And when comprehension doesn’t improve, it’ll be used to discredit the shift to phonics instruction ... pendulum swings back to whole language approaches. Really it’s a win win to shift all of reading instruction into evidence backed practices and sad to see the science of reading folks treat it like an ideology instead of a method.
As an aside, I was listening to a podcast recently with Maryanne Wolf (Ezra Klein I think?) and they touch on the importance of broad, worldly knowledge to reading comprehension. It wasn’t the focus, they were more focused on digital tech and attention, but the whole time I was listening I was thinking “knowledge rich curricula!”
Your work has moved literacy awareness and started a public awareness campaign.
Mainstream public awareness about literacy was not exposed even five years ago. Many experienced literacy educators working with children every day clamored to administrators that our literacy course has been way off, resulting in many children who cannot read.
What I know after working with hundreds of children over three and half decades is that nearly 40% of students are left behind with our current literacy practices.
Yes, phonics has been neglected for a long time, but literacy acquisition awareness must occur in every school. Building background knowledge, vocabulary, and oral and receptive language are extremely important from the day a child is born.
I do not think people understand or pay attention to the important brain work during the reading process.
Stanislaus Dahaene , an important brain researcher, writes-
"Reading is not a natural task, and children are not biologically
prepared to it by evolution (unlike spoken language
acquisition).
Thus, teachers must be aware that many of the
reading steps that they take for granted because they are
expert readers and have a fully automated and non-conscious
the reading system are not at all obvious for young children.
Massive changes are needed at the phonological and at the
visual level, before children, master the skill of reading."
- Dehaene, 2011
Good teachers know that we cannot teach skills in isolation. Reading looks like the DNA helix- many processes go into reading acquisition.
Natalie- I picked up your book, The Knowledge Gap, in 2019 in a Barnes and Noble store in Florida. I became a fan of yours, and posted on social media about your book and ideas. Why?
As a literacy and dyslexia specialist, what you write is TRUTH. I believe in Core Knowledge and how real information can change children's lives. I practiced it and believe it.
Keep on, keeping on, Natalie.
Illuminati- Lighten- Thank you for your outstanding journalism.
Take courage, and don't let the haters bring you down.
I’m sorry to hear about such woes in the world of reading. I read (well listened on Audible) your book when it first came out. It left such a lasting impression on me and the way I teach. Although I am pushed by colleagues to drop things like Science and Social Studies in lieu of more time for reading instruction and small groups, I am aware of the importance of these subjects, especially in a class where 80% speak another language at home other than English. Even so, I find there’s just not enough time in the day for everything I have to fit in. My hope is that the Science of Reading community will look at the broader picture. Together we need to problem solve, look at all aspects (including phonics and comprehension and writing) until we find a solution that works for our children. As Louisa Moats says, “Teaching reading is rocket science.” She wasn’t kidding! Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for the work you do. I am grateful!
I am very grateful for your advocacy and writing. I deeply appreciate your science-based crusade for centering knowledge in schools. It has inspired me greatly and I'm a better educator because of your work. The comprehension problem in schools is more hidden like you say...and the solutions for schools require deeper commitments, teacher/leader training, and mindset shifts. It's not a quick fix but it's certainly worth fighting for every chance we get. I deeply appreciate your voice and your work.
So sorry m! I have to say I was shocked at the backlash and was disappointed by Emily Hanford’s response. There is something really scary happening - people no longer have the ability to debate and have conversations where one person is not in 100% agreement with another. Good faith criticism is a positive thing. Emily Hanford’s work is important and I absolutely loved Sold a Story. But phonics is just one part of reading. While most science of reading advocates know this already, not everyone else does.
I feel you are absolutely 100% rationale and correct in what you are saying. We need brave people to stand up to the 'that feels good/sounds right' brigade who defend non-rationale positions. I call it educational humanism that is more ideological and values based than rigorous. I enjoy your work!
It would seem that your detractors haven't paid attention to the equation in the Simple View of Reading, which implies that attention has to be given to both decoding and language comprehension. What you have done is highlight the fact that some are neglecting one element of the equation. I wish you well.
Multiple people (including Emily) have attempted to explain that Sold a Story is a podcast about three-cueing; where the idea came from, how it spread, and why it's endured. The podcast isn't about all of reading. It goes deep into one misguided theory about reading, from its inception to present day. It's fine to wish a journalist focused on a different topic, but knocking a piece because it isn't about the topic you most care about seems unfair. That would be like criticizing The Knowledge Gap for not addressing the shoddy math instruction most students receive.
Thanks for pushing back. I would say that my not addressing math is different, because here we're talking about different components of literacy, all of which need to be addressed if students are to become truly literate. While there's a relationship between literacy and math (you need to be able to understand word problems, for example), I feel there's a closer relationship between decoding and comprehension, and addressing problems in one area without also at least acknowledging that there are problems in the other is likely to skew the response in a way that leaves the literacy crisis largely unresolved.
But let's say you're right: Emily's focus in most of her podcasts is phonics, so she doesn't need to say anything about problems with comprehension instruction. What about Emily's hour-long podcast on comprehension, What the Words Say, that fails to mention the standard approach to teaching it or suggest that there's anything wrong with that? Doesn't it seem like she should have discussed those things there?
"What the Words Say" focuses on The Simple View of Reading. The piece is essentially based around this idea:
Hoover: "What happens when they come to school is their language comprehension is
fairly high and what they have to do is learn word recognition. And so if they’re taught
word recognition then they can read to the level at which they can comprehend language."
And it goes into lots of examples from kids who are typical struggling readers; they got off to a slow start with decoding and then never got exposure to the words in texts (like "gloat" "sneer" and "trait") that they would have otherwise encountered had they learned to read in the primary grades.
What the Words Say is based on one idea about reading, The Simple View.
Sold a Story is about another, MSV/three-cueing
You are hoping for a different podcast focused on another theory of reading. I hope she does that one, too, but it would require at least as long as her typical podcasts– not just a few minutes.
Thanks for expressing your view. I don't agree that I'm asking for a podcast "focused on another theory of reading." The idea that background knowledge is crucial to comprehension is included in What the Words Say, just as the idea that phonics is essential to decoding is a part of Sold a Story, etc. -- so it's there as part of the "theory" Emily is describing.
What's different in What the Words Say is that Emily doesn't discuss what schools are doing to try to TEACH comprehension. It's as though she had done a podcast on decoding that talked about the theory behind phonics but didn't discuss whether schools were actually teaching phonics. I would certainly see that as a serious omission, and I feel the same way about comprehension.
It seems that you're assuming that if kids learn to decode, they'll be able to teach themselves the meanings of unfamiliar words they encounter in text simply by decoding them. But many kids won't acquire those words without more explicit instruction, including encountering the words repeatedly in the context of acquiring knowledge of topics.
According to Biemiller (2005), Beck (202) and Stahl (1986) students acquire 8-10 vocabulary words per week through direct instruction. That instruction is really important, especially when it is focused on root words and high-utility Tier 2 words, but it provides a small portion of the words learned.
Word-learning strategies and wide-reading result in much larger number of new words learned; Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) and Kamil and Hiebert (2005), etc. Studies estimate that the meaning of 1 in 10 words can be derived from context and more can be learned through attention to the word's spelling, both approaches result in a HUGE amount of new words learned– povided the student reads a lot.
Reading volume is such an important part of vocabulary acquisition, but students can only read extensively if they can, well... READ.
Thank you! I have to thank you and other people who have taught me about the book "why Johnny Can't Read" by Rudolph Flesch. It's astounding that it was published in 1955 and debunked whole language yet in 2022 it still is educationally harming children in classrooms across the world. Lucy Calkins is currently working with apple tv + on a children's show called interrupting chicken. I fear that these people will run from reading programs into the arms of streaming platforms that also don't require evidence based reading instruction 😔. I am a twitter refugee on LinkedIn, Tumblr, and Pinterest. I couldn't do the negativity on Twitter anymore. I hope you will move to LinkedIn too and realize literacy and dyslexia advocates internationally support science of reading.
Oh that's so good to hear! They have a "no politics" feature I haven't seen on any other platform either. Hopefully it stays a professional atmosphere too. I know lots of people enjoy the creator features too. Looking forward to see what you do.
There is so much here to unpack. As a reading specialist working all week with struggling first and second graders and then once a week as part of a job share in a third grade classroom, I encountered the importance of both laying foundational skills and fostering comprehension in order for students to succeed. Here's how I wrote about it, including a reference to The Knowledge Gap, in From Play-doh to Plato: All students need to grapple with grade-level text, https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/play-doh-plato-all-students-need-grapple-grade-level-text
Thanks for the link. I would just add that it can be hugely helpful for a teacher to read aloud complex text and engage students in discussing it before asking them to read it -- and also that teaching kids to construct complex sentences can be enormously helpful in enabling them to understand complex syntax when they encounter it in their reading.
Since I finished writing The Knowledge Gap I have come to appreciate even more the value of read-alouds and explicit writing instruction for reading comprehension, and I wish I'd emphasized those things more in the book.
Excellent points--with a bit of context. I've recently discovered PALS (peer-assisted learning strategies) which is a Tier I intervention program with two components: partner reading and paragraph shrinking. The partner reading component pairs a more capable reader with a less capable one, and students get the opportunity to read and reread a text to resolve 'accuracy' issues (especially related to multisyllabic words where, for example, most of my third graders read 'adaption' or 'adoption' instead of 'adaptation') before getting into the heavy lifting related to comprehension. I've modified the PALS program and apply it to grade-level reading instead of using a variety of texts at the various 'instructional levels' as originally intended. And I'm very excited about its possibilities. I definitely agree with what you say about writing instruction, which is why the Carnegie Report by Steve Graham, Writing to Read, is so important, and where your book The Writing Revolution is extremely helpful. Foundational skills are necessary but not sufficient--we can't say this often enough. I think Pam Snow's recent blog 'Balanced Literacy Bingo' provides ample context for this distinction. Thanks for continuing this very important discussion.
I so appreciate you bringing attention to this issue as this has been a concern of mine for years. Many people, including many who consider themselves aligned with the science of reading, say that the programs and practices that Emily Hanford took on are fine for teaching language comprehension. I love the podcasts but was disappointed that she didn’t spend a couple of minutes at least acknowledging that there is little to support that notion!!!
In my experience standards based grading compounds the issue with teaching comprehension like a set of skills. Teachers look for random passages to “teach” a particular standard. They look for passages to assess individual standards. No, no, no!!! It doesn’t work like that! I love the idea of standards based grading, but I’ve yet to see it implemented effectively.
I am grateful that you continue to bring attention to the problem of how language comprehension is being addressed. We will not improve reading comprehension until this is given deep, widespread attention. Every time I read your articles I am cheering you on! Thank you!
Thanks! I do want to just pursue what you said about "standards based grading," because I'm confused about what that refers to.
In today's Washington Post, for example, Jay Mathews used the term to refer to policies that "are designed to reduce stress for struggling students," like prohibiting any grade below 50%. You seem to be using it differently, to mean using random passages to "teach" or "assess" particular standards. I've seen that done too, of course. But are both of these things "standards based grading"?
In my state, each school district develops its own report cards, but what I have typically seen is that priority standards have been selected for each quarter. Teachers need to provide grades for each of those standards. In order to do this, teachers frequently look for resources that they think lend themselves well to teaching the standards for that quarter (often turning to Teachers Pay Teachers), and they look for passages that they think lend themselves to assessing each priority standard. Administrators frequently will have teachers analyze student data in their weekly Professional Learning Team meetings. Students that didn't do well will practice those "skills" over and over again. In addition, students are frequently given quarterly assessments. Teachers are then expected to analyze the data from those assessments by standards to see which ones they need to re-teach. This is a time consuming but MEANINGLESS exercise. Time would be better spent building background knowledge, strengthening vocabulary knowledge, teaching about language structure/syntax and cohesive ties, etc. Reading comprehension is approached as isolated skills to teach and assess and it is maddening!!!
Shanahan did a blog on this a few years ago. I appreciate this excerpt: "If comprehension is not a skill, then why has that been such a popular way to teach it?...It has been harder to eradicate than a fungus, I assume, because it appears to map onto educational standards and the high-stakes tests. Principals and teachers assume it makes sense to practice the “comprehension skills” that tripped the kids up on the tests. So, they “use their data”: combing through test results to identify the kinds of questions that students failed on and then practicing those supposed skills over and over in the hopes the kids will be enabled to answer such questions on the next test. That it hasn’t actually worked doesn’t seem to dissuade them at all."
I totally agree with you, of course, and I think I know which Shanahan blog you're talking about. Of course, Shanahan distinguishes between "skills" and "strategies," and he's all in favor of teaching the latter, divorced from a focus on any particular content or knowledge-building (although he does say kids should at least understand the content they're using to practice the strategies!). The difference is supposed to be that strategies are always intended to be used consciously, whereas "skills" are supposed to be practiced until they become automatic.
But the strategies mostly consist of monitoring your comprehension -- i.e., asking yourself questions like, "Am I understanding this?" And if you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you're reading even at a superficial level, the strategies won't help any more than the skills would. You can ask yourself repeatedly if you're understanding the text, but if you're missing too much information, the answer will continue to be "no."
Absolutely. Background knowledge is crucial to comprehension.
I am glad that the importance of explicit, systematic phonics instruction is getting a lot of attention and that changes are being made in many states and school districts, but I am beyond frustrated, as I'm sure you are, that the other issues with how reading instruction is approached in our country are not getting the attention needed. Standards are important, but it is wrongheaded to transform the standards into questions and spend the bulk of language comprehension instruction on having students practice answering those types of questions. Standards-based grading exacerbates the problem.
I appreciate all the work you do to bring attention to these issues!
An interesting question to explore might be what percentage of school districts in the U.S. use standards-based report cards.
My school district uses standards-based report cards, and students are pegged on the following scale: Exceeding, meeting, progressing, or making insufficient progress. Teachers were instructed NOT to use percentages to correlate to the terms. Grading was a nightmare, and parents were thoroughly confused.
Teachers bought materials from Teachers Pay Teachers and taught what they thought best might meet the standards.
I bet that more than 85% of school districts in the U.S. use standards to teach skills and report on the skill to parents.
Our district continues to use Fountas and Pinnell running records in K-2 to determine a child’s reading grade for each quarter. One running record!
Writing grades are based on Lucy Calkins' rubrics for each genre. Parents haven't the slightest notion of how their child is performing in ELA.
Students might 'Go wide, but not deep.'
Children are naturally curious and seek to learn about the world, history, time, events, people, and places.
Our current paradigm robs them of a rich, stimulating educational experience building content knowledge.
Thanks to both of you, Ann and Mary, for alerting me to this practice of using standards as a basis for grading and report cards. I thought I'd heard it all, but this is a new one on me! Very troubling.
And when comprehension doesn’t improve, it’ll be used to discredit the shift to phonics instruction ... pendulum swings back to whole language approaches. Really it’s a win win to shift all of reading instruction into evidence backed practices and sad to see the science of reading folks treat it like an ideology instead of a method.
As an aside, I was listening to a podcast recently with Maryanne Wolf (Ezra Klein I think?) and they touch on the importance of broad, worldly knowledge to reading comprehension. It wasn’t the focus, they were more focused on digital tech and attention, but the whole time I was listening I was thinking “knowledge rich curricula!”
Your work has moved literacy awareness and started a public awareness campaign.
Mainstream public awareness about literacy was not exposed even five years ago. Many experienced literacy educators working with children every day clamored to administrators that our literacy course has been way off, resulting in many children who cannot read.
What I know after working with hundreds of children over three and half decades is that nearly 40% of students are left behind with our current literacy practices.
Yes, phonics has been neglected for a long time, but literacy acquisition awareness must occur in every school. Building background knowledge, vocabulary, and oral and receptive language are extremely important from the day a child is born.
I do not think people understand or pay attention to the important brain work during the reading process.
Stanislaus Dahaene , an important brain researcher, writes-
"Reading is not a natural task, and children are not biologically
prepared to it by evolution (unlike spoken language
acquisition).
Thus, teachers must be aware that many of the
reading steps that they take for granted because they are
expert readers and have a fully automated and non-conscious
the reading system are not at all obvious for young children.
Massive changes are needed at the phonological and at the
visual level, before children, master the skill of reading."
- Dehaene, 2011
Good teachers know that we cannot teach skills in isolation. Reading looks like the DNA helix- many processes go into reading acquisition.
Natalie- I picked up your book, The Knowledge Gap, in 2019 in a Barnes and Noble store in Florida. I became a fan of yours, and posted on social media about your book and ideas. Why?
As a literacy and dyslexia specialist, what you write is TRUTH. I believe in Core Knowledge and how real information can change children's lives. I practiced it and believe it.
Keep on, keeping on, Natalie.
Illuminati- Lighten- Thank you for your outstanding journalism.
Take courage, and don't let the haters bring you down.
Mary McCool Berry
I'm thankful for you, Natalie. Please keep up your great and important work.
Thanks so much, Charles!
I’m sorry to hear about such woes in the world of reading. I read (well listened on Audible) your book when it first came out. It left such a lasting impression on me and the way I teach. Although I am pushed by colleagues to drop things like Science and Social Studies in lieu of more time for reading instruction and small groups, I am aware of the importance of these subjects, especially in a class where 80% speak another language at home other than English. Even so, I find there’s just not enough time in the day for everything I have to fit in. My hope is that the Science of Reading community will look at the broader picture. Together we need to problem solve, look at all aspects (including phonics and comprehension and writing) until we find a solution that works for our children. As Louisa Moats says, “Teaching reading is rocket science.” She wasn’t kidding! Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for the work you do. I am grateful!
I am very grateful for your advocacy and writing. I deeply appreciate your science-based crusade for centering knowledge in schools. It has inspired me greatly and I'm a better educator because of your work. The comprehension problem in schools is more hidden like you say...and the solutions for schools require deeper commitments, teacher/leader training, and mindset shifts. It's not a quick fix but it's certainly worth fighting for every chance we get. I deeply appreciate your voice and your work.
I’m still listening, Natalie. That was a nicely measured article and response to what happened. “PLEASE DON’T STOP!”
You have to read, "The Coddling of the American Mind, " if you haven't read it yet.
The authors actually talk about this, a kind of 'witch hunt.' The problem is institutionalized disconfirmation. I deleted Twitter.
So sorry m! I have to say I was shocked at the backlash and was disappointed by Emily Hanford’s response. There is something really scary happening - people no longer have the ability to debate and have conversations where one person is not in 100% agreement with another. Good faith criticism is a positive thing. Emily Hanford’s work is important and I absolutely loved Sold a Story. But phonics is just one part of reading. While most science of reading advocates know this already, not everyone else does.
I’m so sorry you’re experiencing this personally and professionally distressing situation. It’s unwarranted and unacceptable.
The Sold a Story series of podcasts certainly has emotions running high. I’m witnessing the effects on Instagram.
It’s easy for listeners to forget that the science of reading is a large and ever evolving body of work encompassing various disciplines.
Phonics instruction, albeit vital, is neither the beginning nor the end of language comprehension…
I appreciate you and your work Natalie. KEEP on TRUCKIN'
I feel you are absolutely 100% rationale and correct in what you are saying. We need brave people to stand up to the 'that feels good/sounds right' brigade who defend non-rationale positions. I call it educational humanism that is more ideological and values based than rigorous. I enjoy your work!
It would seem that your detractors haven't paid attention to the equation in the Simple View of Reading, which implies that attention has to be given to both decoding and language comprehension. What you have done is highlight the fact that some are neglecting one element of the equation. I wish you well.
Multiple people (including Emily) have attempted to explain that Sold a Story is a podcast about three-cueing; where the idea came from, how it spread, and why it's endured. The podcast isn't about all of reading. It goes deep into one misguided theory about reading, from its inception to present day. It's fine to wish a journalist focused on a different topic, but knocking a piece because it isn't about the topic you most care about seems unfair. That would be like criticizing The Knowledge Gap for not addressing the shoddy math instruction most students receive.
Thanks for pushing back. I would say that my not addressing math is different, because here we're talking about different components of literacy, all of which need to be addressed if students are to become truly literate. While there's a relationship between literacy and math (you need to be able to understand word problems, for example), I feel there's a closer relationship between decoding and comprehension, and addressing problems in one area without also at least acknowledging that there are problems in the other is likely to skew the response in a way that leaves the literacy crisis largely unresolved.
But let's say you're right: Emily's focus in most of her podcasts is phonics, so she doesn't need to say anything about problems with comprehension instruction. What about Emily's hour-long podcast on comprehension, What the Words Say, that fails to mention the standard approach to teaching it or suggest that there's anything wrong with that? Doesn't it seem like she should have discussed those things there?
"What the Words Say" focuses on The Simple View of Reading. The piece is essentially based around this idea:
Hoover: "What happens when they come to school is their language comprehension is
fairly high and what they have to do is learn word recognition. And so if they’re taught
word recognition then they can read to the level at which they can comprehend language."
And it goes into lots of examples from kids who are typical struggling readers; they got off to a slow start with decoding and then never got exposure to the words in texts (like "gloat" "sneer" and "trait") that they would have otherwise encountered had they learned to read in the primary grades.
What the Words Say is based on one idea about reading, The Simple View.
Sold a Story is about another, MSV/three-cueing
You are hoping for a different podcast focused on another theory of reading. I hope she does that one, too, but it would require at least as long as her typical podcasts– not just a few minutes.
Thanks for expressing your view. I don't agree that I'm asking for a podcast "focused on another theory of reading." The idea that background knowledge is crucial to comprehension is included in What the Words Say, just as the idea that phonics is essential to decoding is a part of Sold a Story, etc. -- so it's there as part of the "theory" Emily is describing.
What's different in What the Words Say is that Emily doesn't discuss what schools are doing to try to TEACH comprehension. It's as though she had done a podcast on decoding that talked about the theory behind phonics but didn't discuss whether schools were actually teaching phonics. I would certainly see that as a serious omission, and I feel the same way about comprehension.
It seems that you're assuming that if kids learn to decode, they'll be able to teach themselves the meanings of unfamiliar words they encounter in text simply by decoding them. But many kids won't acquire those words without more explicit instruction, including encountering the words repeatedly in the context of acquiring knowledge of topics.
According to Biemiller (2005), Beck (202) and Stahl (1986) students acquire 8-10 vocabulary words per week through direct instruction. That instruction is really important, especially when it is focused on root words and high-utility Tier 2 words, but it provides a small portion of the words learned.
Word-learning strategies and wide-reading result in much larger number of new words learned; Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) and Kamil and Hiebert (2005), etc. Studies estimate that the meaning of 1 in 10 words can be derived from context and more can be learned through attention to the word's spelling, both approaches result in a HUGE amount of new words learned– povided the student reads a lot.
Reading volume is such an important part of vocabulary acquisition, but students can only read extensively if they can, well... READ.
Thank you! I have to thank you and other people who have taught me about the book "why Johnny Can't Read" by Rudolph Flesch. It's astounding that it was published in 1955 and debunked whole language yet in 2022 it still is educationally harming children in classrooms across the world. Lucy Calkins is currently working with apple tv + on a children's show called interrupting chicken. I fear that these people will run from reading programs into the arms of streaming platforms that also don't require evidence based reading instruction 😔. I am a twitter refugee on LinkedIn, Tumblr, and Pinterest. I couldn't do the negativity on Twitter anymore. I hope you will move to LinkedIn too and realize literacy and dyslexia advocates internationally support science of reading.
Yes, I am on LinkedIn and have found it to be more conducive to polite and rational discussion. So maybe I'll become more active there!
Oh that's so good to hear! They have a "no politics" feature I haven't seen on any other platform either. Hopefully it stays a professional atmosphere too. I know lots of people enjoy the creator features too. Looking forward to see what you do.
There is so much here to unpack. As a reading specialist working all week with struggling first and second graders and then once a week as part of a job share in a third grade classroom, I encountered the importance of both laying foundational skills and fostering comprehension in order for students to succeed. Here's how I wrote about it, including a reference to The Knowledge Gap, in From Play-doh to Plato: All students need to grapple with grade-level text, https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/play-doh-plato-all-students-need-grapple-grade-level-text
Thanks for the link. I would just add that it can be hugely helpful for a teacher to read aloud complex text and engage students in discussing it before asking them to read it -- and also that teaching kids to construct complex sentences can be enormously helpful in enabling them to understand complex syntax when they encounter it in their reading.
Since I finished writing The Knowledge Gap I have come to appreciate even more the value of read-alouds and explicit writing instruction for reading comprehension, and I wish I'd emphasized those things more in the book.
Excellent points--with a bit of context. I've recently discovered PALS (peer-assisted learning strategies) which is a Tier I intervention program with two components: partner reading and paragraph shrinking. The partner reading component pairs a more capable reader with a less capable one, and students get the opportunity to read and reread a text to resolve 'accuracy' issues (especially related to multisyllabic words where, for example, most of my third graders read 'adaption' or 'adoption' instead of 'adaptation') before getting into the heavy lifting related to comprehension. I've modified the PALS program and apply it to grade-level reading instead of using a variety of texts at the various 'instructional levels' as originally intended. And I'm very excited about its possibilities. I definitely agree with what you say about writing instruction, which is why the Carnegie Report by Steve Graham, Writing to Read, is so important, and where your book The Writing Revolution is extremely helpful. Foundational skills are necessary but not sufficient--we can't say this often enough. I think Pam Snow's recent blog 'Balanced Literacy Bingo' provides ample context for this distinction. Thanks for continuing this very important discussion.
I so appreciate you bringing attention to this issue as this has been a concern of mine for years. Many people, including many who consider themselves aligned with the science of reading, say that the programs and practices that Emily Hanford took on are fine for teaching language comprehension. I love the podcasts but was disappointed that she didn’t spend a couple of minutes at least acknowledging that there is little to support that notion!!!
In my experience standards based grading compounds the issue with teaching comprehension like a set of skills. Teachers look for random passages to “teach” a particular standard. They look for passages to assess individual standards. No, no, no!!! It doesn’t work like that! I love the idea of standards based grading, but I’ve yet to see it implemented effectively.
I am grateful that you continue to bring attention to the problem of how language comprehension is being addressed. We will not improve reading comprehension until this is given deep, widespread attention. Every time I read your articles I am cheering you on! Thank you!
Thanks! I do want to just pursue what you said about "standards based grading," because I'm confused about what that refers to.
In today's Washington Post, for example, Jay Mathews used the term to refer to policies that "are designed to reduce stress for struggling students," like prohibiting any grade below 50%. You seem to be using it differently, to mean using random passages to "teach" or "assess" particular standards. I've seen that done too, of course. But are both of these things "standards based grading"?
In my state, each school district develops its own report cards, but what I have typically seen is that priority standards have been selected for each quarter. Teachers need to provide grades for each of those standards. In order to do this, teachers frequently look for resources that they think lend themselves well to teaching the standards for that quarter (often turning to Teachers Pay Teachers), and they look for passages that they think lend themselves to assessing each priority standard. Administrators frequently will have teachers analyze student data in their weekly Professional Learning Team meetings. Students that didn't do well will practice those "skills" over and over again. In addition, students are frequently given quarterly assessments. Teachers are then expected to analyze the data from those assessments by standards to see which ones they need to re-teach. This is a time consuming but MEANINGLESS exercise. Time would be better spent building background knowledge, strengthening vocabulary knowledge, teaching about language structure/syntax and cohesive ties, etc. Reading comprehension is approached as isolated skills to teach and assess and it is maddening!!!
Shanahan did a blog on this a few years ago. I appreciate this excerpt: "If comprehension is not a skill, then why has that been such a popular way to teach it?...It has been harder to eradicate than a fungus, I assume, because it appears to map onto educational standards and the high-stakes tests. Principals and teachers assume it makes sense to practice the “comprehension skills” that tripped the kids up on the tests. So, they “use their data”: combing through test results to identify the kinds of questions that students failed on and then practicing those supposed skills over and over in the hopes the kids will be enabled to answer such questions on the next test. That it hasn’t actually worked doesn’t seem to dissuade them at all."
I totally agree with you, of course, and I think I know which Shanahan blog you're talking about. Of course, Shanahan distinguishes between "skills" and "strategies," and he's all in favor of teaching the latter, divorced from a focus on any particular content or knowledge-building (although he does say kids should at least understand the content they're using to practice the strategies!). The difference is supposed to be that strategies are always intended to be used consciously, whereas "skills" are supposed to be practiced until they become automatic.
But the strategies mostly consist of monitoring your comprehension -- i.e., asking yourself questions like, "Am I understanding this?" And if you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you're reading even at a superficial level, the strategies won't help any more than the skills would. You can ask yourself repeatedly if you're understanding the text, but if you're missing too much information, the answer will continue to be "no."
Absolutely. Background knowledge is crucial to comprehension.
I am glad that the importance of explicit, systematic phonics instruction is getting a lot of attention and that changes are being made in many states and school districts, but I am beyond frustrated, as I'm sure you are, that the other issues with how reading instruction is approached in our country are not getting the attention needed. Standards are important, but it is wrongheaded to transform the standards into questions and spend the bulk of language comprehension instruction on having students practice answering those types of questions. Standards-based grading exacerbates the problem.
I appreciate all the work you do to bring attention to these issues!
Ann,
You are spot on!
An interesting question to explore might be what percentage of school districts in the U.S. use standards-based report cards.
My school district uses standards-based report cards, and students are pegged on the following scale: Exceeding, meeting, progressing, or making insufficient progress. Teachers were instructed NOT to use percentages to correlate to the terms. Grading was a nightmare, and parents were thoroughly confused.
Teachers bought materials from Teachers Pay Teachers and taught what they thought best might meet the standards.
I bet that more than 85% of school districts in the U.S. use standards to teach skills and report on the skill to parents.
Our district continues to use Fountas and Pinnell running records in K-2 to determine a child’s reading grade for each quarter. One running record!
Writing grades are based on Lucy Calkins' rubrics for each genre. Parents haven't the slightest notion of how their child is performing in ELA.
Students might 'Go wide, but not deep.'
Children are naturally curious and seek to learn about the world, history, time, events, people, and places.
Our current paradigm robs them of a rich, stimulating educational experience building content knowledge.
Thanks to both of you, Ann and Mary, for alerting me to this practice of using standards as a basis for grading and report cards. I thought I'd heard it all, but this is a new one on me! Very troubling.