7 Comments
Oct 31, 2022·edited Oct 31, 2022Liked by Natalie Wexler

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

“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.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment