So pumped for this, Natalie. Excited to share it with educators — and to use it to help parents, too. Thanks for all you do. Let’s break down those walls!
As a public school teacher who is mandated to teach a standardized reading curriculum, do you have any suggestions for FREE knowledge-based literacy teaching resources I can use in my classroom? I’ve heard you mention the Knowledge Matters Campaign. What about Great Minds?
I would suggest downloading free materials from the Core Knowledge Foundation website. They have a free version of CKLA as well as free history and science curricula. Great Minds, which publishes Wit & Wisdom, doesn't have a free version, as far as I know. Bookworms, EL Education, and Fishtank ELA can all be accessed for free, I believe. You could try them, but I'm not as familiar with them as I am with CKLA.
The Knowledge Matters Campaign has reviews of knowledge-building curricula on its website, but it doesn't publish its own curriculum or make any of them available to educators.
Here's a link to the Core Knowledge Foundation website:
"One of the things that has happened since The Knowledge Gap came out in 2019 is the emergence of the term “science of reading,” or “SoR,” and the movement that has come with it. That movement has trained a spotlight on some serious problems with reading instruction, which is great. But the focus has been almost entirely on problems with “decoding,” or phonics, instruction."
What would you say if I told you that there continue to be "serious problems with reading instruction" because--despite the research and the recommendations--there still isn't widespread agreement amongst professors and practitioners about what this instruction looks like in the classroom. This has led Claude Goldenberg to start a Substack called "We must end the reading wars . . . now." (https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/can-we-talk), which I highly recommend.
Best of luck with the new book! I think many would agree there's nothing more important than helping our children learn to read. That said, I'd humbly and respectfully request/suggest someone out there write a book about a key insight identified in your post, "There’s been a lot of research on how to make teaching more effective, although teachers rarely learn about it during their training." TEACHERS RARELY LEARN ABOUT IT! How is this possible? Breakthroughs in Medicine seem to be adopted relatively quickly once proven. The reading wars started in the 50s. Phonics vs. Whole Language appeared to define the sides. I don't know if I thought Balanced Literacy was a compromise or the long-awaited agreed upon solution. Now that we have a proven method to teach students to read, your illumination begets another critical question, i.e. will those responsible to train teachers do so? We can't afford to look back years from now lamenting, "if only we had trained our teachers". I guess, another way to say it is, "I don't want us to miss the forest for the trees."
I do have a chapter in the new book on problems with teacher training--which go well beyond the failure to train teachers in phonics instruction. But it's very difficult to change what is taught at the university level. It does look like phonics is making some headway, but that may be due to turnover and the replacement of older college-level instructors with younger ones (it's been said that change in academia only comes "one funeral at a time").
I think your new book is both on the right track, and will be a great success.
I do, however, want to warn you (and your potential readers, especially teachers and parents) that the skill of writing comes in at least two parts. Writing "about" something, whether read, heard, or observed, requires first that the student have sufficient control of a pencil or pen and enough practice with forming letter-shapes (or letter and number shapes) to produce them automatically, consistently, from memory, and at a reasonable speed. This skill was formerly taught to students, and practiced extensively in (some) pre-schools, kindergarten and first grade with almost as much intensity as teaching students to read. Unfortunately, in very many school districts around the country, handwriting no longer forms a significant part of the curriculum in grades preK-3.
It's not just cursive writing that isn't being taught any more, it's almost all forms of writing legibly or using standardized letter-shapes by hand. In some school districts, where they have 1-to-1 tablets or laptops available even for early grade students, some fraction of the time previously devoted to learning handwriting will be devoted to "keyboarding skills", but students are almost never systematically taught touch typing at this age, nor do most of them have sufficiently large hands to use a standard keyboard comfortably.
The insights drawn from cognitive load theory tell us that the physical production of letter shapes (by hand or via a keyboard) has to become automatic before young students will have sufficient cognitive capacity to reflect on or connect newly-acquired knowledge to what they already know in order to express their thoughts in writing. Asking young learners to write about material that's been read to them, or which they have read to themselves before they have at least begun to master handwriting or typing may backfire and cause some (especially the students with significant prior knowledge of the topic) to melt down in frustration. Add in the possibility of students with specific learning disabilities like dyslexia or dysgraphia (both of which are significantly under-diagnosed in most public schools) and you could trigger so much frustration as to trigger school avoidance or school refusal. Or worse, an early onset of the disengagement created in so many students who have fallen so far behind their agemates in reading, math, or both that the lessons presented are incomprehensible to them and they quit trying.
Yes, absolutely. The Writing Revolution doesn't cover teaching handwriting, but it's essential that it be taught before students are expected to write independently--especially if they're expected to write at length. That's why for K-2 students, The Writing Revolution faculty advises that most "writing" activities (e.g., because/but/so sentence stems) be done orally and collectively under the teacher's guidance. That lays the groundwork for later writing without overwhelming students' working memories.
Congratulations, Natalie! I always recommend your books and articles to anyone in education, whether teacher or administrator. I am sure I will be recommending this one too! Your ideas are challenging, but your writing makes them easy to understand.
Congratulations! I look forward to reading. I’ve recommended the Knowledge Gap to everyone in my school
So pumped for this, Natalie. Excited to share it with educators — and to use it to help parents, too. Thanks for all you do. Let’s break down those walls!
Seems like a subject of vital importance. I am forward to reading the book.
As a public school teacher who is mandated to teach a standardized reading curriculum, do you have any suggestions for FREE knowledge-based literacy teaching resources I can use in my classroom? I’ve heard you mention the Knowledge Matters Campaign. What about Great Minds?
I would suggest downloading free materials from the Core Knowledge Foundation website. They have a free version of CKLA as well as free history and science curricula. Great Minds, which publishes Wit & Wisdom, doesn't have a free version, as far as I know. Bookworms, EL Education, and Fishtank ELA can all be accessed for free, I believe. You could try them, but I'm not as familiar with them as I am with CKLA.
The Knowledge Matters Campaign has reviews of knowledge-building curricula on its website, but it doesn't publish its own curriculum or make any of them available to educators.
Here's a link to the Core Knowledge Foundation website:
https://www.coreknowledge.org/
Thank you! This is so helpful.
"One of the things that has happened since The Knowledge Gap came out in 2019 is the emergence of the term “science of reading,” or “SoR,” and the movement that has come with it. That movement has trained a spotlight on some serious problems with reading instruction, which is great. But the focus has been almost entirely on problems with “decoding,” or phonics, instruction."
What would you say if I told you that there continue to be "serious problems with reading instruction" because--despite the research and the recommendations--there still isn't widespread agreement amongst professors and practitioners about what this instruction looks like in the classroom. This has led Claude Goldenberg to start a Substack called "We must end the reading wars . . . now." (https://claudegoldenberg.substack.com/p/can-we-talk), which I highly recommend.
Looking forward to reading your book!
Best of luck with the new book! I think many would agree there's nothing more important than helping our children learn to read. That said, I'd humbly and respectfully request/suggest someone out there write a book about a key insight identified in your post, "There’s been a lot of research on how to make teaching more effective, although teachers rarely learn about it during their training." TEACHERS RARELY LEARN ABOUT IT! How is this possible? Breakthroughs in Medicine seem to be adopted relatively quickly once proven. The reading wars started in the 50s. Phonics vs. Whole Language appeared to define the sides. I don't know if I thought Balanced Literacy was a compromise or the long-awaited agreed upon solution. Now that we have a proven method to teach students to read, your illumination begets another critical question, i.e. will those responsible to train teachers do so? We can't afford to look back years from now lamenting, "if only we had trained our teachers". I guess, another way to say it is, "I don't want us to miss the forest for the trees."
I do have a chapter in the new book on problems with teacher training--which go well beyond the failure to train teachers in phonics instruction. But it's very difficult to change what is taught at the university level. It does look like phonics is making some headway, but that may be due to turnover and the replacement of older college-level instructors with younger ones (it's been said that change in academia only comes "one funeral at a time").
I think your new book is both on the right track, and will be a great success.
I do, however, want to warn you (and your potential readers, especially teachers and parents) that the skill of writing comes in at least two parts. Writing "about" something, whether read, heard, or observed, requires first that the student have sufficient control of a pencil or pen and enough practice with forming letter-shapes (or letter and number shapes) to produce them automatically, consistently, from memory, and at a reasonable speed. This skill was formerly taught to students, and practiced extensively in (some) pre-schools, kindergarten and first grade with almost as much intensity as teaching students to read. Unfortunately, in very many school districts around the country, handwriting no longer forms a significant part of the curriculum in grades preK-3.
It's not just cursive writing that isn't being taught any more, it's almost all forms of writing legibly or using standardized letter-shapes by hand. In some school districts, where they have 1-to-1 tablets or laptops available even for early grade students, some fraction of the time previously devoted to learning handwriting will be devoted to "keyboarding skills", but students are almost never systematically taught touch typing at this age, nor do most of them have sufficiently large hands to use a standard keyboard comfortably.
The insights drawn from cognitive load theory tell us that the physical production of letter shapes (by hand or via a keyboard) has to become automatic before young students will have sufficient cognitive capacity to reflect on or connect newly-acquired knowledge to what they already know in order to express their thoughts in writing. Asking young learners to write about material that's been read to them, or which they have read to themselves before they have at least begun to master handwriting or typing may backfire and cause some (especially the students with significant prior knowledge of the topic) to melt down in frustration. Add in the possibility of students with specific learning disabilities like dyslexia or dysgraphia (both of which are significantly under-diagnosed in most public schools) and you could trigger so much frustration as to trigger school avoidance or school refusal. Or worse, an early onset of the disengagement created in so many students who have fallen so far behind their agemates in reading, math, or both that the lessons presented are incomprehensible to them and they quit trying.
Yes, absolutely. The Writing Revolution doesn't cover teaching handwriting, but it's essential that it be taught before students are expected to write independently--especially if they're expected to write at length. That's why for K-2 students, The Writing Revolution faculty advises that most "writing" activities (e.g., because/but/so sentence stems) be done orally and collectively under the teacher's guidance. That lays the groundwork for later writing without overwhelming students' working memories.
Would love to read the journal article about deliberate practice writing instruction, but it's behind a paywall, and my library doesn't have access.
Sorry about that! You should be able to access a free PDF of the article at this link:
file:///C:/Users/natwe/Downloads/ProgressiveMastery.pdf
I'll substitute that link in the post for the one that leads to the paywalled version.
Congratulations, Natalie! I always recommend your books and articles to anyone in education, whether teacher or administrator. I am sure I will be recommending this one too! Your ideas are challenging, but your writing makes them easy to understand.
Very excited to read this!
Cannot wait for this, Natalie!