Wow! Having had no systematic phonics, 4 years of Windward 5th grade to 8th grade brought my kid to grade level reading and led him to Bard High School Early College. No way he could have done that much reading having had little phonics.
How would you answer this question posed by Tim Shanahan?
"If I’m always providing kids with the appropriate background knowledge to understand each text used for instruction, then how do students ever learn to take on a text on their own?"
I've just finished working with struggling first-graders. We read "How a Frog Grows?" You mention as an example of knowledge-building reading about whales and sharks, and you and others have suggested that NAEP should assess knowledge, not random information in random passages. While I am deeply grateful for the knowledge-building campaign, I wonder if it risks--like the phonics movement--going too far.
At what point is it fair to ask a child to read, say, how a duck-billed platypus grows in order to make sense of the text without having specific prior knowledge?
Thank you for always raising such important issues!
How anyone could think that simply teaching kids the mechanics of reading makes children literate is beyond me. There are far too many uneducated people directing education.
Interesting! I know there is so much research showing benefits of phonics instruction (I wrote about it in a recent newsletter at parentingtranslator.substack.com)
but so important to know that this may not be enough!
Here again I do not believe it is necessary to repeat or use terms like "fades out" when it comes to foundational skills nor equate high quality K-3 reading instruction as synonymous with phonics. What we all should be doing is promoting the concept that high quality early reading instruction is "necessary, but not sufficient" for school, nor life success." As you have promoted so well, is that Knowledge is the key. Reading tests for older students place emphasis on so called comprehension that requires content knowledge. You can "read," have the best comprehension strategy, but if you don't have content knowledge (and sufficient motivation, a silent factor not discussed when testing teenagers), one might and perhaps SHOULD expect a drop in scores at this level. We must be careful to not provide fuel for the resisters who are looking for any "evidence" to maintain play-based reading instruction where arguments about joy and meaning take precedence over how we know things work in making the connections between print and sounds! Necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge rules! and reading is A key to knowlege!
I think the fade hits on both the 'simple view of reading' and Scarborough's Rope. Decoding can make the text accessible, but that is only part of the equation. And in my experience, the most straight forward aspect of reading to teach.
If you are suggesting that being able to decode English is somehow a secondary skill that fades away over time, then I'm afraid I can't join you. Yes of course you need follow-up; a child is obviously not going to become an avid reader later in life if you don't follow up by giving him/her materials worth reading. But if you are not seriously dedicated to teaching phonics as a first step, you're not going to end up with an avid reader no matter what you do later. http://mychildwillread.org/
Wow! Having had no systematic phonics, 4 years of Windward 5th grade to 8th grade brought my kid to grade level reading and led him to Bard High School Early College. No way he could have done that much reading having had little phonics.
How would you answer this question posed by Tim Shanahan?
"If I’m always providing kids with the appropriate background knowledge to understand each text used for instruction, then how do students ever learn to take on a text on their own?"
I've just finished working with struggling first-graders. We read "How a Frog Grows?" You mention as an example of knowledge-building reading about whales and sharks, and you and others have suggested that NAEP should assess knowledge, not random information in random passages. While I am deeply grateful for the knowledge-building campaign, I wonder if it risks--like the phonics movement--going too far.
At what point is it fair to ask a child to read, say, how a duck-billed platypus grows in order to make sense of the text without having specific prior knowledge?
Thank you for always raising such important issues!
How anyone could think that simply teaching kids the mechanics of reading makes children literate is beyond me. There are far too many uneducated people directing education.
Interesting! I know there is so much research showing benefits of phonics instruction (I wrote about it in a recent newsletter at parentingtranslator.substack.com)
but so important to know that this may not be enough!
Here again I do not believe it is necessary to repeat or use terms like "fades out" when it comes to foundational skills nor equate high quality K-3 reading instruction as synonymous with phonics. What we all should be doing is promoting the concept that high quality early reading instruction is "necessary, but not sufficient" for school, nor life success." As you have promoted so well, is that Knowledge is the key. Reading tests for older students place emphasis on so called comprehension that requires content knowledge. You can "read," have the best comprehension strategy, but if you don't have content knowledge (and sufficient motivation, a silent factor not discussed when testing teenagers), one might and perhaps SHOULD expect a drop in scores at this level. We must be careful to not provide fuel for the resisters who are looking for any "evidence" to maintain play-based reading instruction where arguments about joy and meaning take precedence over how we know things work in making the connections between print and sounds! Necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge rules! and reading is A key to knowlege!
I think the fade hits on both the 'simple view of reading' and Scarborough's Rope. Decoding can make the text accessible, but that is only part of the equation. And in my experience, the most straight forward aspect of reading to teach.
It is likely parents are paying less in tutoring fees.
If you are suggesting that being able to decode English is somehow a secondary skill that fades away over time, then I'm afraid I can't join you. Yes of course you need follow-up; a child is obviously not going to become an avid reader later in life if you don't follow up by giving him/her materials worth reading. But if you are not seriously dedicated to teaching phonics as a first step, you're not going to end up with an avid reader no matter what you do later. http://mychildwillread.org/