often learn better using a kinesthetic approach like Orton Gillingham.
I totally agree. San Diego school district mandated whole language only in their schools in the early ’90’s and their reading scores fell. I think the best way is a blended phonics/whole language approach. Students from poverty tend to come to school with a limited vocabulary so looking at pictures and the beginning and ending sounds of words won’t mean much if they don’t know the vocabulary. I don’t understand why we have to choose one way or the other. I taught whole language and phonograms for 20 years and it gave students a hook when trying to decode words.
Actually, the best method is to get parents to set aside 30 minutes to an hour each afternoon or evening, turn off all electronics (music, video games, internet, texting devices, et al) and the entire family reads for that time period … everyday.
When I was still teaching (1975 – 2005), I read studies and heard in workshops that the time children spend in school is not enough for them to learn to read and/or keep up with their grade level if they do not read outside of school.
And I am not talking about reading school assignments. I mean recreational reading where the child and family are reading what they are interested in.
Lloyd Lofthouse – in reply to, “Actually, the best method is to get parents to set aside 30 minutes to an hour each afternoon or evening, turn off all electronics (music, video games, internet, texting devices, et al) and the entire family reads for that time period … everyday.” You are so right!
I gave a Spanish speaking woman stacks of books on different occasions for a friend to read to her two-year-old son. Her friend said that little boy loves being read to. He will pick up a book and go to her, reaching out with the book and says, “Blah, blah, blah.”
On my web site I have a page focused on family reading. Here is one quote that starts the page :
“Thorndike, after studying reading comprehension in 15 countries, discovered two conditions that prevailed in strong readers. All had been read to from an early age and had come from homes that respected education.” Rdg. Teacher March 1989
http://maryidefalco.com/reading%20site%20reconnected/12._Family_Rdg._Back_Packs.html
Scroll down and read about “Bedtime/Funtime.”
The challenge is educating the parents.
For instance, when my brother’s wife came to me asking for help, I tried to educate her and my brother, because all of their children were reading way below grade level. I told them what to do. For several months, I drove over to their house after I finished teaching and sat down with their kids to tutor them and model what my sister-in-law could do. But I couldn’t keep it up due to the 60-to-100 hours a week I was working as a teacher. Back then, I was teaching six-periods a day with 34 students in each class for a total of 204 children. Just keeping up with the paperwork was a never-ending challenge.
My sister-in-law never followed through.
My brother died in his 60s in 1999 illiterate and even though his wife could read, she wasn’t interested in reading. I think one or two of my brothers seven children could read but none of them were into reading books, magazines or newspapers.
“How do you go from “buh-a-duh” to bad?” – because it is not “buh” and “duh”, it is “b” and “d”.
Did you know that it is almost impossible to say a consonant without a vowel of some sort? In linguistic terms consonants are stops while vowels are generally continuants. Vowels and consonants ‘color’ each other in proximal position. Pronunciations vary by regional differences.
Criminey you are one of the biggest idiots we’ve had around here. Try saying the sound that b makes without the “uh”. If you try to pronounce b-a-d as “bee-a-dee” you’re never going to to learn to read.
It is not “buh” or “bee”, it is [b]. Please forgive me for omitting the brackets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart
Dienne77: “I can’t find the source, but I remember reading a study in which struggling readers in English were taught Chinese characters, while struggling Chinese readers were taught English using phonics. ”
Perhaps of related interest: “The algorithm able to understand English best is one designed to learn Chinese.
“As noted by Karen Hao of the MIT Technology Review, a computer model built by Chinese search engine and commerce firm Baidu now leads all other models on a benchmark of general English-sentence comprehension known as GLUE.
“The model is named ERNIE, and its core advantage is that it was trained to guess phrases, a key to understanding Chinese.”
https://qz.com/1775729/baidus-chinese-language-algorithm-is-excellent-at-english/
“Phonics” is and has been primarily a money-making scheme. Phonics First was pushed into the corporate-loving Bush era, beginning when W was Texas governor. It was always about selling materials. In that respect, it’s like technology, which is important because the people who make billions of dollars say it’s important. Most use of technology in early education is malpractice and the time would be much better spend finger painting or daydreaming.
All of the so-called proof of phonics “success” is self-fulfilling nonsense. Like much of education, it is a process of defining unimportant ends, devising means to those unimportant ends, and then declaring victory when the inevitable circle is closed. Recognizing more words in a list of words is inevitable when the goal is to drill kids on how to recognize more words on a list. Sound and fury. Little meaning. It is analogous to using paint by the numbers without ever letting kids love an actual picture. When kids hear and love stories, they will begin to understand the symbols that bring them to life.
Any conscious human knows that the war between phonics and “whole language” is meaningless too. Printed language is both of those things and individual children will use whichever mix best suits their sensory liking.
Perhaps most important, experience and research indicate that the majority of children will learn to read without any instruction at all. Fill early childhood with letters and words in the environment. Read to children as much as possible. Like Diane did!
Well stated. I taught very poor ELLs for most of my career. Many of them could not read in their home language. Yet, we taught them to read and enjoy it. If you want students to become readers, teach them the pleasure of the written word.
My response to the emphasis on phonics derives, IIRC, from G B Shaw
how do you pronounce “ghoti” ???
.
.
.
.
.
.
wanna guess???
.
.
.
…..
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
Is is pronounced “fish”
what, you say, how it that possible….
follow me
.
.
.
gh as in laugh
o as in women
ti as in nation
therefore, FISH
totally phonetic, right?
English has borrowed heavily from other languages. As a result, it is about 84% regular, and for the rest, we have to memorize as your post shows.
To this I can respond: how do you read 1000 ? The rightmost 0 is zero, the second from the right 0 is zero, the third from the right 0 is zero, the 1 is one. So, you should read this as “one”, because zeros mean nothing. The next time you lend a $1000, be happy if you’ll get $1 back.
Or, explained another way: our decimal system is positional. English phonetics is positional too. “K” at the beginning of a word followed by “n” is silent, but “k” at the end of a word is not.
“How do you read 1,000?”
This makes no logical sense, QuellePro. In fact, it is meaningless.
In math, children learn what numbers mean. They start small and quickly move to larger numbers.
How about, “how do you read one-thousand?”
My answer would be the same. Students learn that one-thousand is 1,000 and this is not learned through phonics but by the name of the numbers and words they were taught in math that means one-thousand and/or 1,000.
What context is there in 1,000?
What contest is there here: “My mother is a waitress that got a one-thousand dollar tip from a loyal customer.”
If a student never saw the word “tip” before, what do they know about that word through context after reading the sentence?
The same goes for the word “loyal” if the student never saw that before as a word.
And if a student reads that sentence out loud in class and pronounces “tip” with an “i” that sounds like the “y” in “type”, what will the teacher do? Correct the student with the proper pronunciation.
I do not see any beauty in phonics. Phonics is a tool and professional, educated teachers must be allowed to decide what tools to use when the teach. Not someone that thinks phonics is beautiful … or profitable.
Studies show that children who get heavy phonics instruction do better on tests in which they pronounce words presented in a list. They do not, however, do better on tests in which they have to understand what they read.
In contrast, study after study after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected voluntary reading that children do, not whether they have had intensive systematic phonics.
If you would like to examine the research, please see: Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive reading instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74. https://tinyurl.com/jc6x8mk
Yes. Thank you!
Great piece, Dr. Krashen!
I have been following the “reading wars” with great interest. In addition to being an ESL teacher, I am also a certified reading teacher in NYS. I cannot understand what this “war” is all about. Anyone that has successfully taught reading knows that an understanding the sound-symbol relationship in English is an essential component of learning to read. Here’s what I also know about reading. First, there is no one approach that is correct, but a teacher must know how to adapt instruction to fit the needs of the student. A steady diet of phonics only instruction is deadly dull, and it undermines motivation. It is important to assess prior knowledge before teaching. Students also come with varying strengths and weaknesses. A savvy teacher will meet students where they are and take them where they need to go using whole group, small and individual instruction.
Fountas and Pinnell are getting bashed in articles by “reformers.” I had great success with most students using a variation of balanced literacy that also included embedded phonics instruction. Our students learned to read, write and enjoy the written word. As a result, most of the them have become life-long readers. The reform crowd is even bashing “Reading Recovery,” which in my opinion, is a powerful instructional tool for students that are hard to start. I took two courses at NYU on reading recovery, but I am not certified in this program.
My school got great results from our effective balanced literacy program with our diverse student body. We were named a “Blue Ribbon School” by the DOE in 2008. Perhaps reading instruction is lacking because there has been a war against public education and a disinvestment in public schools for the past twenty years. Perhaps the answer remains in investing in well resourced public schools with professionally trained teachers.
When will this end? When will the “experts” admit that all children learn to read differently. The necessary balance of phonics to whole reading is different for each child. A good reading teacher responds to how each child learns in the class and gives them what they need to succeed. This old debate is just that. Dated and resolved. It only works to sell more material to unknowing administrators.
BRAVO!!!
I am a retired SPED Resource teacher who used phonics for those kids who had auditory processing problems. I would make a game out of sounding out words. One little first grader looked at me afterwards and “So, THAT’S it”
Thanks. This makes a ton of sense.
Lots of recent focus on reading in the “Educate” podcast:
https://www.apmreports.org/educate-podcast
including
“A conversation with Emily Hanford on reading instruction” (Oct 24)
“New salvos in the battles over reading instruction” (Dec 20)
“At a Loss for Words: What’s wrong with how schools teach reading” (Aug 22)
And also perhaps of interest “The Science of Reading” podcast
https://amplify.com/science-of-reading-the-podcast/
I heard the Educate podcast and Emily Hanford’s reporting and would recommend it. She does a good job of referencing the development and testing of ideas.
It does seem like phonics is an important approach for many children as they start reading. And it does seem like it’s important for children who have certain kinds of processing issues (dyslexia, for example).
I can still see and hear Dr. Donald Durrell pounding on the podium in the hall delivering the keynote address to teachers at the International Reading Association Conference back in the 1990s and with a booming voice say, “If you’re teaching your children in the classroom to read by sound and blending, I want you to stop it right now! Our language is MEANING based, not sound based!” And the renowned psycholinguistics professor Dr. Frank Smith saying, “Phonics is easy, if you already know how to read.” I loved his example of “Phonics works not left to right, but right to left.” Notice how the sound of “ho” changes dependent on what comes after–hot, hotel, honor, hood, hour, and there are more. I thought the phonics fanatics had gone away quietly a quarter century ago, but obviously the war is still on. Glad I am retired!
To give due credit to Dr. Durrell, his quote should have been “…to read by sounding and blending,…” NOT sound and blending. My apologies to the memory of one of the greats in the field of reading.
Frank Smith is also credited with saying,”Reading is Thinking.” As Krashen points out, the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension. Self selected voluntary reading promotes life long reading.
Agree with RetiredTeacher (I have been retired for quite some time now) and 77beth77. I taught fifth grade and first. When I taught first grade, we were expected to teach the children to read. It was the start of the “whole language” movement, and I quickly learned that most kids needed phonics, too. And I already knew that every child has different needs. I learned to read with heavy phonics emphasis and repetitive language in the old Dick and Jane era. At my old age, I actually remember unlocking the mystery of reading and how exciting it was for me. Even with Dick and Jane.
I learned to read from the “See, Say” Dick and Jane too. It worked for us because we had all the foundational elements in place from being exposed to the written word. Poor students have no such foundation. Few of them can rhyme. I always used poems and songs. Once a student can rhyme, it is easier to teach students what we call ‘word families’ and a key element in decoding.
Whole language and balanced literacy are philosophies. They never discredited the need for phonics. But the belief is that teachers need to know the students in their classrooms and use a variety of tools to teach them how to comprehend the words they are reading.
It also relies on a variety of literacy tools including writing. Writing is one of the best ways for children to acquire phonemic awareness.
These philosophies are about using real authentic learning activities to teach children how to read and write.
Writing helps students consolidate what they are learning. It is also revealing and diagnostic. The teacher can actually sees how the students applies the learning. We always taught reading and writing together as they reinforce each other.
Huh. I’m not a teacher but, well into my 50’s, I can still remember what I can only call “the thrill of phonics.” Reading came easily enough, but the phonics exercises we did were world-altering, every class spent at those workbook pages resulting in a small but tangible victory.
Wow, reading this post and these comments makes me realize that education is deeper in a Dark Age than I realized. Apparently nobody here has read ED Hirsch.
Just a week ago I was called a troll to bring phonics up and was reminded that language wars is history and that all elementary schools teach phonics. Phooey indeed.
Phonics is a tool in the teacher’s toolbox. If a teacher believes in phonics and wants to use that method, it should be up to that teacher to use that tool. The opposite is also true. If a teacher does not believe in phonics, then that teacher should be forced to use that tool.
If a teacher does not believe in phonics he should overcome his beliefs, or just forget about teaching elementary students, as simple as that. Let him teach gardening or maybe middle school social studies.
Until you identify yourself and your credentials, you will be considered a troll.you post here merely to ridicule and criticize others. That’s the definition of a troll.
Pat’s story is poignant: a reading specialist who realizes she’s been engaged in malpractice for most of her 40 year career. Now she realizes kids need explicit direct phonics instruction.
There is no one way to teach every child. Teaching to the test does not work, because high stakes tests are designed to punish the “losers” and this gets in the way of teaching and learning. Learning should take place in a low or no stress environment. Stress by itself damaged the brain and threatens physical and mental health.
How does stress affect the brain? (Google that)
“While stress itself is not necessarily problematic, the buildup of cortisol in the brain can have long-term effects. Thus, chronic stress can lead to health problems. … This is when cortisol and stress can lead to trouble. High levels of cortisol can wear down the brain’s ability to function properly.”
https://www.tuw.edu/health/how-stress-affects-the-brain/
“Chronic Stress Can Damage Brain Structure and Connectivity”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201402/chronic-stress-can-damage-brain-structure-and-connectivity
Children that live in poverty already have enough stress to deal with.
That is shy, for most of the thirty years that I was a public school teacher in Southern California (1975-2005), my focus was on learning how the brain and memory work and how students learn.
I do not know about the other states, but in California soon after the misleading, lying, manipulating “A Nation at Risk” report came out, teachers were required to keep up with what was going on in education. We had to take workshops, attend lectures, take classes and prove it or lose our jobs. That is why I have about 9 years of college under my belt, several years more than what it took to earn a BA, an MFA, and a so-called life teaching credential that took an entire year through an urban residency program.
While most teachers were focusing on other things, my focus was on how children learned and remembered what they learned, and the lessons I planned were built around what I learned.
“In education, learning modalities (also known as learning styles) are defined as the ways in which students use their senses throughout the learning process to acquire new skills. There are four main modalities that educators often consider: kinesthetic (moving), visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), and tactile (touching).”
https://blog.edmentum.com/kinesthetic-visual-auditory-tactile-oh-my-what-are-learning-modalities-and-how-can-you-incorporate
For that reason, most if not all of the lessons I planned were complex and layered, and my goal was to hit every learning modality in every lesson.
But teaching to the test gets in the way of doing that, explaining why I never taught to the test.
Even though admin wanted teachers to teach to the test, and the pressure was applied, I never did. I was also never pressured to teach to the test because my students always outscored by a wide margin every other teachers’ students in the same grade throughout the district I taught in on standardized state tests for English (reading and writing).
There is so, so much more to reading than simply being able to decode sound-symbol correspondences! Some can learn to do this based simply on unconscious application of pattern recognition abilities. Others (most, I think) benefit from some phonics instruction. But kids have to want to do it, to read, and they learn this by being immersed, joyfully, in delightful language–reciting rhymes and jingles and songs, being read to, holding conversations, memorizing and reciting, doing dramatics. Having access to books and books and books and books and models of others who read. Most vocabulary and almost all the internalized grammar of a language is learned unconsciously and automatically from the ambient SPOKEN linguistic environment, and both are necessary for learning to read. It astonishes me that the right-wingers keep railing about phonics instruction. Don’t they know that all the basal reading programs and almost all reading programs in school have a phonics component?
Joanne Yatvin is a whole language reactionary, and NCTE is and has been for a long time a bastion of look-say / whole language / balanced literacy insurgence. The policies and recommendations of NCTE are anti-phonics, its members and followers are rogue scoundrels damaging public education in a more nefarious way than the wicked Betsy DeVos ever did. These non-working “methods” have been used in American school for almost a century!
It would be lovely if Ms. Ravitch stated her position on phonics vs look-say / whole language / balanced literacy once and for all. Although, there is no guarantee that even if put into definite terms today her position would not drift later. After all, in the last twenty years or so she changed her position on national curriculum, accountability and charter schools, so I would not be surprised if Ms. Ravitch have fallen in love with the teachings of Ken Goodman and Frank Smith.
In 2003, Diane Ravitch “voiced her concerns over the amount of scientific scrutiny the phonics program had received prior to its selection [for New York public schools]. Ravitch also criticized the lack of flexibility inherent in prescribing a single program, noting that “there is more than one way to teach a subject,” and more than one learning style to be found among students.” – https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2003/february/a-dissenting-voice-diane-ravitch-talks-about-nycs-newest-s/
In 2007, Diane Ravitch reviewed Let’s Kill Dick & Jane: How the Open Court Publishing Company Fought the Culture of American Education
by Harold Henderson. In the closing paragraph she lamented that “American education is a challenging environment … shaped more by fads and ideology than by evidence about what works best for children.” – https://www.educationnext.org/the-triumph-of-looksay/
In 2008, Diane Ravitch commented on the Core Knowledge Program, piloted in New York. The program “stresses the importance of content knowledge, along with phonics and vocabulary,” said Ravitch. She continued, “Most of us learned to read with some form of phonics – that is, by learning the sounds of letters and then “sounding out” new words.” She noted that the program was in “stark contrast to Balanced Literacy,” the reading program introduced in NY elementary schools in 2003 and still in effect in 2008. Ravitch argued, “Balanced Literacy doesn’t stress content knowledge, vocabulary or phonics. And we now know that it didn’t work.”
The launch of the Core Knowledge program suggested that Klein has finally recognized the failure of Balanced Literacy.
In her praise of the Core Knowledge, Ravitch acknowledged that “in contrast to Balanced Literacy, which has no specific curriculum, Core Knowledge teaches specific content knowledge. For example, children in kindergarten will learn nursery rhymes and fables while learning about Native Americans, plants, farms and seasons. Children in first grade will learn about astronomy, Mozart, Mesopotamia and Egypt and colonial biographies. Children in second grade will learn about ancient Greece, Greek myths, insects, holiday stories, westward expansion and civil rights.” Thus, the Core Knowledge approach can be compared and likened to Open Court’s readers from the 1960s, which also were focused on phonics, reading, writing, and good literature.
Further, Diane Ravitch mentioned the research undertaken by Jeanne Chall half a century ago, which proved that “beginning readers need to learn the connection between letters and their sounds, as well as the alphabet. A generation of research into reading has proven her right. “Decoding skills” – understanding how to sound out letters and words – should be learned early, as a foundation for lifelong reading.” – https://nypost.com/2008/09/01/right-on-reading/
I am amazed that this blog is flooded by anti-phonics reactionaries. This is like the Soviets rooting out spies and enemies of the people while labeling genetics “a bourgeois pseudoscience”.
Joanne Yatvin taught elementary school. She was the principal of an elementary school. She was a school superintendent. She was president of the National Council of Teachers of English. She served on the National Reading Pane.
What are your credentials?
I am neither for nor against while language, balanced literacy, and other methods. I support the teaching of phonics but I understand that any method taken to an extreme may be harmful. All things in moderation.
I repeat, what are your credentials?
All this simply shows that no amount of credentials can guarantee actual knowledge. NCTE is a rogue organization, harming education more than Betsy DeVos ever did.
So you are a troll.
You comment here to trash others but not reveal your identity or your credentials.
Here is the deal on this blog.
I post what I choose.
You are free to read or not.
If you don’t like what you read, go away.
Now you proved you are both a troll and a fool.
I have often disagreed with NCTE but anyone who thinks that NCTE did more damage to American education than Betsy DEVOS has nothing to say that deserves my attention.
Henceforth I won’t respond to your comments though I may delete them.
“whole language reactionary” Now that’s funny. I thought whole language people were supposed to be crunchy granola far left bleeding heart socialist types? So, “whole language radical”, maybe. You can have the reactionary label, thanks.
“I thought whole language people were supposed to be crunchy granola far left bleeding heart socialist types?”
That one got me laughing. I taught in a Southern California district when the Whole Language approach was forced down the English departments throats by the district admin in every school and the teachers, all of the teachers, protested. I didn’t talk to one English teacher that was against it.
The high school I transferred to in the same district soon after the Whole Language War was declared by admin on all the English teachers in the district was 100% against the Whole Language crap and most of those teachers would fit your biased, misleading label of “left bleeding heart socialist types”.
I have learned over the years that anyone that throws out tags or phrases like “left bleeding heart socialist types” has been programmed by the Alt-Right to think that way.
CORRECTION:
Every English teacher I talked to was against the Whole Language crap. The people behind this travesty of failure were the same people behind crap like NCLB, Common Core, and high stakes testing, et al.
None of these travesties of failures was popular with any of the teachers I worked with and knew.
Stupid, ignorant and misguided crap like Whole Language and all the rest of the deformer failures always comes from the TOP.
Core Knowledge elementary schools are very exciting places.
Hi Bob, I value your insight and opinion. Can you tell me more about Core Knowledge schools – or just provide a snapshot. This is the first I have heard of a CK elmentary school and I would be interested in knowing why you like them. Thanks!
There’s a lot of substance AND FUN in what the kids get in these schools. They do lots and lots of hands-on projects related to particular knowledge domains in the Core Knowledge Sequence (which is not as dominated by dead, dead white men as is popularly imagined). Kids are quite visceral and concrete, and they respond to this. They are read to a lot from children’s classics. They take deep dives on stuff that kids really care about. So, for example, topics treated in Grade 1 include Ancient Cities, Egypt, Africa, Deserts, the Earliest Americans, the Maya, the Aztecs, the Inca, Native Americans and the First European Colonists, Cave Painting, Egyptian Art, Elements of Visual Art, Elements of Music, Mozart, Peter and the Wolf, Animal Habitats, The Food Chain, Oceans, Environmental Change and Habitat Destruction, Types of Animals, Dinosaurs, the Solar System, the Earth, Famous Scientists (Rachel Carsen, Edison, Jenner, Pasteur). Readings for Grade 1 include Hope (Langston Hughes), I Know All the Sounds the Animals Make (Jack Prelutsky), My Shadow (Robert Louis Stevenson), The Owl and the Pussycat (Edward Lear)T, The Pasture (Robert Frost), The Purple Cow (Gelett Burgess), Rope Rhyme (Eloise Greenfield), Sing a Song of People (Lois Lenski), Solomon Grundy (traditional), The Swing (Robert Louis Stevenson), Table Manners [also known as “The Goops”] (Gelett Burgess), Thanksgiving Day [“Over the river and through the wood”] (Lydia Maria Child), Washington (Nancy Byrd Turner), Wynken, Blynken, and Nod (Eugene Field
The Boy at the Dike (folktale from Holland), The Frog Prince, Hansel and Gretel, selections from The House at Pooh Corner (A. A.Milne), How Anansi Got Stories from the Sky God (folktale from West Africa), It Could Always Be Worse (Yiddish folktale), Jack and the Beanstalk, The Knee-High Man (African-American folktale), Medio Pollito (Hispanic folktale), The Pied Piper of Hamelin, Pinocchio, The Princess and the Pea, Puss-in-Boots, Rapunzel, Rumpelstiltskin, Sleeping Beauty, The Tale of Peter Rabbit (Beatrix Potter).
Teachers are encouraged to do lots and lots and lots of nursery rhymes and jingles and riddles, and kids do lots of crafty projects–making maps and posters and timelines and buildings and clothing, and they memorize wonderful pieces for performances. There’s a lot of art and music. The kids are given lots of space to be kids and lots of fun stuff to do and really meaty, substantive things to sink their teeth into, including lots of children’s classics.
Sorry, beachteach. My response is in moderation. WordPress is weird that way.
Thank you for taking the time to reply – just now reading this. As an early elem. teacher it all sounds so appropriate and grounding. Our curriculum has become so process and skill based. . . . when we so teach content (ie: polar animals) it’s immediately engaging …. there are so many directions and hands-on projects you can do when you ground learning in content. I am going to check out the CK website and Ed Hirsh books too. Thanks 🙂
A friend of mine who teaches fifth grade recently told me a story about how she was doing with her kids some inane skills test prep exercises that her Principal was insisting that the teachers do. One of the exercises happened to mention vultures, and they got off onto a tangent about animals eating other animals and predators and scavengers and the food chain and so on. The kids were leaping out of their chairs with questions. Then, her AP walked in, and she immediately went back to the exercises. As soon as the AP left, one of the kids asked, “Can we go back to talking about vultures now?” LOL.
All this stupid so-called instruction in vague “skills” is a direct consequence of the puerile, backward Gates/Coleman Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] skills list. There is no such thing as a general “finding the main idea” or “making an inference” skill. Those are as mythical as were Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fairies in the garden, and lessons on them are blither and blather.
Yes, some bits of writing have a main idea. Some are explicit. Some are implicit. But there is no generally applicable “finding the main idea” skill. One has to use cooked, fake schoolroom writing with the main idea neatly tucked into a topic sentence to support that fallacious notion. If people thought in terms of imparting “procedural knowledge” instead of “skills,” they would quickly become disabused of such notions because they would realize that there is no generally applicable procedure, no algorithm, for finding a main idea.
Core knowledge sounds very much like theme based instruction. Many preschools and early elementary programs taught this way before the CCSS. Little ones are sponges for content.
Yes. I always hated the term “theme” used in this way, as synonymous with topic. I prefer to use “topic” and to reserve “theme” for reference to the message of a work. But you are right and the term was often used that way centuries ago (“His theme? Man’s first disobedience.”) Literary terminology suffers from vagueness and paucity of terminology. Northrup Frye pointed out, long ago, that there is no one work for the objects, literary works, that literature professors study.
QuellProf,
Obviously, you know nothing about reading. You sound like dime-a-dozen idiotic education ministry officials in Devostate nation.
LAUSD forced every elementary school in the whole, 2nd largest district in the nation to use Open Court with such disastrous results it had to be discontinued. Why? It wasn’t just because Open Court uses only boring, meaningless phonics to drive instruction; it was because Open Court is a scripted teaching program, and top-down approaches simply do not work in schools any more than belittling teachers does. And don’t expect me to dignify a response.
Yes, Open Court is a scripted teaching program, it would not work otherwise. Open Court’s representatives had to visit schools weekly or even more frequently to monitor correct usage of their program.
It is false that Open Court had boring, meaningless phonics instruction. Every first-grade phonics book came paired with a reader for the second semester, full of folk tales, poems as well as short stories from renown authors. Here is the first year (!) Open Court reader, meaning that first-grade students were expected to read this book (and actually did when their teachers followed the program): https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Court-Basic-Readers-Reader/dp/B000EP9DOK If you want some sample pages, I can scan them for you.
Open Court failed and went bankrupt because it could not persuade teachers to follow the program to the t. Diane Ravitch reviewed a book about Open Court in 2007, I linked to the review above. The book is available to borrow for free at archive.org: https://archive.org/details/letskilldickjane00hend/page/4
“Open Court failed and went bankrupt because it could not persuade teachers to follow the program to the t.”
Then Open Court deserved to fail and go bankrupt. Teachers should never have to follow a “program” to the t. For instance, teachers in Finland are trusted to decide how they teach and what they teach. There is no top-down orders to follow a “program” like we often find in the U.S.
Finland has Ministry of Education and it has the national curriculum, which may not be super-detailed, but it does exist. I guess, teachers in Finland are more reasonable in their methods, are better prepared, and do not try using non-working approaches like whole language. In fact, with regular sound-symbol correspondence of Finnish language synthetic phonics works best and was adopted throughout the country in the 1970s. Open Court products would work just fine in a country like Finland.
Finland’s national curriculum is not mandated, teachers do not have to follow it and are free to teach what they want from that curriculum or not. What is interesting is that Finland does fund private schools with public money but those private schools must be transparent and follow all the same rules the public schools follow. The result, there are about 25 private K-12 schools in Finland, less than 1 percent of the total.
Teachers in Finland must earn a master’s degree in education before they are allowed to teach.
I doubt that many parents or teachers in Finland use Phonics instruction.
Finland has a broad and non-prescriptive national curriculum. Teachers have wide latitude about what and how to teach.
Teaching is a highly respected profession in Finland. Entrance to Finnish teachers’ colleges is highly selective. Students spend five years of study, research, and practice before they become teachers. Their is no Teach for Finland. There are no standardized tests from kindergarten until entry into high school. Creativity, play, music and art are highly valued, as are children’s health and nutrition.
This 1993 article described strong emphasis on phonics at that time in Finland while concluding that “The current trend in Finland of shifting reading instruction to a more meaning-based practice while not rejecting letter-sound correspondence instruction appears to offer students the balance they need to become independent readers.”
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41482121
While this 2016 assesssment by the European Literacy Policy Network indicated that: “There is strong emphasis on grapheme-phoneme correspondence during the early years of reading instruction in Finland. ”
Click to access Finland_Long_Report.pdf
Stephen,
With more digging, I have no doubt you will find that Finnish teachers emphasize joy in learning above all else. I was there. Were you?
Ravitch: “With more digging, I have no doubt you will find that Finnish teachers emphasize joy in learning above all else. I was there. Were you?”
When, as a child, I asked my mother about my heritage she told me that I was part Finnish.
Never made it to that purported ancestral home, and only a very great deal later did I realize she was likely having fun with me.
I enjoyed watching Pasi Sahlberg’s lecture at Wellesley’s Ravitch lecture series.
Impressive stuff. But I was a bit surprised at how tightly he seemed to associate PISA test results and excellence in education and wondered how he’d have reacted to Mike Petrilli’s note earlier this month:
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/pisa-2018-leaning-economic-headwinds
“5. Put enthusiasm for Finland on ice. Remember when that charming, icy little Nordic country was all the rage among educators? Well, since 2000, its reading scores have declined more than in any OECD country, save Iceland—a whopping 26 points. In math, they are down 37 points, the biggest decline among OECD countries. And worst of all, in science, they are down 41 points, also the worst in the developed world. The anti-ed-reform crowd is going to need to find another darling. (It appears that Finland was doing well until it ditched its successful top-down reform model.) (Petrill providing a link there to:
https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/real-lessons-finland-hard-choices-rigorously-implemented )
My impression, Diane, is that your views and mine and Bob Shepherd’s and those of many others here are very closely aligned in respect to how to best successfully encourage a love of reading among kids who arrive at school with widely varying experience with spoken and written language. And we’d thoroughly agree with the sentiments expressed by Eva Moskowitz here (except perhaps for a single sentence?): https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/secret-ingredient-growing-great-readers?mc_cid=0e8639e2b7&mc_eid=f4533b3812
It seems plausible that, in some environments, phonics is being rigidly, excessively taught without effective accompanying facilitation of a love of literature. And also that, in some environments, phonics is not being effectively utilized to assist readers who could benefit from skillful assistance. My sense is that the latter is considerably more common than the former and especially needs concerted corrective attention. Would you agree?
I would be interested in any data that clarifies the prevalence of each.
My view is that teachers in the classroom need the tools—including phonics but not limited to phonics—to do their job. Journalists with strong opinions and no classroom experience should get out of the way.
Ravitch: “My view is that teachers in the classroom need the tools—including phonics but not limited to phonics—to do their job. Journalists with strong opinions and no classroom experience should get out of the way.”
First sentence: agreed.
Second sentence: As the son of one, I’ve found they far more often shed light than get in its way.
I wish that journalists in this town and elsewhere would devote considerably more, not less, attention to the quality and efficacy of reading instruction in our schools. And find it difficult to imagine that you’d truly disagree.
Stephen,
Will you invite journalists into operating rooms to tell surgeons how to do their jobs?
Will they be encouraged to correct other professionals without benefit of any professional training?
Ravitch: “Will you invite journalists into operating rooms to tell surgeons how to do their jobs?”
When I log in to the old gray lady and search “surgery”, the first four items to appear:
1) Frail Older Patients Struggle After Even Minor Operations
These patients are not aware of the true risks, and surgeons aren’t telling them, new research suggests.
2) Troubled Children’s Hospital Is Sued Over Toddler Who Died After Surgery
North Carolina Children’s Hospital and several of its doctors are accused of failing to warn parents about known problems within the pediatric heart surgery program.
3) When the Surgeon Is a Mom
Nearly 40 percent of pregnant surgery residents consider dropping out. Many wonder: Why can’t the system accommodate motherhood?
4) New Zealand Seeks Human Skin to Treat Volcano Burn Victims
The country’s need highlights a little-known type of organ donation.
What of that news, Diane, would you wish to suppress? None, I would guess.
Ravitch: “Will they be encouraged to correct other professionals without benefit of any professional training?”
Ah yes. You remind me of a summer evening when, as a teenager, I toiled in a restaurant kitchen down on the Cape. It had been a slow season, but for reasons at first unbeknownst to us, unprecedented crowds started streaming to our door. We juggled chaos, mayhem and pandemonium with some stumbles and slippages. When we learned the cause of the commotion, we didn’t stop to ruminate on whether the Boston Globe food critic whose review had been published that morning had ever worked professionally in a kitchen. We understood him to be a skilled reporter. And the remainder of the season was a succès fou.
I don’t know if any journalists so stupid as to tell heart surgeons how to perform surgery.
To compare a food critic to a connoisseur of heart surgery is beneath you.
Journalists can write about any subject, but only in education do they presume to know more about teaching than teachers.
Please notice that I never tell anyone how to teach.
Ravitch: “I don’t know if any journalists so stupid as to tell heart surgeons how to perform surgery.”
Or that attempt to instruct their preschool children in the practice of such procedures in the family room?
Ravitch: “To compare a food critic to a connoisseur of heart surgery is beneath you.”
Recall, Diane, that you had expanded your focus to “other professionals”.
“Journalists can write about any subject, but only in education do they presume to know more about teaching than teachers.”
Consider politics and other sports… and don’t underestimate their presumptions.
In many fields, including surgery and reading, they’re well equipped to identify patterns of success and failure. And, not infrequently, identify likely causes… Hospitals in community A use journalist/surgeon Atul Gawande’s pre-surgery checklists. Hospitals in community B do not. The level of infections and other complications is greater in community B, which would be well-advised to alter its practices. You’ve never benefited from such insights in the rags you read?
Ravitch: “Please notice that I never tell anyone how to teach.”
Is that a new-found reticence?
This from “A Is for Apple, B Is for Brawl” (2006) certainly seemed like telling folks how to teach: ““How many schools is Fundations in?” asks Diane Ravitch. “…Has the chancellor made any announcements that Fundations is going to be a standard along with Balanced Literacy? I would like to hear some evidence that it’s in more than just a few schools.”
http://nymag.com/news/features/16775/
I think you remain well-qualified to provide constructive advice in respect to the teaching of reading. And hope that the cat releases any new grip on your tongue.
Stephen,
You are arguing a truly stupid proposition.
Journalists who have never taught or performed heart surgery can write about those who do the work but they have no standing to tell them how to do it.
I appreciate your diligent research in finding an example of an instance where I questioned a program being foisted on teachers. I also questioned the emphasis on grit and self-esteem and other fads.
But I don’t hold myself up as an expert on how to teach. I am not. Are you?
Ravitch: “Journalists who have never taught or performed heart surgery can write about those who do the work but they have no standing to tell them how to do it.”
I’d encourage you to read, or re-read, Atul Gawande’s New Yorker article about use of checklists in medicine… It may cure your humble reticence about ever, in any circumstance, poking your nose in a surgeon’s business… A couple of extracts below:
“On a sheet of plain paper, he [Dr. Peter Pronovost] plotted out the steps to take in order to avoid infections when putting a line in. Doctors are supposed to (1) wash their hands with soap, (2) clean the patient’s skin with chlorhexidine antiseptic, (3) put sterile drapes over the entire patient, (4) wear a sterile mask, hat, gown, and gloves, and (5) put a sterile dressing over the catheter site once the line is in. Check, check, check, check, check. These steps are no-brainers; they have been known and taught for years. So it seemed silly to make a checklist just for them. Still, Pronovost asked the nurses in his I.C.U. to observe the doctors for a month as they put lines into patients, and record how often they completed each step. In more than a third of patients, they skipped at least one.
The next month, he and his team persuaded the hospital administration to authorize nurses to stop doctors if they saw them skipping a step on the checklist…
[…]
“I called Pronovost recently at Johns Hopkins, where he was on duty in an I.C.U. I asked him how long it would be before the average doctor or nurse is as apt to have a checklist in hand as a stethoscope (which, unlike checklists, has never been proved to make a difference to patient care).
“‘At the current rate, it will never happen,’ he said, as monitors beeped in the background. ‘The fundamental problem with the quality of American medicine is that we’ve failed to view delivery of health care as a science. The tasks of medical science fall into three buckets. One is understanding disease biology. One is finding effective therapies. And one is insuring those therapies are delivered effectively. That third bucket has been almost totally ignored by research funders, government, and academia. It’s viewed as the art of medicine. That’s a mistake, a huge mistake.'”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-checklist
Ravitch: “But I don’t hold myself up as an expert on how to teach. I am not. Are you?”
I suspect that you and I and most everyone here has certain particular areas of expertise in respect to teaching, mine regrettably narrow in scope. Facilitating reading is one area where I particularly acutely feel deficient in expertise. I remain optimistic that journalists as well as classroom teachers (and my sister, the librarian) can help ameliorate that.
Stephen,
You are digging yourself deeper into the hole by claiming that journalists who have never learned a profession can teach the professionals how to do their job.
That is sheer nonsense and you should stop now, because you are not ahead. You are too intelligent to make a stupid argument.
Any surgeon who needs to get help from a journalist should have his or her medical license revoked.
Next, will you propose that journalists who are accustomed to taking many flights should give lessons to their pilots?
Please don’t reply.
Medical errors are the third cause of deaths in the U.S., so yes, physicians may use extra if not guidance but scrutiny and reporting. – https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html
How did “Q” the troll leap from phonics to deaths caused by medical errors?
The troll thinks he knows everything. I wish he would disappear. This is a mutually respectful community. He is a skunk at the garden party.
Teaching reading is complicated. You use the tools that work for each student. That might be phonics, it may be something else. Saying phonics is phooey is, well… phooey.
Interesting, isn’t it, how people swoop in from Deformer LaLa land to tell teachers how things should be done? Everything would be just swell in education and we would race to the top of Mount Competition if we just [insert Deform magic elixir, universal antidote, philosopher’s stone, here]. I think of the drunken uncle at the family reunion: “Well, if I wuz President, we would just make better deals with Chayena, OK?”
For most kids, phonics is a necessary but far, far from sufficient component of reading instruction. I thought this was pretty much settled. Now, let’s talk about knowledge. Knowledge is essential to reading. If you don’t know what the writer has assumed you would know, you won’t have a clue what is being said. It would be an altogether good thing for education if people stopped using the term “skills” altogether and substituted for it, instead, “procedural knowledge.” Habitual use of that term, instead of “skills,” would get them to thinking more precisely and concretely and steer them away from “skills lessons” that are airy nothings. I’ve seen far, far too many of those.
And yes, vocabulary is important. But you aren’t built to learn it from explicit instruction on and study of lists of random vocabulary words. People learn vocabulary, including the derived and inflected forms that make it useful, in meaningful contexts in semantically related groups in particular knowledge domains.
But with all these ideas, one can turn them deadly. If you try to create a “knowledge rich” curriculum by spewing a lot of dull facts at kids (the way history was taught to me in middle school and high school–list of kings and battles and names of treaties and dates), the result will be a nightmare. It’s another thing entirely if I take you onto that battlefield (or into that medieval peasant’s clay-and-wattle hut or whatever) and you acquire the knowledge in a rich context.
There are different approaches to teaching reading, and nobody discounts phonics. It is a component of efficient reading. Why does everything have to be a war? I can think of one reason why so-called reformers want to eliminate “balanced literacy.” It is expensive to implement. It requires the purchase of lots of real books and materials including classroom libraries. Many of the so-called reformers want to stick children in front of a computer and call it “an education.” These are the same people that call teaching temps with five hours of training teachers. It is “cost effective.”
Nailed it, retired teacher. The Deformers want to believe in easy, fast, but mostly CHEAP solutions like charter schools with computerized curricula and no theatre, no main library, no classroom libraries.
Another KEY concept that Deformers don’t get, that they simply do not understand: we use one term, “learning,” to cover lots of different things. In particular, we need to distinguish between explicit learning and acquisition–something not understood AT ALL by the backward, philistine tyros who hacked together the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic]. Most of what we know of the world–most of our knowledge–was acquired via automatic and unconscious inductive processes, without explicit instruction. Chances are that no one ever sat you down and explained that girls wear dresses and boys usually don’t or that Labradors are dogs but Mallards aren’t. And most of the grammar we “know” is of this kind–we couldn’t articulate its rules if we had to (unless we have had courses in syntax and morphology), though we follow them. Explicit instruction is NOT A SILVER BULLET. THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS. Different kinds of learnings take different kinds of experiences. Experienced teachers grok this. Deformer administrators trained at the Broad Advanced Deformer Magic Diploma Mill don’t.
Well said Diane, but I would add a more specific request. How many years have you taught reading (to emergent readers) and what training did you receive before and during your years of teaching reading? It is pretty clear what the answer would be. It is almost as if this person is attempting to repeat Phyllis Schlafly’s nonsense. My own experience was in the late 1970s and 1980s. I knew some of my students were lacking in the area of comprehension, but couldn’t put my finger on the issue. Instinctively I immersed them in literature and they thrived. Struggling students, given intensive phonics, became wonderful “word barkers”, but not good readers. This experience pushed me to explore reading methodologies where I came across New Zealand’s approach. No one can argue their results. In a nutshell, teaching reading is about teaching comprehension. Everything else is in support of that focus
Ben (if that is your name), I am not a reading teacher. I have never been a reading teacher. I never tell anyone how to teach. I am a historian of education with some experience in the politics of education. I have written about the history of the reading wars. I listen to teachers. What I have learned is that good teachers have a toolbox of methods and they fit their teaching to the needs and development of the children they teach.
“Phooey on Phonics!” However, phonics has its place in the teaching of literacy. True, phonics has many short comings:
– Phonics only helps if the words are already in one’s hearing vocabulary.
– Every rule is broken at some time
– Phonics is a skill; readers occasionally use skills but constantly need to use strategies. For the emergent reader only the initial letter sound is needed.
– With so many varied speech patterns around the county, how can phonics be the primary approach to reading? There is a single spelling across dialects that pronounce words very differently. My son once stopped a Boston police officer for directions. He asked the officer to repeat it five times and finally gave up. My son couldn’t figure out what the officer was saying.
– And when the rules being taught do not match the learner’s own dialect, it is that much more confusing and that much harder to learn.
– And as RETIRED TEACHER mentioned, phonics isn’t going to help those with an auditory discrimination problem.
Plus there is no carry over. My grandchildren reinforced that fact that there was no carry over from what they learned in the structured phonetic approach to reading. Phonics is more important for spelling than it is for decoding
Understanding the structure of the language is very important; e.g. a noun follows a noun marker such as “a” and “the.” Phonics needs to be integrated not isolated
Like RETIRED TEACHER, I too, taught phonics through poetry. For variety I would letter a poem on a large chart; hand out a poem on a sheet of paper; or flash a poem on the overhead. The students hi-lighted all the words with a specific sound/combination. They then pronounce the words; isolate the words; and listen to the sound a specific combination. Through induction they have arrived at the specific sound. Gifted children appear to intuit words; they do not rely on phonics but they need it for writing.
Phonics instruction should never dominate reading instruction. At least half the time devoted to reading should be spent reading connected text -stories, poems, plays, trade books etc. No more than 25% (and possibly less) of the time should be spent on phonics instruction and then only teach –indirectly- the rules that are frequently used. Children should read some text daily, preferably a complete story, with phonics instruction integrated into the text reading. Steven Stahl, The Reading Teacher April 1992
Research has shown that Children trained with intensive phonics did not do significantly better on tests in which they had to understand what they read. The same goes for Direct Instruction.
Familiar words can be read as fast as single letters. Under some conditions, words can be identified when the separate letters cannot be. Meaningful context speeds word identification. All phonics can be expected to do is help children get approximate pronunciations. Becoming a Nation of Readers p. 11
The following passage exemplifies the fact that phonics is only part of the decoding process. The first and last letters are correct. One must not negate the importance of syntax and semantics.
O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.cdnuolt
blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd
waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal
pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers
in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and
you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.
Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not
raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as
a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas
tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
Children need literacy experiences that include storytelling; quality children’s literature, bringing stories to life via dramatization, discussion; and illustrating stories, rather than activities that isolate and drill discrete skills.
“The essence of reading is the ability to link past experience with the text.”
To construct meaning students need to engage in the three-prong cueing system: graphophonics, semantics, and syntax. Students need to interact with fellow students, teacher, pictures and text. It is through the interaction that new concepts are formed. Graphic organizers, visualizing and making connections, predicting and confirming, responding, dramatizing all aid in constructing meaning.
Rumelhart states that the reader is like a detective, bringing a vast store of information and cognitive skills to the text to make sense of the clues provided.
Frank Smith, a psycholinguist, maintained that readers must bring meaning to print rather than expecting to receive meaning from it. As we become fluent readers we learn to rely more on what we already know, on what is behind the eyeballs and less on the print on the page in front of us. He purported that reading is an interactive process in which the reader uses two sources of information: perceptual and conceptual.
The READING TEACHER stated, “ The reform crowd is even bashing “Reading Recovery,” which in my opinion, is a powerful instructional tool for students that are hard to start..”
Reading Recovery is only for the 20% of “at risk” emergent readers until they become independent problem solvers. After Reading Recovery students are instructed with the Literacy Collaborative or the Arkansas Literacy Program.
At risk -emergent readers are those who have been print deprived before entering school – and those who have an auditory discrimination problem. At Risk are children who have developed a defeatist attitude due to Common Core, poor parenting skills, a negative attitude of a teacher or instructed on the wrong reading level. We have to prove to the children that they can read. Teachers must find the student’s instructional level and then shower the students with honest praise. Nothing succeeds like praise. No student should struggle. If they are struggling they are not being instructed on their instructional level! Begin with easy text and gradually progress to more challenging text. Add to that what LLOYD LOFTHOUSE said about stress.
Another great problem: children haven’t developed the skill of visualizing. They need to have their imagination stimulated. Children who do not visualize as they read do not comprehend. Children who do not comprehend do not enjoy reading.
Marie Clay – Literature Expert of the Century- stated:
50 sessions are needed to learn by oral presentation
10 sessions are needed when you employ the body
4 sessions when they can note differences and decide “How to” and relate to personal experiences.
She stressed the importance of:
Happy environment
Freedom to explore
Confidence
Feeling of success
A challenge that can be met
Hands on
Modeling
Utilize all senses
“Teachers must find the student’s instructional level and then shower the students with honest praise.”
I used the 5-finger rule. I told students and parents before selecting a book for a learning reader, make sure they can understand what they are reading.
To do that, I told them to read two or three pages in a book they thought interesting and keep track of the words they did not understand. If there were five words or less per page, that book was okay to read because they’d learn what the words meant through context. But if there were six or more words per page they didn’t understand, the frustration (stress) level would get in the way because that many unknown words would overwhelm the ability to learn through context.
But even that rule won’t always work. I’ve seen kids plow through stuff way above their level because they were fascinated by the topic.
There are exceptions fo every rule. Probably even Einstein’s famous E=mc2 — but the exception to that one might take a few centuries if our civilization keeps innovating instead of collapsing into a Trump tweet.
E = mc2
Einstein’s equation is best taught conceptually rather than mathematically. When presented properly, even a middle school student can understand it. The explanation makes for a fascinating and even enlightening read. It starts with this startling fact:
The Sun has been losing 5 million tons of mass every second, of every day for 4.5 billion years. And it will continue losing 5 million tons of mass every second of every day for the next 4 or 5 billion years! Yes, our home star is on the greatest weight loss program the Universe has ever known, its called “nuclear physics”.
The Sun does not produce light (among other related forms of energy)
via chemical reactions that release light during the combustion of fuels (e.g. a candle flame). Nor does it produce light like an incandescent lamp bulb that simply changes electrical energy into light (and heat) energy using a filament of tungsten wire.
Instead the Sun creates light by nuclear fusion. When hydrogen atoms in the core of the Sun are squeezed together under tremendous pressure they are changed into helium atoms. In this complex process some of the nuclear matter (think protons, neutrons, and electrons) is converted into light. Yes matter (m) becomes light (E) during nuclear fusion. In fact, every tiny bit of mass (m) is changed into an enormous amount of light (E). That’s what the “c2” tells us; c (the speed of light) squared (2) is best understood as an enormous mathematical constant in the formula. So 10 units of mass are converted into billions of billions of units of energy via nuclear fusion (or fission).
Translation:
Nuclear reactions convert small amounts of matter (m) into vast amounts of energy (E). Our Sun is just a massive nuclear fusion reactor continuously changing its nuclear material into enormous amounts of light and heat energy (most of which never strike our planet). Einstein’s discovery of course lead to the use of controlled nuclear fission reactions (splitting Uranium atoms) to create heat in power plants that make electricity and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.The amount of matter converted to energy in the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 700 milligrams (0.7 g) – less than one-third the mass of a U.S. dime.
That 7/10ths of a gram of nuclear matter was converted into the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT, leveling the city and killing tens of thousands of Japanese.
Have you read about the recent (? I think it was recent) discovery of what is happening right outside our solar systems Heliosphere?
I think Voyager 1 and/or Voyager 2 discovered what is happening out there 9 billion miles away.
“Pressure Runs High at Edge of Solar System
Out at the boundary of our solar system, pressure runs high. This pressure, the force plasma, magnetic fields and particles like ions, cosmic rays and electrons exert on one another when they flow and collide, was recently measured by scientists in totality for the first time — and it was found to be greater than expected.
Using observations of galactic cosmic rays — a type of highly energetic particle — from NASA’s Voyager spacecraft scientists calculated the total pressure from particles in the outer region of the solar system, known as the heliosheath. At nearly 9 billion miles away, this region is hard to study. But the unique positioning of the Voyager spacecraft and the opportune timing of a solar event made measurements of the heliosheath possible. And the results are helping scientists understand how the Sun interacts with its surroundings. …”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/pressure-runs-high-at-edge-of-solar-system
Fascinating.
The importance of curiosity as a motivational force for young readers is rarely talked about.
Thank you! So great to hear sanity from an actual teacher! So sick of the Deformers’ one-size-fits-all nostrums.
M. DeFalco. Thank you for your enlightened comments. You are clearly a well informed, experienced practitioner of reading instruction and an insightful observer of students.
M. DeFalco, very well said
I don’t agree or disagree with the role of phonics in general. I think it has strengths as and weaknesses just like other teaching methods. What I don’t agree is an underlying assumption that phonics is one and only effective way to improve reading. And using it to extreme. Sounds like asking teachers to choose either English-only method or a cookie-cutter word-by-word English-Japanese translation in English class at Japanese public schools. Not gonna help teachers and students that much.
Only thing I can say about phonics is it’s unknown if it brings effective development of literacy because sound and spelling don’t always match.
I am reminded of one of our ministers, who grew up in the hills of Kentucky. Her pronounciation of apostles (ah-pos’ – tlules) always amused me. My grandfather called the foamy sweet stuff on top of a pie a mu-rinj’ . How indeed are we supposed to pronounce the various borrowings that permeate hour language? I am advocating pronounciation of silent consonants to begin words. Ptomaine, mnemonic, and Ptolemy all agree, I want a silent consonant in front of me.
The National Council of Teachers of English dropped the ball with the CC$$ for ELA. It should have laughed these puerile “standards” off the national stage when they first appeared. What dissent it showed from these “standards” was milquetoast, and the consequences of that timidity have been devastating. Another reason for empowering teachers and putting a stake in federal and state micromanagement of classrooms.
This entire thread is bordering on hilarious. The deep irony is that language is inadequate for discussing how to comprehend language.
Communication began with music, not language. Prior to the advent of the printing press, decoding and esoteric arguments about reading were non-existent. Duh.
The printed word is not language. It is a symbolic representation of language. Phonics makes the profound error of assuming that the symbolic representation is the “thing” itself. Both philosophically and psychologically, language is meaning, not symbols. By simple deduction, focusing on symbols rather than meaning is to start at the wrong end of the relationship.
This is not to suggest that “phonics” has no utility, but to lend it gravity is as silly as teaching music by spending immense time on musical notation and seldom listening to a gorgeous melody or captivating harmony. Many here know the Mathematician’s Lament, which makes this case in terms of the beauty of mathematics and the sterility of most teaching.
If children are enchanted and captivated, the phonetic aspect of the symbols will be self-evident and unimportant. Nearly all kids will easily identify the sounds related to letters and cluster of letters as they learn to read. They won’t care, because they are riding joyfully on the meaning and power of the language, not the shape of letters on the page.
For a small minority of kids, the use of phonics will create a bridge into the magic of reading, but for nearly all of them it is a waste of time and may actually inhibit their love of reading and stories.
Thank you, Steve, for recommending “The Mathematician’s Lament.” A masterpiece, that. So, so important!!!!
For those who haven’t read Paul Lockhart’s “A Mathematician’s Lament,” I recommend that you stop what you are doing, right now, and treat yourself. Here it is, in all its deliciousness and glory and insight: https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
Thanks for the link. Great essay. The beginning with music and going on to study mathematics is brilliant. It brought two experiences to mind.
I still recall how I felt when I began to understand proofs. That feeling returned when I derived the formula for the area of an annulus (the area of a flat side of a washer, for the ungeometric among us). The simplistic arising from the complex in mathematics rears its head in geometry quicker than in other branches.
The second thing I thought about was the story John Jacob Niles told of his Christmas carol, I Wonder. asI Wander. It was July, 1933 in Murphy, NC. A slight, dirty, pretty girl stepped out on a fabricated platform and sang the first three lines of the song. Niles, like all folklorists, was desperate for the entire song. Like a gold miner frantically panning for tiny flecks, Niles paid her a quarter to sing it again, over and over, until he had recorded the music and the words. That we would have this beautiful piece of music due to a homeless girl in the North Carolina Mountains is testament to the natural music in some of us.
Thank you, RT, for the lovely story about Niles!
And here, a great follow-up to “A Mathematician’s Lament,” is Vi Hart doing some mathematics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-pyuaThp-c&list=RD3iMI_uOM_fY&index=7
Since I teach music and not reading, this entire discussion has been enlightening and fascinating. The enmity between some of the participants in this discussion rivals anything I have seen in modern politics.
I decided to look up a few things I did not know and refresh my memory on some others.
I found an excellent presentation online here:
https://prezi.com/49qircw8p0qk/history-of-phonics-timeline/
The author is a graduate student and the attribution for all of her work is at the end of the presentation.
A couple of things caught my eye from this presentation:
“In 1655 French Mathematician Blaize Pascal invented Synthetic Phonics. (Rogers 2001)” (All attributions I might use are from the online presentation.)
The sounds of the letters were memorized and used to create (synthesize) words. However, sometimes they went backwards:
“For instance, children are taught to take a single syllable word such as cat apart into it’s three letters, pronounce a phoneme for each letter of the word, and blend the phonemes together to form a word.”
It seems to me that using phonemes with a list of words blends phonics and whole word instruction together. Reverse engineering from the whole word back into the phonemes from the original spelling could both reinforce the phonemes and allow for the use of the knowledge gained to not only decode the letters, but also similar combinations of letters in other words. Once this process of decoding is started the more gifted student may well be off to the races in learning to read. That was how it worked for me.. I don’t remember any formal reading instruction from that point forward. I learned to read by reading. It also mitigates the problem of how to pronounce consonants with no vowels.
In music we see students proceed from playing individual notes to playing measures-phrases-melodies. Perhaps this is why I relate to the phonemes of phonics.
It would seem like it is necessary at some point to start reading words or being able to look at a word and know what it sounds like with no “sounding out.” In music we call the ability to hear what you see “audiation.” (Perhaps we stole that from reading teachers?) If you can hear the word when you see it you are good no matter how you learned to get that done.
Some gifted students are going to learn to read almost organically and rapidly. There is no reason to drill phonics or word lists once students reach that point. I have a friend who learned to read when she was four by “playing school” with her older sister. But she has a brilliant mind. Others will need a lot of help. Still others will need even more help coping with visually decoding a written language. Who is to say that using a different method of instruction to help these students is a bad idea?
I can see from the conversation here that some teachers are familiar with an array of instructional modalities that they will implement as needed based on the needs of the student and not the methods prescribed by local curriculum or by adherence to one philosophy or other. This is what great teachers do. They teach students.
No matter how anyone thinks reading should be taught, it is clear to me that we are not being well served by this war in the midst of our profession. It is clear to me as a person, (not as an educator of any sort) that I know people who have been introduced to reading via phonics and have, in essence, taught themselves to read from there.
However: It is clear to me that there is a necessity for other ways of teaching reading to reach those that are not self teachers. I also have visited with a local attorney who could not make the phonics system work. He told me that with the next teacher the phonics went away and they focused on learning entire words. (His description.)
So, you folks go on fighting if you wish, but rather than comparing statistics of large numbers of students, we need to work with individual students and figure out what works best for each one rather than bicker about which method is “best.” Some teachers have alluded to this throughout the discussion and i applaud their persistence in the midst of the battle raging around them.
Kids differ. But a sine qua non for all is exposure to a rich environment of story, rhythm, and rhyme. I do think, however, that it is not fully appreciated how much kids entering school differ in their exposure to rich spoken linguistic environments. Some have never had the experience of actually having adults hold conversations with them. Some have never been read to. Some have not had varied cultural experiences and learned the vocabulary associated with those. There’s a lot of remediation to be done there on which reading instruction will depend. This doesn’t get enough attention–the differences in automatically acquired vocabulary and syntax between kids from rich language environments and kids from impoverished ones.
Thank you for this apt comment on the stupidity of the reading wars.
Great post, Diane. Talk about tossing the apple of discord! LOL!
Thanks, Bob. I don’t agree with the “Phooey on Phonics” title chosen by the author, but you captured perfectly in your response that different children have different needs. Some children start school already Reading because of their parents’ devotion to reading to them and with them.
I am also annoyed that a handful of journalists have reopened the “reading wars,” pretending that we haven’t seen this show before. They think they are Rudolf Flesch. A little learning might help them learn context. And now I see hucksters selling courses on “the science of reading.”
Yes, I support phonics. But I remember Jeanne Chall writing that the tragedy of reading is that the zealots on both sides pushe their views so hard that they inevitably cause a counter-reaction, and—here we go again.
Bottom line: yes to everyone who wrote that teachers should use every tool in the tool box & that kids are individuals, all kids learn differently & use whatever works. I’ve been retired since 2010 & taught many grades as a sped. & resource teacher, from early childhood through 8th Grade. I taught through the whole whole language rage (where the only method of reading taught was whole language), & I truly believe that resulted in many phonetic learners not learning to read &, later, being diagnosed as learning disabled, yet did not, in reality, have a disability. A middle school Lexia computer program (< than one period per day; readers hear know computer instruction isn’t, of course, to be relied upon like the be-all & end-all of learning) worked wonders for many of the kids (esp. the E.S.L. students, & the company that produced Lexia had said to not use it w/ESL students…that it wouldn’t be successful {ever hear of a company not pushing their product?! }Those of us who worked w/the kids were quite astounded at their enthusiasm & the progress that they made!) Also–when teaching E.C.E. & 2 standard Kindergarten classes–I used S.R.A. w/the students (oldies will remember: “Clap! Say it fast!)
Fun to watch light bulbs going on w/some fun attached, using anything & everything…
Kids differ. I’m always suspicious of people who have one solution for every kid. Kids are not widgets to be identically milled. That’s one of the many reasons why the CC$$ are claptrap. The very notion that there is one path that kids need to follow to prepare them for every college experience or any career is ridiculous, prima facie. I’ve never understood why people who talked that nonsense weren’t hooted off their various stages.
I suspect that a lot of teachers are like me. They had parents who read to them. They had books. They had good pattern recognition skills. They were already reading before they came to school. (I was reading Heidi and a biography of Stephen Foster before first grade. I didn’t attend a preshool or kindergarten). And they learned this pretty much automatically and without explicit decoding instruction. But some kids aren’t built like that, and some are not so fortunate. They have unique issues, or they had different backgrounds. And while much of the language facility is innate and automatic, some of it isn’t, and some of it requires the right sorts of environmental input. Some phonics is doubtless valuable for a lot of kids. For some kids, intensive phonics instruction may work where other approaches have failed. But all kids need to have joyful experiences with language, with words, with stories, with books. All of them.
Exactly right, Bob Shepherd.
Imagine if the billionaires left off their mucking around in our schools and made sure that every three year old in the country, in every family, had a big, illustrated Mother Goose Rhymes; a copy of Red Fish, Blue Fish; Where the Wild Things Are; and D’Aulaires Book of Greek Myths.
All of those books were essentials in my home. I read the D’Aulaires Book of Greek Myths to my grandchildren, and they always said, “One More!” It helped that they saw their daddy’s handwritten comments on the pages.
Love me some Seuss
O he is the juice!
He’s never abstruse
or roundly obtuse.
His rhymes they produce
a feeling footloose.
He calls out abuse,
says there’s no excuse
for racists and dense
as a Pence or a moose.
I love to Wausi
to Bach and Debussy
and stand on my head
and romp in my bed,
but nothing will float
my stupendious boat
or get better use
than a book by Père Seuss.
cx: as dense, ofc
yikes. cx: Watusi
When I was very young my mom taught me phonics. She taught me the sounds that letters make and sounds they made when grouped together. We did a lot of spelling and reading together. Thank the Universe!!! Kids now can’t spell. They don’t know how to sound out words. They can’t write a decent sentence or paragraph. They’re told that whatever they write is “close enough” as long as someone can figure out what they wrote. There’s no attention to detail or punctuation. In 4-5th grade, we diagrammed sentences and we learned parts of speech. Kids nowadays are totally clueless about this. I’m a French teacher and I spend equal time teaching English. THANKS MOM FOR TEACHING ME PHONICS!!!! Thank the Universe I just missed the Whole Language craze!!!
Despite the tempest on this page, Mamie, the fact is that elementary schools in the US do phonics. So, as a practical matter, this discussion is moot, except where it bears upon keeping the Deformers from replacing early reading teachers with phonics skill drill depersonalized education software. Every basal reading program contains a complete phonics track. Every one.
Apparently, simply paying lip service to phonics in every basal reading program does not produce expected results. Just below writerjoney says that children “can also learn reading by recognizing the appearance of written words.” The enmity to phonics seems to be deep-rooted among teachers, and the whole cadre of elementary teachers must be replaced for early reading to be taught properly. Every report and article says the same: phonics are barely mentioned by teachers, and instead teachers use the same old trope of handing out worksheets with new/hard/frequent words.
Before going through this thread I was on the fence about intentions of billionaires on one side and fates of teachers on another side, but now I came to the conclusion that if the only way to get rid of stubborn teachers is to replace them with screens, then so be it.
These comments by folks who haven’t set foot in actual classrooms are pretty amusing. They remind me of David Coleman, who evidently hadn’t glanced at a basal school literature anthology in twenty-five years, saying that kids should read substantive works. Yes, and dogs should have fur and grass should be green. This isn’t lip service, QuellePro. It’s the standard curriculum in US elementary schools and has been for a long, long time. But phonics alone is not sufficient, not even close. And for some kids, it’s not even necessary. Why don’t you start writing impassioned pieces about how people should start wearing shoes instead of going to the office barefoot? Those would be very like your comments here.
You are a troll and an ignoramus.
Are you saying that Emily Hanford and others are lying? Or they intentionally selected just one school out of thousands that still clings to whole language?
Thousands of superb teachers would never identify their teaching as whole language or phonics. It is just good teaching, incorporates “both” without the ideological baggage, and responds to individual children, not educational dogma.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Great Job! Diane, you one again showed your ability to cause discussion. I think many people know how they learned, and extrapolate that experience in the general direction of education, not realizing the diversity of our school population.
I have a more simplistic take on this whole discussion. Cultures do well those things they do often. Jamaican runners grow up running. Musicians grow up in musical households. In households where people read, kids will learn to read. It is pretty simple. The more you do things, the better you are at them.
Because of this, education should be more about searching for a child’s particular gift or propensity. Economy needs to be about matching the best skills with the best abilities. Politics should be about making this happen. This is the complex part.
This message was rejected on my first try due to an error in my link.
I found the many different perspectives about the teaching of literacy interesting. I would love to give a kiss and a hug to those looking through the same lens as I.
I truly enjoyed my later years in the classroom. I began my teaching career using a mandated reading program anchored in phonics. Something was missing. From that day on I kept researching for a better more complete way. Every school and every district I taught in I found phenomenal teachers who shared their wealth of knowledge. My courses in reading were very informative but they didn’t have all the answers because my teaching experience ran the gamut from rural to city, inner city, to the suburb. No one program met the needs of all those children.
So that neophytes like myself don’t have to flounder around, I developed a web site to share the insights I received from fellow teachers, research, and my own experience. I started it over 20 years ago.
http://maryidefalco.com/reading%20site%20reconnected/Reading_Primary_Teachers.html
How relieved I was yesterday to see well-written messages in response to my article on the teaching of Phonics. I had feared that responders would write words the same way they read them. And I also pitied them because of the long, painful processes they have gone through to learn both reading and writing because they are different.
I also regret that phonics learners are not informed of the fact that today’s spelling no longer matches speech. Neither spoken nor written English is what it was once. Fortunately, however, neither our natural human ability to recognize and respond to what we see written has not diminished. For instance even the youngest children know how to choose the food they like from the one they don’t, recognize their parents among a group of people, sit down on a chair rather than a rock recognize his home when he get near it, and pick up his favorite toys from among many items on the floor.
Although learning to read may take more time for those children who are not familiar with the pleasure of books or have not been read to regularly, they can also learn reading by recognizing the appearance of written words that were earlier heard, understood and liked. And that is the normal way children today learn to read
You are a hack.
QuellePro: “The enmity to phonics seems to be deep-rooted among teachers, and the whole cadre of elementary teachers must be replaced for early reading to be taught properly. Every report and article says the same: phonics are barely mentioned by teachers, and instead teachers use the same old trope of handing out worksheets with new/hard/frequent words.”
I teach in a K-4 school and have been to dozens of workshops/trainings including at Teacher’s College at Columbia with hundreds of elementary teachers. I have visited many elementary classrooms in other districts. I am not familiar with any of the generalized descriptions of elementary teachers or classrooms you reference. Can you be more specific?
My colleagues, and those I have met over the years, teach phonics, phonemic awareness, spelling and high frequency words. We read individually with children, aloud to a whole group and in small guided reading groups. Much of our word work/word study happens in small reading groups while other children are engaged in hands-on learning centers so that children can work right at the level they need. It takes a lot of coordination, skill and management to pull this off and keep children engaged. Children in my district score above the 90th percentile in reading – – * I give credit to the families they come from…… the children in schools that do not perform have different demographics, not less dedicated and trained teachers.
There are about 2 million elementary teachers in the U.S. Please be more thoughtful than to say they all/we all need to be replaced because of some vague reference to a “report.”
Beachteach,
That commenter has no data base or knowledge base or personal experience. Just opinions.
QuellePro, you are a Troll. I don’t understand why you haven’t been blocked from this site.
Lloyd, the trolls serve a function. They spark discussion.
These are one-sided debates that the anonymous trolls attempts to control through insults, lies, and manipulation. They are called flame wars and in flame wars, only the anonymous side thinks he/she wins. They never admit defeat; always claim victory.
“a flame war is a series of flame posts or messages in a thread that are considered derogatory in nature or are completely off-topic. Often these flames are posted for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting other users”
Of course, that doesn’t take into account the readers that do not take part in the one-sided offending debate. They read the trolls offensive comments designed to set off a flame war and then they read the, hopefully, reasoned responses the trolls always pretend mean nothing.
It is up to the readers to make sense of it all and learn from the rational voice struggling not to be sucked into an offensive trap set by the troll. The trolls are mentally ill people and that shows us that Donald Trump is not alone in his malignant narcissism and one-sided meanness.
Unlike Italian or Spanish or Japanese when rendered in hiragana or katakana or romanji (to give a few examples), English has never had a highly phonetic spelling system.
It came closest, ofc, in the Anglo-Saxon era, but in that considerably long time–over six hundred years–there were several dialects with differing systems, the systems evolved, and individual orthography was quite varied.
All that said, I support teaching phonics AS A COMPONENT of broad reading programs that stress joyful interaction with lots and lots written and spoken language. Why the support for phonics? Language developed over tens of thousands of years, and there are dedicated, evolved, inborn, automatic mechanisms for learning spoken languages. This is why kids almost universally acquire a spoken language and why almost all their competence in a spoken language is not conscious knowledge. But it’s a mistake to half hear what the linguists have been saying and to over-apply it. Written language is a relative recent human invention–about 5,500 years old–and there simply wasn’t the time or selection pressure for people to develop, via evolutionary means, inborn mechanisms specifically dedicated to grapheme-phonemecorrespondences (GPCs). Instead, general pattern recognition skills are co-opted for this purpose. Even though written English is not as phonetic as Italian or Spanish or Japanese are, there are enough regularities to make study of phonics quite useful for most kids. Useful but not sufficient because reading builds on a lot more than decoding of GPCs–automatic, fluent, unconscious competence in the morphology, syntax, semantics, phonology, and vocabulary of a significant chunk of the spoken language, for instance, and, importantly, desire to have more of the wonderful experiences that written language has afforded.
The learning of Japanese kanji provides a useful hint about learning to read entirely based upon whole-word recognition. The average Japanese reader knows only about 2,000 kanji, far fewer than the number of spoken words that he or she knows and far fewer than the total number in the language. (One dictionary contains 85,000 kanji, though the usual number given is around 50,000!) This is a serious problem. So, learning individual words, one by one, is not ideal. That said, the analogy between learning kanji and whole-word recognition isn’t clean. Why? Well, a key is provided by the passages shared by Ms. DeFalco, above:
it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers
in a wrod are
Based on context and opening and closing letters and general knowledge of the spoken language, readers can recognize words. So, there are clues in written English not found in kanji, though kanji are synthetic (built up of other kanji), and those provide clues as well.
cx: romaji
For a scientific examination of why experts who study how the brain works say phonics is an essential first step in teaching most young people to read, see:
Click to access Why-a-Structured-Phonics-Program-is-Effective.pdf
Please – let us not deny science. If that is done, kids get hurt.
You referred to a biased source to support your own bias. Prove that the source of the alleged science is real and not fake. Achieve the Core supports the Common Core CRAP!
Eric,
This is taken directly from the study you provided: “Of all students represented in the graph, fully 40% are disfluent readers. We suggest two conclusions from this analysis of data: 1) the phonics instruction taking place in the classroom is most likely not providing the necessary knowledge that students need to become successful readers; 2) this translates into poor reading fluency, which numerous studies have shown is linked to reading comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Pinnell et al., 1995; Schatschneider et al., 2004) and academic achievement (Paige, 2011).”
Before I debate the above, please know that I teach phonics, phonemic awareness and spelling to my young students, as do all my colleagues. The overall philosophy in my district is an approach that encourages a love of reading and volume reading (matching children to engaging good fit books and getting them to read (and be read to) a LOT.
Now back to the study you pasted.
It states, 40% of the students are “disfluent” readers. The next statement is “phonics instruction taking place in the classroom is most likely not providing necessary knowledge . . . .” The study then jumps to the conclusion that the phonics instruction is causing the disfluency. That is a leap of logic. There is nothing to prove it – the writer simply states that it is “most likely” the phonics instruction.
For most students fluency improves by reading and being read to. Matching children with good fit books, practicing with them, listening to the read and giving them opportunities to read text over and over increases fluency – as does modeling fluent reading – a lot. Fluency can be improved through repeated “guided oral reading.”
It could be that the children from this study have not been matched with the right books, been read to and had ample opportunity to read aloud and to themselves repeatedly. Or they need more guided oral reading opportunities at home and school.
Some children speak disfluently. Talking with peers and adults, opportunities to practice language skills impacts speaking and reading as well.
Below is a study, linking screen time to delayed language development. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/screen-time-kids-findings-parents/story?id=66751520
There could be many reasons why these students are disfluent. The study you pasted does not prove to me it is their phonics instruction.
I do not agree with much of what Achieve the Core is done, but this paper includes extensive references to peer-reviewed cognitive science. The references speak for themselves. They are scientific journals, not educational philosophy “research” journals. Science is what the scientists in a sub-discipline agree it is. The brain works the way scientists who study the brain say it works. Science denial hurts children.
And you expect someone, like me, that doesn’t care about phonics to waste his time checking all of the alleged journals you reference?
I do not care about phonics one way or the other. I never used phonics as a teacher and as a kid, I didn’t learn to read through phonics.
Dude, what a waste of time.
Lloyd, you a suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance. You said above:
“Every English teacher I talked to was against the Whole Language crap. The people behind this travesty of failure were the same people behind crap like NCLB, Common Core, and high stakes testing, et al.”
“None of these travesties of failures was popular with any of the teachers I worked with and knew.”
“Stupid, ignorant and misguided crap like Whole Language and all the rest of the deformer failures always comes from the TOP.”
And now you are saying:
“And you expect someone, like me, that doesn’t care about phonics to waste his time checking all of the alleged journals you reference?”
“I do not care about phonics one way or the other. I never used phonics as a teacher and as a kid, I didn’t learn to read through phonics.”
“Dude, what a waste of time.”
Can you choose the one you hate more? Or are you non-binary?
And you are calling me a troll? Physician, heal thyself.
LOL, I cackle. Got you, “Q”.
I am not totally discounting the study you pasted. It includes research from Gay Su Pinnell, who I respect a great deal. The writer states that what works children in more literacy rich home, is not the same for disadvantaged children. Fair enough – I work in a district with students from literacy rich homes. Thinking beyond the magic bullet of phonics – and in addition to some of the suggestions the authors have, other interventions and services may be needed. Phonics is not going to solve everything. Experiences matter too. Other big picture changes may be needed to mitigate some of the discrepancies in scores.
All good reading teachers know that there are factors other than simply decoding of GPCs involved in learning to read. Among these, and the most important one, I think, that is rarely discussed, is that written language is an encoding of spoken language. Kids who come to school with great spoken language skills will be WAY ahead of their peers, and kids who come to school still barely articulate will struggle. If written language is A and it stands for its spoken equivalent, B, and you already know B, then acquiring A will be a LOT easier, and if you don’t already know B, then it will be next to impossible. So, remediation in the form of rich spoken language environments that include conversation and domain vocabulary and a wide variety of standard syntactic and morphological forms is really important. But this is almost never approached systematically. (Grad students–there are some doctoral dissertations in that.) And then there is the whole issue of motivation and emotional readiness. Many of our kids come from extremely impoverished and traumatizing backgrounds. They weren’t read to. They weren’t taken to plays. They didn’t do skits and puppet theater for Mom and Dad and the grandparents. They didn’t have a big bookcase at home full of Goodnight, Moon and Thomas the Tank Engine. They almost never had anything that you could call a conversation with an adult. They are angry or hurt or abused or neglected. They are cold or hungry or haven’t proper eyeglasses. They’ve had a caretaker at home who is constantly on one precipice or another. Anyone who thinks that the simple, 100 percent solution, there, is to throw out everything, for the first eight months, except drill on GPCs is clueless. Yes, phonics will help. But there is a LOT more to be done to equate books and learning with safety and joy of a kind that some have never known.
“Among these, and the most important one, I think, that is rarely discussed, is that written language is an encoding of spoken language.” – It is not rarely discussed. It is the basics of phonetic method, sounding out letters and words.
“If written language is A and it stands for its spoken equivalent, B, and you already know B, then acquiring A will be a LOT easier, and if you don’t already know B, then it will be next to impossible.” – I suggest you re-read Flesch’s 1955 book, in which he pointed out that if one is able to read phonetically, one can read on a completely foreign language without understanding it. I believe he used Czech as an example, but many languages are almost fully phonetic, like Russian, Finnish, etc. So you are wrong.
I cannot help wondering about all the “practicing teachers” who are so full of themselves because they have twenty, thirty, forty years of practice of “working with kids”. This by itself means nothing. The video I posted above shows a teacher who for forty years was damaging the brains and souls of young children, and only when she was ready to retire she realized that she was wrong. Of course, now she has a successful private tutoring business, using Orton Gillingham to teach reading to kids who have not been taught reading at school.
My point, Quelle, dear, was not about whether one could interpret the sounds of the words–that’s obvious enough–but whether one could READ. As in, “with comprehension.” Seriously, it’s beginning to be an utter waste of time responding to these wilful misreadings on your part.
And Quelle, if you bothered to read my comments, above, you would see that I support instruction in Phonics as one component of a reading program. But I don’t think it some sort of universal magic elixir. Again, I refer you to my more extended discussion of all this, here: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/on-the-pseudoscience-of-strategies-based-reading-comprehension-instruction-or-what-current-comprehension-instruction-has-in-common-with-astrology/
You misunderstand Bob’s reply. But it’s too much effort to explain. I saw the video you posted and am very familiar with Orton Gillingham and have some training in it and Wilson (which is based o Orton Gillingham). In our district it’s used with about 5-10% of students. It can be successful with dyslexic students. Some similar programs are only recommended as an intervention after the age of 8 because the complexity of this approach. A knowledgeable school system can determine and assess which students need which interventions. It’s not necessary to subject all students to every teaching tool. I am trying to be careful with my reply to you . . . but I am laughing at myself for spending so much time replying.
I hope you are sincere in wanting to learn more. Please have an open mind to the posts.
Bob, comprehension has nothing to do with reading. Whether you silently read it, or sounded it out, or if someone told you “hauska tutustua”, you would not know the meaning.
“Q” said, “comprehension has nothing to do with reading”
“The purpose of reading is comprehension — getting meaning from written text. … A major goal of reading comprehension instruction, therefore, is to help students develop the knowledge, skills, and experiences they must have if they are to become competent and enthusiastic readers”
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/what-research-tells-us-about-reading-comprehension-and-comprehension-instruction
“Q” was an impish trollish character on “Star Trek the Next Generation”. “Q” got his rocks off messing with other people’s minds just like this “Q” does.
Nice to meet you, too, Q, he said with comprehension.
Thank you for this:…” written language is an encoding of spoken language. Kids who come to school with great spoken language skills will be WAY ahead of their peers, and kids who come to school still barely articulate will struggle. If written language is A and it stands for its spoken equivalent, B, and you already know B, then acquiring A will be a LOT easier, and if you don’t already know B, then it will be next to impossible.”
The vernacular speech and understandings that students bring to school make a huge difference. Some of my 8th graders were failing English but were relentless readers of soft porn paperbacks before and after school..
Yes, and ELA (once upon a time) included reading, and writing, and speaking, and listening not as separate “skill sets.”
Bob – you should run for senate in Florida. Seriously.
beachteach, you are very kind. But I am counting on a lot of younger folks like AOC to fix the mess that my generation created. Power to them.
Well…. Angus King of Maine is an excellent Senator. I think experience, wisdom and someone who is thoughtful, insightful and articulate can bring stability. My choice for Pres….well I don’t want to start on politics in this blog post…. but let’s say they have a good 30 years on AOC.
King is, as I understand it, a great advocate for increased cybersecurity. Essential, that.
I want to submit a name to the list of “young folks” like AOC.
Let’s not forget 16-year old Swedish Greta Thunberg. Have you heard any of her speeches? She is awesome.
Amen to that! When I grow up, I want to be just like Greta!
I hope we all grow up before we hit 100.
You aim high, Lloyd! I like that!
Well, I just read last week that 90 was the new 60. Now, if I could just convince my aching joints and back to believe that, too.
I have this conversation with my back, but it is intractable.
I suspect my back might be working for the Taliban to sabotage the rest of me.
I am a retired reading specialist/literacy coach and I wish that teachers could teach the way we were able to teach in the 90s. Joanne was one of the only educators that was on the committee during that time. She wrote up a minority report telling about how ridiculous the findings were for no Child left behind. She was ridiculed By the other members of the committee who knew nothing about education. I was so proud to know that she was from Oregon and that she was standing up for the teachers during that time.
If you are a teacher in today’s Elementary primary grades, even though the curriculum doesn’t say to do so, take time to sing a song or two each day and then put it on the chart paper and let them play around with those words. You will be pleasantly surprised at how enjoyable it is to teach that way and how much fun it is for the kids!
Okay, Phonikers, you go your way and I’ll go mine. But I’m still willing to bet that the kids I taught to read learned faster and enjoyed reading far more than yours do.
Sorry. Please ignore the word “hoot.”‘
I love reading. I learned to love reading from my family. I have always focused on sharing my love of reading with my students.
Louisa Moats on science of reading and state of teaching of reading and on Common Core. She supports the recommendations of 1998 National Reading Panel and the Reading First portion of NCLB. She was dismayed by Common Core goalposts, which effectively allowed teachers to not teach reading. She says that Common Core is a regress, but that David Liben has apologized for mistakes, and bugs are being fixed as of 2018. She mentions NCTQ report of poor quality of elementary teacher preparation, and that “many colleges of education are wedded to non-scientific and anti-scientific perspectives”. Oh, and she said that the article by Emily Hanford is smart, and that Ms. Hanford herself knows more about reading that many reading professionals.
“Meanwhile, what is going on in our classrooms? In almost every classroom you walk into, they are doing guided reading or balanced literacy, you see a word wall organized alphabetically, but the problem with some words starting with letter t that t represents [θ] or [ð] but not [t]. What children need to know to read these words is the phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Why thousands of teachers buy into this absurdity without thinking? This practice is so widespread… ‘Don’t know the word? Well, keep reading and see what makes sense. Look at the picture, and what do you think it might be’. What? And then as the last resort, and the very end, in parentheses – sound it out, if you really have to.”
Oops. Should read: problem with some words starting with t is that “th” represents [θ] or [ð] but not [t].
Are you looking for an idea on how to teach the “th” sound? We play games with our word wall all the time….my students know “th” with automaticity and aren’t confused when they see ” that” vs. “to” on the word wall. If your students have trouble, you can try using the H Brothers to help you teach these diagraphs. There are pictures to go along with the brothers. Th is Theo and you can stick your tongue out when you say the “th” part. Sh is Sheldon and he likes to shush people – shhhhhh.
In response to QuellePro’s statement, “Meanwhile, what is going on in our classrooms? In almost every classroom you walk into, they are doing guided reading or balanced literacy, you see a word wall organized alphabetically, but the problem with some words starting with letter t that t represents [θ] or [ð] but not [t]. What children need to know to read these words is the phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Why thousands of teachers buy into this absurdity without thinking? This practice is so widespread… ‘Don’t know the word? Well, keep reading and see what makes sense. Look at the picture, and what do you think it might be’. What? And then as the last resort, and the very end, in parentheses – sound it out, if you really have to.”
Guided Reading is essential in teaching strategies and supporting independence. Word Walls are a place to post ”juicy” words which the children already encountered in their guided reading. Word Walls have many purposes such as using as a reference in responding in writing for those who know the word in print but as yet can’t spell it independently. It is used in word games to reinforce the meaning of new words learned in guided reading… Diagraphs and blends appearing at the beginning of words cause no problem. Either the blend or diagraph has become familiar via a phonic session or it has become a sight word after having encountered it in their story of the day.
NCTQ is a rightwing organization dedicated to eliminating teacher education and establishing the Common Core. It was created by the rightwing Thomas B. Fordham Institute and sustained by a $5 million grant by George W. Bush administration (Rod Paige).
Wernher von Braun was a member of Nazi Party and the SS, yet the U.S. used his knowledge to launch the first American astronaut and then the Lunar mission. A very popular Pernkopf Topographic Anatomy of Man has been prepared by Nazi doctors, partly from results of Nazi “experiments” and executions.
You don’t need to agree with the agenda, message and goals of an organization to use its research. Stuff like reading education should not be politicized.
Do you have specific information that some or all of data in the NCTQ report is wrong or intentionally misleading?
I believe you mentioned Louisa Moats several times on your blog with praise, recognizing her work in the field of language research and reading education.
Hey “Q” DUDE, this post is about phonics not Operation Paperclip.
“Operation Paperclip was a secret program of the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) largely carried out by special agents of Army CIC, in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians, such as Wernher von Braun and his V-2 rocket team, were taken from Germany to America for U.S. government employment, primarily between 1945 and 1959. Many were former members, and some were former leaders, of the Nazi Party.
“The primary purpose for Operation Paperclip was U.S. military advantage in the Soviet–American Cold War, and the Space Race. The Soviet Union was more aggressive in forcibly recruiting more than 2,200 German specialists—a total of more than 6,000 people including family members—with Operation Osoaviakhim during one night on October 22, 1946.”
I think “Q” DUDE is going all troll on this comment thread in an attempt to disrupt a logical discussion by changing the subject.
“Q” Dude, Operation paperclip has nothing to do with phonics. Why is “Q” DUDE still here?
Dr. Ravitch defined NCTQ “is a rightwing organization dedicated to eliminating teacher education and establishing the Common Core.’
It boggles my mind that such asinine idea/movement exists. That idiotic movement can never survive because we have intelligent, independent thinkers who realize that movement is trying to deprive students of their power of reasoning. They want crowd control that will following the leader into an ocean and drown if that is his will.
I know at least a dozen university professors who advocate phonics instruction alongside of memorizing words. Look at the literacy departments under the college of education at Virginia Tech and Radford University. I’m also a teacher and have found that students become excited about reading when we use a balanced approach. I enjoyed reading your passion for teaching reading. Thank you.
To add to the discussion about teacher education programs – at least at the elementary level, there is so much to cover it’s impossible to cover it all. Internships and on the job training are key. If a district is organized and funded well, new teacher training, meaningful professional development is ongoing and selected with staff input.
I have seen changes in the last 10 years in our district. Most of the PD money has gone support the data driven work we are doing. We need of people to look at the data, analyze the data….talk about the data. ;-)!! There are less opportunities and time for workshops and professional development…..and to talk about lessons as a team. And I work in a district is high performing. I can’t imagine what it must be like in a “failing” school. I hope the tide changes soon.
It would take more words than I have energy to write, but “data-driven” is invariably a really bad idea. The data used by educators is almost always the result of the use (misuse) of testing and attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. The data collected by the public district where my daughter teachers is useless – no – damaging, as it characterizes complicated children by dumb “metrics.” The data where my granddaughter goes to school is a nearly obscene collection of rubbish.
Most studies or tests that produce data are measuring the wrong things in the wrong way to the detriment of real learning and the well being of children.
I am with you on “more words than I have energy to write”….. and if you or I took the time to write those words…. the people who have the power to make a change would just hear the sound the adults in Charlie Brown movies make, “waa wah waa.”
Some of us have tried to have meaningful discussions about starting a school year with very young children with a testing schedule that is beyond words (computerized standardized tests, reading tests, word tests, writing assessments). We have about month with one teacher in the room with 6 year olds…… a teacher who is trying to spark excitement and joy and a feeling of safety, community and routine in that first month…..must start independent work way too early in order to pull children aside one-on-one to gather this “data.” Those in charge (who either have never taught young children – or it’s been so long and they were in a classroom before data driven) are good intentioned. They always think it is just a matter of efficiency and scheduling. I will leave it at that.
I am grateful that we do still have some autonomy, so I will work with that and hope the pendulum swings back to more normalcy soon.
I am so grateful for your teaching. I spent a career in education and know what it takes to be a thoughtful, caring teacher in this insane era.
Beachteach, Steve, blessings on you for persisting amid the insanity. Ironic, isn’t it, that the data mongers are the ones who so abuse and misuse data? In my school, I put up my Data Wall at the beginning of the year, with a lot of 6 point type and statistical mumbo-jumbo on it, and simply shuffled the pages around throughout the year. Very official looking. Shepherd–Data Wall? Check.
What a discussion. It is a war and the losers will be thousands of kids who hate reading. The Third grade reading laws are just one example.
This is only the beginning. We haven’t even broached the subject, here, of the explicit teaching (or not) of traditional grammar. LOL. https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/on-the-pseudoscience-of-strategies-based-reading-comprehension-instruction-or-what-current-comprehension-instruction-has-in-common-with-astrology/
Bob
What about WRITING? I assume there are strong links between speaking, reading, and writing, but it seems to be a much bigger leap from speaking to writing than speaking to reading?
Oh my, this is a very big topic! I’m not expert in beginning writing. I’ll leave that to folks more knowledgeable than I am. But here are a few writing activities that I think are of enormous value, off the top of my head. I know I’m going to wish, later, that I had added a lot more stuff:
1. Have kids do sentence-combining, extension, and rearrangement activities to increase their syntactic fluency and to school them on sentence variety.
2. Have them do lots of freewriting—in which they simply put thoughts down on paper as quickly as possible, without concern for grammar, usage, mechanics, format, etc. Then, have them mine their freewritings for material for more carefully constructed pieces.
3. Teach them lots and lots of graphic organizers to be used for generating content. Examples: lists, word webs, comparison-contrast charts, story maps, plot diagrams, flow charts, fishbone diagrams, SIPOC charts, sentence diagrams, tree diagrams, Venn diagrams, analysis charts, etc. So, for developing a character, have them make a chart with general characteristics in one column (appearance, dress, age, personality (CANOE or OCEAN model—level of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion),possessions, vocation, habits of speech, language(s) and dialect, other habits, what he/she’s good at, what he/she’s not good at, relatives, friends and acquaintances, enemies, preoccupations/obsessions, morals (Moral Foundations model—degree of concern for Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation), hobbies, issues/problems, ways in which character needs to grow, race/ethnicity, social status, wishes/desires/dreams, needs, politics, religion, background, living quarters/circumstances) and rough descriptions in another.
4. Have kids write lots and lots of narratives. One thing after another. Explain that The Key element in a story is that a character has a problem, an issue, a struggle of some kind, that he or she has to confront. So, they need a character, and they need an issue. Best place to start. The story is the working out of that conflict. As a result of this, the character grows in some way or learns a lesson. Narrative is REALLY important (see this: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/what-makes-humans-human/)
5. Have students do a lot of sentence-level writing activities, such as rearranging parts of complex sentences—saying the same thing in different ways (move this part to the beginning, that part to the end). A really important exercise of this kind: have students practice writing pairs of sentences that are related in particular ways, so that the second sentence is an additional thought along the same lines (an AND idea), a disjunction or alternative (an OR idea), a negation or contradiction of the previous idea (a NOT idea), a generalization from the preceding sentence, an inference from the preceding sentence, a later event in the sequence, an earlier event in the sequence, a simultaneous event, a description of the thing introduced in the preceding sentence, a non-sequitur, a definition of a key term in the preceding sentence, a contrasting idea, an analogy, a list of types of the thing introduced in the preceding sentence, and so on. The point here is to get them thinking about part-by-part arrangement of ideas—about the many ways in which ideas can be connected. Give them examples of transitions for connecting ideas in these various ways and have them model connecting ideas using pronoun reference).
6. Use lots and lots and lots of precise, short models for kids to imitate using characteristics in those models (press release, fable, couplet, thank you note, directions, recipe, news lede, scene from a film script, scene from a play). The concrete specification of the characteristics of the model is really important because it provides procedural knowledge, news the kid can use to write the piece (well, this is a fable, so it has to be a story, it has a couple characters, those characters are animals, there’s a problem between them, something happens from which a lesson can be drawn (a moral).
7. Have kids memorize and pound out the rhythms of highly metrical, rhymed, short verses while chanting them.
8. Have kids learn lots of tongue twisters.
9. Have them practice changing out words for alternatives. Use synonym lists for this. Stress the importance of register (intimate to highly formal) and connotation.
10. Have them practice writing lots of different kinds of definitions—ostensive (pointing to examples), definition by antonym, definition by synonym, genus and differentia definition.
11. Have them practice writing about the same subject for someone who already knows a lot about it and for someone who doesn’t and for someone very young and someone much older.
12. Have them write pieces that in which the language used is not appropriate for the occasion (e.g., a wedding toast delivered like a lecture, a job interview in which the interviewee talks as though to a buddy or girlfriend/boyfriend).
13. Teach kids how to use in-text documentation of sources.
14. Teach kids the standard symbols and techniques for proofreading and editing manuscripts!!!! These techniques differ!!!! Very important. Some teachers don’t even know these!
15. Stress that good writing is REWRITING.
16. Have kids double space everything they write so that there is room for revision and comments.
17. Stress that the most important thing a person has to do in order to become a good writer is to be a frequent, voracious reader. Most of what people learn about writing, as about anything else, they soak up, through unconscious induction.
18. Teach them the standard models for organizing a paragraph and a five-paragraph theme, which are phony and cooked and almost never followed by actual writers in the real world, and tell them that. Why? Because they will be expected to write in those ways for stupid standardized tests.
19. Teach them the standard formats for film scripts and play scripts so that they can write in these. Here’s an example of proper format for a film script: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/film/the-loneliness-of-the-teflon-trumpkin-excerpt/
20. Have kids write new, parody lyrics to nursery rhymes and popular songs. Here’s the catch: these have to be singable.
21. Give them models to imitate of short pieces of language using figures of speech and rhetorical techniques.
22. Give them lists of topics for writing that you have developed so they won’t be stuck for something to write about.
23. Students must write far, far more than you can ever grade, even using a rubric!!!!! Very important!!!! Kid need to write a LOT. Give credit for simply having done it. Pile the stuff up in portfolios. Go through these from time to time with the student to choose a piece or two for you to respond to in detail.
24. I’m with Oscar Wilde: collaborative writing is like three people having a baby. It doesn’t work. LOL. (Technology has recently outdated this, but. . . .) However, having kids share and respond to others’ writing is quite valuable.
See also: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/prototypes-versus-aristotelian-categories-in-the-teaching-of-writing/
Oh, and another one that is REALLY important. Have kids learn a lot about something and THEN write about it. Lots of dumb books on writing the research paper start out with having kids write a thesis statement that then becomes what they will research. WRONG!!!! You have to know a lot about the topic FIRST before you can decide on something to say about it.
Thanks for the detailed response. As a MS science teacher, I see many students who really struggle to write clear and concise technical sentences. Kids come to class with nothing but pronouns in their heads.
RageAgainstTheTestocracy asked Bob Shepherd about writing and Bob related numerous suggestions for the older student.
For the emergent literacy writers there are guides to follow: model, then shared writing, next interactive writing, guided, and finally the independent writing.
In modeling writing the teacher does all the work: models the thinking process as s/he writes and models the thinking process. The teacher writes on a chart, large sheet of paper, chalkboard, or overhead transparency. The teacher develops the concepts of print through direct instruction focusing on space between words, left-to-right and top-to-bottom directionality, capital letters, punctuation etc.
Shared Writing-the teacher becomes the scribe showing how writing works. The teacher ask questions such as: What are we going to say? (Hear phonics comes into play.) The teacher asks the children to listen to sounds as they connect letters.
Interactive Writing – the children write some of the words which they might find on the Word Wall. The teacher asks such questions as where should they begin; the direction; what letter a word begins with…The teacher fills in the silent letters.
Guided Writing- the teacher guides them in constructing the text by asking questions. If a student spells a word incorrectly, the teacher compliments the child on what s/he did get right.
The teacher then moves them into process writing called writing workshop. The class begins with brainstorming of which Bob gave a detailed list. When a topic is agreed upon the teacher jots down quickly everything that comes to their mind – Bob suggested that for independent writers. For the emergent writer the teacher jots down on the board their ideas, clusters them, and the students choses the topic s/he wants to write about.
The students make a draft. A student’s paragraph is chosen and with student’s permission it is read aloud and discussed. Then follows the revision, rewrite, the proofreading and the editing.
There are different models for different genres: expository, narrative, developing characters, journal writing, summaries, book reports, biographies, descriptive, persuasive, plays, responses to literature…
Again, I have a page on my web site entitled: “Guided Writing/Writing Workshops/ Response to Literature…” Suggestions are given for each genre.
http://maryidefalco.com/reading%20site%20reconnected/Reading_Primary_Teachers.html
Thank you. At all levels, gradual release instruction is valuable. Here’s one reason why that isn’t discussed as much as it should be: in the modeled and guided portions, the teacher serves as a model to the students of who a writer (reader, thinker, etc) is.
I said, stress that good writing is REWRITING. The kids need to practice doing this for various purposes. Improving the organization. Eliminating redundancy/wordiness. Eliminating unrelated ideas. Improving the diction (word choice) to make it a) more concrete, b) more precise, c) appropriate to the audience and occasion. Correcting common errors in grammar, usage, mechanics, spelling, formatting, and documentation. Eliminating cliches. Clarifying that which is unclear. Adding examples or illustrations Defining key terms. Varying the sentence length and structure. Incorporating figurative language. Correcting errors in reasoning. Etc.
simple dictation or re-telling (in handwriting) of a story
valuable
Thanks, QP. So valuable to have you and Lord Coleman to explain this stuff to those of us who have only spent our lifetimes teaching and studying this stuff! Gosh. So illuminating.
Funny thing, I thought there was a lot more to learning to write than simply transcribing letters. Such revelation!!! Perhaps you should go into the oracle business. This was very profitable for the priests at Delphi.
I missed “Q” latest cow flop.
#Q# actually wrote about having kids transcribe letters (copy them) or writing down what the teacher reads to them from a story! That is copying what they see or hear.
Really?
Who thinks up this … kind of stuff that is such a total waste of classroom time?
There are some of these 19th-century (and earlier) techniques that are actually quite valuable. Memorization, for example, especially of passages containing syntactic or morphological forms that have not already become part of the student’s internalized grammatical competence.
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/on-the-pseudoscience-of-strategies-based-reading-comprehension-instruction-or-what-current-comprehension-instruction-has-in-common-with-astrology/
You are an obnoxious, arrogant boob.
Please stop commenting on my blog.
All future comments by you will be deleted.
And yes, the third-grade retention (pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, via model legislation shared with state representatives) is a horror. Kids come to school with vastly different backgrounds, linguistically, and vastly different in their cognitive makeup, and all these laws do is label kids, typically for good because of the Pygmalion Effect (aka the Rosenthal Effect). It’s important to have systems that recognize that kids differ and need differing paths and timelines. This is something that the puerile, backward new “standards,” which are treated as a de facto outline for instruction in English, don’t do.
Really? You are going to use that language? Not OK in Diane’s living room. She is very clear about that. We don’t denigrate people with cognitive difficulties here, with the exception of Education Deformers, oligarchs, and their toadies. Again, you have no clue what my stances are with regard to teaching phonics or approaching reading generally. Read the essay. I assume that you can do more than just sound out graphemes. https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/on-the-pseudoscience-of-strategies-based-reading-comprehension-instruction-or-what-current-comprehension-instruction-has-in-common-with-astrology/
What the standards movement of the last 30 years has shown us is what we already knew and too many refuse to see. The best way to insure success in school is to have students ready for school. This phonics on steroids bias has not improved educational outcomes. NAEP results over the last 30 years have declined in 4th grade reading and PISA results have remained flat for the last 20 years. Anyone in education who was honest when North Carolina and Texas started us down the road knew that the testing insanity would merely prove that struggling schools were struggling. We were wrong. This obsession with reading, which is merely a tool not learning itself, has provided an excuse for states and localities to defund or close schools where students struggle to read. If we really wanted to improve reading, we would focus on providing resources for early childhood that focuses on social-emotional development that enhances student and family readiness for school. This is why families of means, for the most part, produce children who succeed in school. They read because there is an incentive to learn. We in public education act as if children learn as an incentive to read.
The best way to insure success in school is to have students ready for school.
Millions of American kids are food insecure. This is a matter of the basic hierarchy of needs. If the money spent on standardized testing were spent on wrap-around services and free breakfast and lunch for kids, we would be far, far better off.
The clueless IQ45 clown car posse misadministration just promulgated new regs that will cut a million kids from the free lunch rolls.
Food and health are the basic necessities of life. Imagine how much good Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and the Waltons would have done if they had opened family health clinics in every poor community in the nation, instead of pouring hundreds of millions into charter schools and vouchers?
Imagine!
Bob Shepherd says: ” And yes, the third-grade retention (pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, via model legislation shared with state representatives) is a horror. ”
Retention: most harmful tool in the arsenal of educators says Lorrie Shepard.
There is an alternative to retaining and social promotion: Give the At Risk student double instruction in reading from day one with a reading specialist working in tandem with the classroom teacher. The reading specialist should use a reading program anchored in Mary Clay’s philosophy and methodology- Constructivist approach. Don’t waste time drilling and memorizing phonetic elements in isolation. Stop all this harmful Standardized testing.
If we stopped all this standardized testing we would have the money to provide for the needed reading specialists and smaller class size. We would, furthermore, have more time to devote to the teaching of language arts – reading, speaking, listening, and writing- all which support literacy. Let the teachers’ assessment be sufficient. Teachers’ assessments are far superior than any standardized test. How is it possible to have an unbiased standardized test anyway?! Above all prevent learning problems before they get started by increase parent involvement.
Retention destroys a child’s self-image and once that is destroyed it is almost impossible to regain it.
There is no research to support retention but plenty speaking out against retention. There is a correlation between students retained and people behind bars. I would like to know how many of these mass killers were retained. I struck up a conversation with a man in his 80s. Every other statement he would say, “I wouldn’t know; I’m stupid.” !!!!!! I asked why he kept saying he was stupid. He replied that he was retained in second grade.
When medical researchers publish, we listen; we had better or most of us would be dead by now. But when brilliant educators publish their research it is ignored.
Some psychologists compare the destructiveness of retention to that of a death of a parent.
In ’99 Harvard Graduate School of Education, Karen Kelly published an extensive report on the harmfulness of retention. “..research has shown that the practice does more harm than good. Retention harmed students achievement, attendance record, personal adjustment in school, and attitude toward school…. Retaining doesn’t solve the problem……retainees are more likely to drop out of school…..”
In another study by Reynolds, Temple, and McCory with students in the Chicago area, poor performers who had been promoted, moved 6 months ahead of their peers who had been retained. They found student who were retained twice had a probability of dropping out of nearly 100 percent.
There doesn’t have to be an either or. Extra support is needed for at risk students- not another year of instruction that didn’t work. Some failures are caused by indifferent parents, poor instruction, and disruptive learning environments. Retaining students is a punishment and the result of many factors but not that of the student. We can’t blame the students of failing; the adults in their lives are the ultimate culprits.
Virtually all specialists condemn the practice of giving standardized tests to children younger than 8 or 9 years old. We are the most over- tested country in the world. Finland gives one standardized test during their academic career.
Everyone who is responsible for implementing such a horrific punishment on our children should be made to experience the same humiliation they are imposing on these children. They mandate that the children read proficiently by third grade yet won’t give them to tools to do so. The Common Core thrust into the teachers hands a program that doesn’t work; its flawed.
Starting the Behavioral approach in pre-K will not solve the problem. For the primary grades Common Core Standards states, “varied and repeated practice leads to rapid recall and automaticity.” CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.1
“Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.” “Closed Reading”
That standard negates the years of research stating the importance of utilizing prior knowledge. Being able to regurgitate information will be of no use to the students if he/she can’t relate to the information in some way. Furthermore, some people/children have phenomenal memories but others do not. Just like actors on stage need props/cues to help them remember their lines so do children need cues to retrieve information. Relating the subject matter/curriculum to the students and their background is like using mnemonics not only to help them retrieve information but more importantly to help them construct meaning and apply the information. This, however, is not in the CC Standards.
CC limits higher order thinking skills of analyzing and comparing negating the imagination. CC also maintains that children should occasionally read on a level that is too difficult.
Children will regress if under stress – being forced to read on a frustration level.
The powers that be are dooming 8 year olds to life of submission, doubt, and mistrust in themselves – siphoning the life out of them by mandating retention. The powers that be are making false assumptions just like the cosmologist in the Middle Ages saying the earth is flat. Common Core puts the wrong teaching tools into the hands of reading teachers and making the wrong assumptions and consequently, the third graders are being punished for the sins of adults.
“To reduce children to a label is to diminish them as human beings.” Richard Allington
I have a page on my web site addressing retention and standardized testing:
http://maryidefalco.com/reading%20site%20reconnected/30k._CC_Retention_Third_Grade_Mandatory_Reteniton.html
Are you ignoring the harm inflicted by social promotion at the middle level? It creates a path of least resistance that would send a mannequin from 8th grade into high school.
The high-stakes standardized testing in ELA really has to end. It VASTLY DISTORTS AND DEVOLVES ELA curricula and pedagogy, and it utterly wastes enormous resources of time, energy, and money. IT’S FREAKING TIME TO END THIS NONSENSE!!!!! We need the teachers’ unions to organize people and take them to the streets to end this abuse by test now.
If you are not working to end the standardized testing in ELA, then you are complicit in the abuse. You are a Vichy collaborator.
Let me restate that. If you are in a position to influence or direct K-12 education in the US and you are not working to end the standardized testing in ELA, then you are complicit in child abuse. You are a Vichy collaborator.
I take it that you have not read by essay on this stuff, QP. That’s OK. Not likely to pierce the fog anyway.
I work with older kids, btw. So a reference to Dr. Moreau would have been more appropriate. Same general idea.
https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/the-coring-of-the-six-hundred-with-apologies-to-alfred-lord-tennyson/
Become a conscientious objector in the testing war on children. It is nothing short of malpractice. We now have nearly TWO DECADES of data to prove its utter futility. Read the Lottery for clarity on this insane tradition.
Rage, you can also read Daniel Koretz’s latest book “The Testing Charade,” and my new book “SLAYING GOLIATH,” on the utter futility of testing as a tool of “reform,” which it is not.
I heartily second those suggestions!
Rage: “The Lottery” provides some excellent parallels. So does the early 20th century Eugenics movement in the United States. Abuse based on ignorant misapplication of bad data.
Thanks, Bob Shepherd, for your brilliant “On the Pseudosciences…” essay.
A question… you state: “almost all elementary schools now use, successfully, an explicit early phonics curriculum…”
Almost all now use it successfully? What gives you confidence that that’s the case?
p.s. Typo alert… you’re missing “the causes” in your “Sentence One” example drawn from the Declaration of Independence.
I had asked Bob: “Almost all now use it successfully? What gives you confidence that that’s the case?”
A couple of fairly recent research analyses that may be of relevant interest in examining that question:
1) “Teaching systematic phonics effectively to beginning readers requires specialized knowledge and training which many primary grade teachers lack… Findings point to the need for better pre-service teacher preparation coupled with appropriate curricula and PD from districts in order to improve students’ reading achievement.”
from: “Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction: effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers and their students” 28 October 2017
by Linnea C. Ehri and Bert Flugman
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-017-9792-7
==
2) “Despite extensive scientific evidence, accumulated over decades, for the centrality of alphabetic decoding skills as a foundation of learning to read, there remains resistance to using phonics instruction methods in the classroom….”
“This variation in reading instruction may contribute to the wide differences in reading achievement across U.S. states (U.S. Department of Education, 2015)…”
“One approach to determining whether a causal relationship exists between phonics instruction and broader literacy performance was described in a report by the U.K. Centre for Economic Performance (Machin, McNally, & Viarengo, 2016). Specifically, because the phonics policy in England was piloted and then implemented across different school districts at different times, it is possible to assess the impact of this change on children’s performance on national tests of reading comprehension administered at ages 5, 7, and 11 relative to children in ‘untreated’ districts. Using this approach, Machin et al. (2016) documented strong impacts of the policy change on reading comprehension up to the age of 7. There was also a longer-term benefit at age 11, years after the original intervention occurred, for those children who had a high probability of starting school as struggling readers because they were nonnative speakers of English or were economically disadvantaged.”
from “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert” by Anne Castles, Kathleen Rastle, Kate Nation, June 11, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
The British study referenced in the last quoted passage can be found at: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1425.pdf
The greatest expert in reading instruction was Jeanne Chall. She did the definitive research supporting phonics. However she warned that exclusive or prolonged emphasis on phonics might be harmful. And she warned that extremists would cause a counteraction.
Although my own children learned to read without phonics, as did I, I have always supported phonics. But I must admit I am repulsed by hearing it referred to as “the science of reading.” It is good for some but not for all. That means it is one method not the only method.
Ravitch: “It is good for some but not for all.”
Thanks. That seems consistent with the British study, which appeared to show benefits entirely fading out by age 11 for many kids… while persisting for “those children who had a high probability of starting school as struggling readers.”
Jeanne Chall recommended phasing our phonics long before 11. She said it was for the youngest readers only. I’ll have to dig through my files to find the exact quote. She certainly did not approve phonics for older children.
Ravitch: “Jeanne Chall recommended phasing our phonics long before 11.”
Yes, the British study included examining whether there were residual effects on reading, English and math abilities for kids at age 11, years after they had received instruction in “synthetic phonics” between ages 5 and 7 from teachers who had been provided coaching from “literacy consultants” who each worked with 10 schools per year. To quote a couple of paragraphs from its conclusion:
” The economics of education literature has well established that good teachers matter. But a critical, yet much less studied question, is whether ‘good teaching’ can be taught? Our empirical analysis shows that intensive training in the use of a ‘new pedagogy’ or technology produced strong effects for early literacy acquisition amongst young students. We are able to provide convincing evidence of causal effects because of the way in which training was staggered across different Local Authorities (and hence different schools). The initial effects are large and comparable to the early effects of project STAR in reducing class size. Furthermore, the costs were very modest because they only involved employing a literacy consultant to work with a school for a year. If effects only reflected the active involvement of the literacy consultant, one would not expect effects to persist for young students. The fact that effects are observed for younger students in years after the literacy consultant had been at the school (at least up until the control group enter the programme) suggests that the training and not the presence of the trainer explains the treatment effect. Effects are stronger for those exposed to the programme earlier (and for longer). It appears that the training really benefits measures of reading attainment (as well as writing) for young people.
“However, most students learn to read eventually. This is the simplest explanation for why we do not see any overall effect of the intervention by age 11. There may of course be (unmeasured) benefits of learning to read well at an earlier age. However, these are not reflected in tests that we can observe at age 11 (in English and maths). Most interestingly, there are long-term effects at age 11 for those with a high probability of starting their school education as struggling readers. The results for our study suggests that there is a persistent effect for those classified as non-native English speakers and economically disadvantaged (as measured by free school meal status). The effect persists for these children who enter school with significant literacy deficits and is at least 0.10 of a standard deviation on the reading test at age 11. This is impressive given that the phonics approach is only actively taught up to the age of 7. Without a doubt it is high enough to justify the fixed cost of a year’s intensive training support to teachers. Furthermore, it contributes to closing gaps based on disadvantage and (initial) language proficiency by family background.”
I was just reading a review of reading research written by the nation’s leading researchers, including Jeanne Chall, who was far and away the most important of them and the most significant proponent of phonics.
The review is called “Becoming a Nation of Readers.” It was published by the National Academy of Education and the National Institute of Education in 1984. This is the best summary that I have ever read about reading instruction–the value of early phonics, the importance of background knowledge, the importance of the family in promoting literacy and love of reading, and the importance of motivation (loving reading).
On page 43 of the report, it says:
The right maxims for phonics are: Do it early. Keep it simple. Except in cases of diagnosed individual need, phonics instruction should have been completed by the end of the second grade.
That was Dr. Chall’s view. She warned repeatedly in her writings that extremists in the “reading wars” incite counter-reactions.
I should add that Jeanne Chall was a dear friend of mine. We often talked about how to stop the pendulum from swinging back and forth and bring about an era of common sense.
The current view of some phonics extremists that phonics must be beaten into the heads of children until early adolescence is insane.
Ravitch: “The review is called ‘Becoming a Nation of Readers,'”
Great stuff. Thanks!!
Ravitch: “The current view that phonics must be beaten into the heads of children until early adolescence is insane.”
I’d be curious to know of any who hold that view…
Meanwhile, acting as a substitute grocer this afternoon in a friend’s store where many food items are labeled solely in Amharic, I’m relying on color, texture, and other cues… and would welcome any passing teachers or journalists skilled in gentle, beating-free, Amharic phonics instruction for old geezers… I do have some oral vocabulary (tenish, tenish), and some while ago mastered the script for teff as a “whole word”.
Stephen, I believe it was you who cited a British study saying that phonics should continue until age 11. That’s a way to kill the love of reading, for sure.
I am reminded of 19th century textbooks that taught biology by having students memorize the names of the parts of a flower but never went outside to see a flower or look at the natural world as a source of study and pleasure.
Once a child is reading at the fifth-grade level or higher, it doesn’t take much to move them to the next level, a reader that loves to read.
When I was teaching (1975 – 2005), I required my students to read one book a month. I told them to pick books they enjoyed reading. To hold them accountable, they had to write a “detailed” report about the book they read. I will not call it a book report because it was more of a report about the characters and conflicts they dealt with.
The one student that stands out in my mind after all these years was a boy who hated to read when he first entered my 9th grade English class. When he was in 12th grade, a few years later, I ran into him one day a few hours after school. He was at the end of a hallway from where I was. He held up a paperback book. I couldn’t see the cover.
He said with a humorous tone to his voice. “I hate you. Look what you did to me. I’m hooked on books and can’t stop reading the ones I like.”
Phonics had nothing to do with it. Any method that strips away the ability of a child to select what they want to read will probably make them hate reading because reading will feel like torture.
Phonics is just one tool of several teachers may use to get kids up to the reading level of young adult books.
“Young adult novels are for the ages of 12–18. They tend to have an ATOS level of 5.0 or above, have a larger word count, and tackle more mature and adult themes and content.”
Like I said, the threshold is 5.0 or above. Phonics is only good for a year or two before it gets very old and toxic.
Ravitch: “Stephen, I believe it was you who cited a British study saying that phonics should continue until age 11.”
I had alluded to the residual measurable impacts of phonics instruction fading out to different degrees by the time students in the study reached the age of 11. But didn’t clarify till the subsequent post that the phonics instruction, itself, had ceased by age 7. The two paragraphs I quoted from the study specified that, plus additional helpful details.