I appreciate how Natalie Wexler acknowledged speech and language pathologists role in how we use background knowledge and complex syntax instruction to help students access the curriculum.
We need a panel of experienced and highly qualified educators who have worked extensively with children with diverse abilities and special needs. This new trend re The Science of Reading is not the solution if it is used only and over-used as that will be a harm than a help. My methods have always been successful in using a comprehensive approach in the teaching of Reading and Writing. How we are teaching is key? It has to be fun and games for young children and the focus must be on fostering the love of books which is dying and almost dead.
As for standardized testing for me, it just opens the 'Pandora Box' for that kind of testing does not reflect the true knowledge and understanding of how well a child can read if that is a 'one shot' test. It must be replaced with authentic assessment which truly reflects the child's grasp of the concepts. Finally, the use of technology must be regulated as most children are stuck behind a screen. The screen does the teaching not the teacher. This too can be helpful yet harmful.
Sorry, don't have the time to elaborate but I am a successful Reading/Writing teacher and I use a variety of strategies depending on the needs of my students. So let's stop teaching subjects and start teaching children and meeting there needs. What about the Art of Reading? That's important.
You write, “We do have a handful of studies showing that building children’s knowledge of lots of topics, in a logical fashion, improves their general reading comprehension.” I would love to see those studies. I did read The Knowledge Gap and came away wishing there were these kinds of studies, since the famous baseball study, which seemed to be the main empirical evidence the book was based on, seemed like a rather thin support, given how vast the world’s knowledge is—there is simply no way to teach *everything*. I followed the link in this post and found an account of a study that found zero evidence of “far transfer”, and that didn’t seem to report on how students in the program performed on regular old reading tests. So I am still a knowledge skeptic, and I would love to see the “handful of studies” you’re referring to.
Knowledge and culture must be considered and that gives an unfair advantage to those who live in a culture and are more exposed than other children who don't.
If a passage was about the game cricket those who are not exposed to that game would be at a disadvantage for sure.
I am very much for school trying to help kids who have fewer advantages. I’m just genuinely unconvinced that a “knowledge curriculum” per se will do that, and I would love to see empirical evidence that it actually can!
Okay, here are links I have written to posts summarizing the empirical evidence -- and a link to the more recent MORE study finding evidence of far transfer after 3 years. I hope you find these helpful:
Thanks, that is very helpful! It is great to know that this approach, which *seems* like common sense, has actually worked in the real world. Now if we can just come up with some good evidence that my own hobbyhorse, getting kids to spend time actually reading, also has positive benefits! The last time I really looked into this was five years ago (https://literacyinleafstrewn.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-null-hypothesis-boring-but-usually.html), and the closest thing to a long-term empirical study of a content knowledge approach was one that showed that schools using Hirsch's "Core Knowledge" approach did not get better reading outcomes (that study is here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4717/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf).
That still doesn't mean the issues will be solved. A child can't know all things and who should decide what they should learn and why? So it goes back to culture. Make the knowledge universal to be fair to all from different cultures.
It seems as how reading skills are not improving that another National Reading Panel could be a good idea. I have been persuaded, by reading Natalie's book and substacks posts, that background knowledge is very important and should be included as a major factor that affects reading outcomes. I teach special education to English Language learners in grades 4-5 and I think their biggest impedaments to reading progress are vocabulary, background knowledge, and complex syntax.
I have spent 5 years practicing Spanish on an app for 10-15 minutes a day and vocabulary and complex syntax still trip me up, especially vocabulary. I still struggle to read a second grade level book in Spanish.
The pattern remains that the most educated parents seem to show up with kids who are better prepared. I was one of those kids. My parents regularly corrected my grammar. Both read a great deal. Yet in some islands of culture these sorts of qualities are ridiculed.
Parents like mine gravitate to suburban (norm) schools or private school in cities. The odds are better not because teachers are better or the curriculum is especially effective. It's because the kids show up with an already instilled background of expectation.
I'm coming to believe that low reading and math scores probably won't get fixed except by eventual employers who are economically dependent on competent workers and can incentivize needed learning by continued employment. Skills then represent advancement, a tangible value.
I appreciate how Natalie Wexler acknowledged speech and language pathologists role in how we use background knowledge and complex syntax instruction to help students access the curriculum.
We need a panel of experienced and highly qualified educators who have worked extensively with children with diverse abilities and special needs. This new trend re The Science of Reading is not the solution if it is used only and over-used as that will be a harm than a help. My methods have always been successful in using a comprehensive approach in the teaching of Reading and Writing. How we are teaching is key? It has to be fun and games for young children and the focus must be on fostering the love of books which is dying and almost dead.
As for standardized testing for me, it just opens the 'Pandora Box' for that kind of testing does not reflect the true knowledge and understanding of how well a child can read if that is a 'one shot' test. It must be replaced with authentic assessment which truly reflects the child's grasp of the concepts. Finally, the use of technology must be regulated as most children are stuck behind a screen. The screen does the teaching not the teacher. This too can be helpful yet harmful.
Sorry, don't have the time to elaborate but I am a successful Reading/Writing teacher and I use a variety of strategies depending on the needs of my students. So let's stop teaching subjects and start teaching children and meeting there needs. What about the Art of Reading? That's important.
Wow! Gotta go!
You write, “We do have a handful of studies showing that building children’s knowledge of lots of topics, in a logical fashion, improves their general reading comprehension.” I would love to see those studies. I did read The Knowledge Gap and came away wishing there were these kinds of studies, since the famous baseball study, which seemed to be the main empirical evidence the book was based on, seemed like a rather thin support, given how vast the world’s knowledge is—there is simply no way to teach *everything*. I followed the link in this post and found an account of a study that found zero evidence of “far transfer”, and that didn’t seem to report on how students in the program performed on regular old reading tests. So I am still a knowledge skeptic, and I would love to see the “handful of studies” you’re referring to.
Knowledge and culture must be considered and that gives an unfair advantage to those who live in a culture and are more exposed than other children who don't.
If a passage was about the game cricket those who are not exposed to that game would be at a disadvantage for sure.
I am very much for school trying to help kids who have fewer advantages. I’m just genuinely unconvinced that a “knowledge curriculum” per se will do that, and I would love to see empirical evidence that it actually can!
Okay, here are links I have written to posts summarizing the empirical evidence -- and a link to the more recent MORE study finding evidence of far transfer after 3 years. I hope you find these helpful:
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/yes-there-is-evidence-that-building
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/dramatic-new-evidence-that-building
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/is-the-buzz-about-knowledge-justified
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/is-the-buzz-about-knowledge-justified-585
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/more-people-should-know-about-the
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-55174-001.html
Thanks, that is very helpful! It is great to know that this approach, which *seems* like common sense, has actually worked in the real world. Now if we can just come up with some good evidence that my own hobbyhorse, getting kids to spend time actually reading, also has positive benefits! The last time I really looked into this was five years ago (https://literacyinleafstrewn.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-null-hypothesis-boring-but-usually.html), and the closest thing to a long-term empirical study of a content knowledge approach was one that showed that schools using Hirsch's "Core Knowledge" approach did not get better reading outcomes (that study is here: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4717/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf).
That still doesn't mean the issues will be solved. A child can't know all things and who should decide what they should learn and why? So it goes back to culture. Make the knowledge universal to be fair to all from different cultures.
If a new NRP comes to fruition, it should also differentiate between elementary and secondary instructional needs.
It seems as how reading skills are not improving that another National Reading Panel could be a good idea. I have been persuaded, by reading Natalie's book and substacks posts, that background knowledge is very important and should be included as a major factor that affects reading outcomes. I teach special education to English Language learners in grades 4-5 and I think their biggest impedaments to reading progress are vocabulary, background knowledge, and complex syntax.
I have spent 5 years practicing Spanish on an app for 10-15 minutes a day and vocabulary and complex syntax still trip me up, especially vocabulary. I still struggle to read a second grade level book in Spanish.
The pattern remains that the most educated parents seem to show up with kids who are better prepared. I was one of those kids. My parents regularly corrected my grammar. Both read a great deal. Yet in some islands of culture these sorts of qualities are ridiculed.
Parents like mine gravitate to suburban (norm) schools or private school in cities. The odds are better not because teachers are better or the curriculum is especially effective. It's because the kids show up with an already instilled background of expectation.
I'm coming to believe that low reading and math scores probably won't get fixed except by eventual employers who are economically dependent on competent workers and can incentivize needed learning by continued employment. Skills then represent advancement, a tangible value.