I just have to repeat: Persistently poor reading outcomes reflected in NAEP scores (since 1992) are the result of teaching reading in a way that conflicts with science.
Science has established that approximately 5% of children pick up reading easily and approximately 35% of children will learn to read "okay" with broad instruction. These results are reflected year after year in the NAEP scores. The only way to produce meaningful improvements in student reading outcomes is to align instruction with the science of reading (providing children with explicit, structured, diagnostic and prescriptive instruction) because about 60% of children need structured instruction to learn to read. I agree that schools should switch to an elementary curriculum that teaches foundational reading skills systematically, is rich in content, and is structured to build academic knowledge in a coherent, logical fashion. It is astounding that they test and test and test, yet resist solutions that would most certainly improve children's reading outcomes.
What did students do prior to balanced reading? Prior to 1992? I grew up in the '70's, went to parochial schools, lots of Bible reading. ;) I am a readaholic, mostly because back then there was limited TV and nothing to do but read or go outside and play.
That's a big question--and parochial schools were always different. I go into this in more detail in my book, The Knowledge Gap, but briefly: these problems have been around for a long time.
There was probably more phonics being taught before the1980s and the advent of "whole language" (the predecessor to balanced literary), but the situation varied. The ubiquitous Dick and Jane books were not phonics-based. They were part of the predecessor to whole language, called "whole word," but the basic idea was the same: you don't have to teach kids to sound out words. They can just memorize all the words they need to know, or they'll just "pick up" reading naturally--or they should guess at the words.
As for building knowledge, again, there was probably more of that going on in the past, but it wasn't as systematic or intensive as it should have been. Schools did focus on teaching comprehension "skills," like finding the main idea, probably as far back as the 1950s. But the focus has intensified since around 2000 -- partly because education experts seemed to put their imprimatur on the approach, and partly because "reading" tests have become so important.
I keep beating this related drum: the prior knowledge deficiency hurts math scores, not just core computation but vocabulary.
Students struggle with “real world” assignments/exercises because they can’t decipher complex sentences/weak prior knowledge of the “real world” context.
“Whether schools remained physically open during the pandemic didn’t make a difference.” This is the most shocking part of all...and so little attention was put on the standardized testing process itself, much less how poorly reading is taught in schools.
I agree that many kids who can read pretty well nevertheless struggle with writing. Writing is harder, but we spend much less time trying to teach kids how to do it! And I think it's great that you collected a monthly writing sample from students. But you don't say what teachers at your school were doing to help kids improve their writing.
Most teachers don't get good training in how to teach writing--and just as learning to write is really hard, teaching kids to write is also really hard. Schools need to provide effective on-the-job support to teachers in how to explicitly teach writing across the curriculum--i.e., having kids write about whatever content they're learning, and beginning with teaching them how to construct sentences.
I just have to repeat: Persistently poor reading outcomes reflected in NAEP scores (since 1992) are the result of teaching reading in a way that conflicts with science.
Science has established that approximately 5% of children pick up reading easily and approximately 35% of children will learn to read "okay" with broad instruction. These results are reflected year after year in the NAEP scores. The only way to produce meaningful improvements in student reading outcomes is to align instruction with the science of reading (providing children with explicit, structured, diagnostic and prescriptive instruction) because about 60% of children need structured instruction to learn to read. I agree that schools should switch to an elementary curriculum that teaches foundational reading skills systematically, is rich in content, and is structured to build academic knowledge in a coherent, logical fashion. It is astounding that they test and test and test, yet resist solutions that would most certainly improve children's reading outcomes.
What did students do prior to balanced reading? Prior to 1992? I grew up in the '70's, went to parochial schools, lots of Bible reading. ;) I am a readaholic, mostly because back then there was limited TV and nothing to do but read or go outside and play.
That's a big question--and parochial schools were always different. I go into this in more detail in my book, The Knowledge Gap, but briefly: these problems have been around for a long time.
There was probably more phonics being taught before the1980s and the advent of "whole language" (the predecessor to balanced literary), but the situation varied. The ubiquitous Dick and Jane books were not phonics-based. They were part of the predecessor to whole language, called "whole word," but the basic idea was the same: you don't have to teach kids to sound out words. They can just memorize all the words they need to know, or they'll just "pick up" reading naturally--or they should guess at the words.
As for building knowledge, again, there was probably more of that going on in the past, but it wasn't as systematic or intensive as it should have been. Schools did focus on teaching comprehension "skills," like finding the main idea, probably as far back as the 1950s. But the focus has intensified since around 2000 -- partly because education experts seemed to put their imprimatur on the approach, and partly because "reading" tests have become so important.
I keep beating this related drum: the prior knowledge deficiency hurts math scores, not just core computation but vocabulary.
Students struggle with “real world” assignments/exercises because they can’t decipher complex sentences/weak prior knowledge of the “real world” context.
Absolutely agree! I wrote about that here:
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/when-language-prevents-kids-from
“Whether schools remained physically open during the pandemic didn’t make a difference.” This is the most shocking part of all...and so little attention was put on the standardized testing process itself, much less how poorly reading is taught in schools.
I agree that many kids who can read pretty well nevertheless struggle with writing. Writing is harder, but we spend much less time trying to teach kids how to do it! And I think it's great that you collected a monthly writing sample from students. But you don't say what teachers at your school were doing to help kids improve their writing.
Most teachers don't get good training in how to teach writing--and just as learning to write is really hard, teaching kids to write is also really hard. Schools need to provide effective on-the-job support to teachers in how to explicitly teach writing across the curriculum--i.e., having kids write about whatever content they're learning, and beginning with teaching them how to construct sentences.