اینترنت

برچسب: Read

  • WCCUSD’s literacy task force to explore best ways to teach students how to read

    WCCUSD’s literacy task force to explore best ways to teach students how to read


    A student sounds out the word ‘both’ during a 2022 summer school class at Nystrom Elementary in the West Contra Costa Unfified School District.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    West Contra Costa Unified School District has set up a new literacy task force to answer long-held questions about the best ways to teach students how to read.

    The task force, which had its first meeting in September, is looking at academic research to examine literacy and the best ways to foster highly-literate students, according to former district spokesperson Liz Sanders.

    “It’s really important to us that our efforts to support students’ literacy are really rooted in building and generating community-wide best practices, and that we are looking at literacy instruction through a really holistic lens to make sure that we’re understanding what best practices are,” Sanders said.

    The task force is a small, internal team of 13 leaders who are developing initial recommendations for a comprehensive literacy plan, the district communications team said in an email. The main goal of the task force is to create a framework and make recommendations for WCCUSD that will guide the district’s Local Control and Accountability Plan and School Plan for Student Achievement. 

    The hope is that this will lead to improved student outcomes, especially for marginalized communities — specifically Multilingual English Language Learners, Black and neurodiverse students, who are currently being underserved, according to the district.

    WCCUSD has struggled with stagnant literacy scores for over a decade. Since 2014, no more than 17% of students read above grade level, according to Smarter Balanced results. But Superintendent Chris Hurst has named improving elementary reading test scores as a top priority. The district has primarily used a balanced literacy approach, which focuses on whole language instruction.

    One of the district’s schools, Nystrom Elementary, however, received funding in 2021 from the state’s Early Literacy Support Block Grant and replaced balanced literacy with the “science of reading” approach, which focuses on systematic phonics instruction.

    Sandrine Demathieu, a kindergarten teacher at Nystrom, is in her second year of using the science of reading approach. As a student teacher, she used the balanced literacy method, which, according to her, made her feel like there was “a missing chunk in our instruction.”

    Demathieu explained that balanced literacy focuses more on experiential learning and getting students excited about reading, leaving less time for data tracking on student progress. Meanwhile, the science of reading specializes in progress tracking, and offers a predictable curriculum with specific instructions for both students and teachers. 

    “They don’t have to even think twice about what they need to do,” Demathieu said. “They don’t have to put any energy into it. They can focus on the academic piece.” 

    For students with gaps in their learning in particular, Demathieu said the science of reading approach is “life changing” because of its predictability and organized structure. 

    In 2022, WCCUSD also introduced Systematic Instruction in Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Sight Words, or SIPPS, in all of its elementary schools. SIPPS is a “research-based foundational skills program” which provides a structured-literacy approach through explicit routines. 

    Gabby Micheletti, who taught at Verde Elementary for seven years and is now on-release to work full time for the United Teachers of Richmond, said it was “simultaneously remarkable and distressing” to see how quickly kids picked up on reading when using SIPPS as opposed to the previous curriculum. 

    “Just like the difference in the reading growth I had using SIPPS versus trying to use Teachers College — it’s one of those things where you’re just like, man, I feel bad about those days and those kids, when I was trying to follow the curriculum faithfully,” Michelletti said. “They were trying really hard and it just wasn’t working.”

    Michelletti said she hopes the task force re-evaluates the curriculum and pushes the use of SIPPS. She said the current curriculum is “extra non-responsive” to students, especially for English Language Learners. This is particularly important for WCCUSD, where 34% of students are English Language Learners. 

    The literacy task force will be using data and effective research to make recommendations to the district. The development of the framework is guided by a set of principles and beliefs:

    • “Schooling should help all students achieve their highest potential.
    • The responsibility for learners’ literacy and language development is shared. 
    • ELA/literacy and ELD curricula should be well designed, comprehensive, and integrated.
    • Effective teaching is essential to student success. 
    • Motivation and engagement play crucial roles in learning.”

    The implementation of the task force’s framework and recommendations is currently projected for the 2024-2025 school year. 





    Source link

  • One size doesn’t fit all in learning how to read

    One size doesn’t fit all in learning how to read


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    The K-12 “reading wars” discussions have been missing a critical point: No matter the curriculum used, too often, teachers are being asked to stick to a script and execute equal teaching, not equitable teaching. And equal teaching is illegal.

    In the panicked quest to improve literacy outcomes, it’s tempting for schools and teachers to fall back on a “one-size-fits-all” scripted curriculum despite our knowledge that teaching all students the same thing, in the same way, at the same pace, can be ineffective for students with language or learning differences. Students have individual strengths and needs, and teachers should differentiate their approaches in response to the individuals in their class.

    If it’s the same for everyone, it’s not targeted toward anyone.   

    Equal, non-differentiated instruction is illegal for our students who are classified as English learners or who require special education services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 ensures that students with special needs are appropriately served by schools. Modifications and accommodations are required based on students’ strengths and needs to meet their individual education plans. Equal teaching — everyone getting the same thing — is not appropriate.

    Similarly, in the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the Supreme Court determined that San Francisco’s school district was required to provide equal access — not equal instruction, but equal access — to all students. For students classified as English learners, English language development support was needed to provide students access to the core curriculum. The court based its decision on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

    If we were to expand the intention behind the court’s decision, we would ensure that all students — regardless of home language, ZIP code, or cultural background — get equitable access to education. This means doing whatever it takes to support individual students, not giving every student the same instruction. In particular, research has shown that scripted curricula don’t work for multilingual students. So, what does? Recently, science of reading advocates and multilingual advocates — including researchers — published a joint statement identifying literacy practices that are effective for multilingual students.

    How can all students be successful? While a complete solution would extend beyond the education system, here are two important and realistic steps that could move us forward:

    Improved and ongoing professional learning for teachers. The better teachers get at observing, assessing, diagnosing and intervening at points of difficulty, the better they will get at modifying and differentiating instruction based on students’ needs and strengths. Identifying students’ needs before they fall behind is key. The further behind they fall, the harder it is for students to catch up. By identifying and meeting individual needs, teachers can help all students succeed. Doing so requires equitable — not equal — teaching. Ongoing professional learning is required to help teachers continually practice and improve their skills. 

    Culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. It’s important for students to see themselves in the curriculum to develop a sense of belonging and to increase engagement. Traditionally, students who are different in any way — whether by language, (dis)ability, culture, religion, race, ethnicity, immigration status, etc. — do not see themselves represented in the curriculum. Students from historically marginalized communities may not see themselves in the characters or content they study and can feel like outsiders, as if school is intended for others, not them. Teachers who learn from and about their students and who authentically integrate students’ lived experiences into the curriculum can engage and motivate students in their classroom. When teachers use culturally and linguistically responsive instruction, it is inclusive and not generic, not scripted and not the same for all. It is equitable, not equal.

    These research-based solutions are not complex, but they require districts’ focus and state funding for teachers to have access to high-quality professional learning.

    The most significant factor that impacts student learning is the teacher. So, the next time someone says that students should all receive the same instruction, share with them what works for individual students. Remind them that teachers have a legal obligation to provide all students access to content, and differentiated, culturally responsive approaches are needed to achieve that. 

    ●●●

    Allison Briceño is an associate professor at San José State University and an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow.
    Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica is an associate professor of teaching at the University of California, Davis.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • California needs to do more to ensure teachers can teach kids to read, national study says

    California needs to do more to ensure teachers can teach kids to read, national study says


    Melissa Ramirez, a first grade teacher at Lockeford Elementary in Lodi, holds up a flashcard while students say and spell the word ‘water.’

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    Despite a newfound national focus on the science of reading, states, including California, aren’t doing enough to support and train teachers to effectively teach literacy, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Council on Teacher Quality. 

    Thirty-two states have passed laws or implemented policies related to evidence-based reading instruction in the last decade. Despite that, nearly every state could do more to support literacy instruction, according to the report, “Five Policy Actions to Strengthen Implementation of the Science of Reading.“

    “While states are rightly prioritizing literacy, they are not focusing enough attention on teacher effectiveness and teacher capacity to teach reading aligned to the science,” council President Heather Peske told EdSource. “If these efforts are to succeed … the state needs to ensure that teachers are prepared and supported from the time that they are in teacher preparation programs to the time that they enter classrooms.”

    The report rated states as strong, moderate, weak or unacceptable, based on whether they have policies to ensure students receive science-based reading instruction that includes teaching them to sound out words, a process known as phonics. Only 12 states, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia, were rated as strong.

    California received a moderate rating.

    The state gets high marks for setting reading standards for teacher preparation programs, adopting a strong reading licensure test for teachers, and requiring districts to select high-quality reading curricula. California scored lower on whether it requires ongoing literacy training for teachers and on its oversight of teacher preparation programs to ensure they are teaching the science of reading.

    Not all teachers are trained in the science of reading

    While California provides funds to school districts to offer literacy training to teachers, it does not require all elementary school teachers to be trained in the science of reading, as other states do, Peske said, adding that without proper training, teachers often flounder when teaching literacy, despite having access to high-quality instructional materials.

    Effective teaching is critical to improving students’ reading skills. More than 90% of students would learn to read with effective reading instruction, according to the report.

    About 40% of students entering fourth grade in the United States can read at a basic level, according to the research. The latest California test scores show fewer than half of the students who were tested were proficient in reading. These results have not changed much in the past decade. 

    “Why do we see staggering numbers of children, especially children of color and from low-income backgrounds, without fundamental literacy skills? said Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust. “Because in many districts and schools nationwide, outdated teaching methods and curricula that have been proven ineffective, and even harmful, are still being used.” 

    The report comes as California and other states are renewing their focus on the science of reading, which is based on over 50 years of research that provides a clear picture of how effective literacy instruction can produce a skilled reader, Peske said. 

    Only two of the 41 teacher preparation programs reviewed in California adequately cover all five components of the science of reading, according to the report. The five components include phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

    California puts renewed emphasis on reading

    But that could change soon. By July 1, California will require teacher preparation programs to provide literacy training based on the science of reading and the state’s new literacy standards. The new standards include support for struggling readers, English learners and pupils with exceptional needs, incorporating dyslexia guidelines for the first time.

    The state is also eliminating the unpopular Reading Instruction Competence Assessment in 2025. It will be replaced with a performance assessment based on literacy standards and a new set of Teaching Performance Expectations.

    “This latest set of standards and TPEs are probably the strongest statements we’ve had about reading and literacy in teacher preparation,” said Mary Vixie Sandy, executive director of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. “We are going gangbusters to get them in the field.”

    More than half of the states use outside accreditors to review teacher preparation programs, which researchers say is not ideal. The report includes California as one of those states, but Sandy says that is not the case. Teacher preparation programs in California must be reviewed every seven years by a commission-approved institutional review board made up of university faculty and practitioners across all credential areas, Sandy said. Members are trained on the standards, or have a background or credential in the subject being reviewed, she said.

    Teacher preparation programs that want a national accreditation can choose to use an outside accreditor, but it is not required for state accreditation, Sandy said.

    California should also include data it collects on teacher pass rates on the state reading licensure test as part of the review of teacher preparation programs, Peske said.

    California’s changes to teacher preparation and emphasis on the science of reading were taken into consideration by National Council on Teacher Quality’s researchers when evaluating the state, Peske said. The research was also sent to the California Department of Education at least twice for review. No one at the department said the research was in error, according to the council.

    The council has provided a guide to help states implement and sustain strong reading instruction.

    “Helping all children learn to read is possible when you have teachers who’ve been prepared in the science of reading,” Peske said. “Much like an orchestra needs each section of instruments to come together to successfully create music, states need to implement multiple teacher-focused reading policies that work together to improve student outcomes.”





    Source link

  • Getting California kids to read: What will it take?

    Getting California kids to read: What will it take?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xd4Alvvblo

    Leading literacy experts agreed that more young California students need to learn how to read, but they couldn’t reach a concensus on how to make it happen.

    While several participants in EdSource’s May 14 Roundtable discussion, “Getting California Kids to Read: What Will It Take?” suggested they would work together to pass a literacy bill, they also acknowledged that their disagreements remain in the details.

    Moderated by EdSource reporters John Fensterwald and Zaidee Stavely, the lively hourlong roundtable focused on how to achieve literacy for California children. The panel grappled with a myriad of thorny issues including state policy dynamics, the needs of dual-language learners and long-standing disagreements over how best to teach reading amid rising illiteracy rates. 

    Putting the needs of children and their teachers first should be the North Star when trying to solve the deepening literacy crisis, panelists agreed.

    The bottom line is grim. In 2023, just 43% of California students were reading at grade level by third grade, state data shows. Worse still, far fewer Black and Latino students met that standard.  

    “This is also a matter of civil rights,” said Kareem Weaver, an NAACP activist, co-founder of the literacy advocacy group FULCRUM and a key figure in the “The Right to Read” documentary, who has long argued that literacy is a matter of social justice too often obscured by esoteric debates about pedagogy. “Kids need access to prepared teachers, and communities like ours, I feel like we’re bearing the brunt.”

    Against the backdrop of an ongoing battle over state policy and crippling pandemic learning loss, the stakes are perilously high for children who graduate from high school unable to read. They struggle to navigate the world, from job applications to rental agreements, and studies point to the connection between illiteracy and incarceration. 

    “We’re counting on reasonable people to come together and figure this stuff out,” said Weaver. “These decisions that are made, they do fall on real kids, real communities.”

    What will it take to make sure that all kids, including English learners, read by third grade?

    While the state has taken some steps to get all kids to grade level, such as funding for tutors and testing students for dyslexia, a reading disability, there is no comprehensive plan. Given local control policies, districts decide how reading is taught, and many use methods that have been debunked by some experts. That’s a problem because consensus is key to reform, experts say. 

    “You want to make sure that whether you’re in the district office or you are a teacher in the classroom, you’re singing the same song,” said Penny Schwinn, former Tennessee education commissioner, who led that state’s renowned reading reform initiative, Reading 360. “The curricular materials are aligned, the professional development is aligned. All of that has to row in the same direction. Otherwise, you have people who are all doing different things in different ways and kids get confused.”

    What’s standing in the way of systemic change in California? One key question underpinning this debate is whether a statewide approach can meet the needs of English learners.

    “I do have to say that many times students and biliteracy programs are not included in the literacy conversation,” said Martha Hernández, executive director of Californians Together, an advocacy group. “Our literacy policy must have a focus on student-responsive teaching. I will say that multi-literacy is really the way of the future, particularly for our diverse state in this 21st century. It must be a cornerstone of literacy, biliteracy education policy in California.”

    Another key obstacle is the resistance to any top-down mandate that the state imposes on schools. 

    “When you do not have educators at the center of this, along with parents and students, it is set up to fail,” said David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “Frankly, going and passing legislation that reinforces a top-down approach, it’s antithetical to what all of our goals are about: really having all students succeed.”

    In hopes of giving the state a comprehensive plan focusing on phonics and other skills like vocabulary and reading comprehension, supporters backed Assembly Bill 2222 authored by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park. It also had the support of the California State PTA, state NAACP and more than 50 other organizations. But the bill died last month in committee before it could even get a hearing, succumbing to opposition from the state teachers union and English language advocates.

    Getting a literacy bill passed, as hard as that may be, is just the beginning, experts warn.

    “That is the easiest part of the process,” said Schwinn. “You can pass legislation, but implementation is the hardest thing you’ll ever do, because you have to win hearts and minds and you have to make sure you do it with respect and make sure you are operating with extreme dignity and professionalism and with a high quality bar for the people who are in the profession every day.”

    In a state as big and diverse as California, consensus can be elusive, noted Claude Goldenberg, emeritus professor of education in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. While almost everyone agrees that literacy instruction should be culturally relevant and content-rich as well as foundational, there remain disagreements about what exactly that looks like in the classroom. 

    “One of the big problems is when we speak at this level, there’s a lot of agreement,” said Goldenberg, “but we know the devil is in the details. … Time is limited in schools. Six hours tops, maybe six and a half, maybe five and a quarter. … We’ve got to make some choices and we’ve got to make some priorities at different stages of reading development. And that’s where the conversation kind of breaks down, because it gets very weedy, it gets very difficult. … We end up looking like we agree, but the subtext here is we’re still disagreeing.”

    One of the big hurdles is over whether the state should embrace what is known as the science of reading, which refers to research on how the brain learns how to read. In response to a question from moderator Fensterwald on what is irrefutable about that research, Goldenberg said there was no doubt about how children need to be taught how to read.

    “We have research on what to do when kids are having difficulty getting traction in beginning reading, whether they’re in Spanish reading programs or in English reading programs as English language learners,” said Goldenberg. “We know that there’s a reason they’re called foundational literacy skills. Because if you don’t have these skills, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to become literate.”

    While she agreed on many broad themes, Hernandez pointed out that children have differing needs. 

    “Of course, you know, science is never settled,” said Hernandez. “What works for one student may not work for another.”

    As the president of the state’s largest teachers union, Goldberg, for his part, noted that any approach that does not center the expertise of teachers is likely to be a non-starter. Teachers must have a seat at the table, he argued.

    “We have had decades of disinvestment in public education,” said Goldberg. “So when we hear educators, when our voice is constantly not listened to … when educators do not feel like their agency is respected, like the fact that we are educating many kids with diverse language needs, all kinds of issues, not the flavor of the month … it has to have deep engagement at the very base level to get educators to buy in.” 

    He is also concerned that the voices of students of color will be overlooked in the debate.

    “As a bilingual educator, how it comes across is that bilingual students, students of color in particular, their needs are always being pushed into silence,” said Goldberg.  “And so I hear what you’re saying, but if these programs have any legitimacy, they must put the needs of the most vulnerable people at the center.”  

    Megan Potente, co-state director of Decoding Dyslexia CA, an advocacy group, suggested that a statewide literacy initiative could be more akin to guardrails than a mandate. Certainly, many other states, including those with substantial bilingual populations, from Florida and Mississippi to Tennessee, have already launched comprehensive state policy reforms to change the way reading is taught, with impressive results. 

    “It’s not about one-size-fits-all because, just like in other states, there would be many choices of reading professional development and instructional programs,” said Potente. “And the choices would be vetted by state experts to ensure that they provide what California kids need to learn.”

    She argues that it’s actually the most vulnerable kids who may have the most to gain from a comprehensive literacy plan. Her organization fought long and hard for dyslexia screening legislation, for example, that only recently passed.

    “It took eight years and four bills to make it happen. We are in this for the long haul because we know that matters,” said Potente, a veteran teacher and the mother of a dyslexic child.  “We talk about structured literacy a lot. … It really needs to be the standard of care. Non-negotiable. Why is it not? That’s really what sticks with me. Why is it so hard to find access to evidence-based instruction that works for all kids? Why?” 





    Source link

  • To improve how California students read, we must get past confusion and misinformation

    To improve how California students read, we must get past confusion and misinformation


    A student holds a flash card with the sight word ‘friend’ during a class at Nystrom Elementary in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in 2022.

    Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

    The “science of reading” confuses and confounds many of us. It’s understandable. There is much misleading and outright false information floating around.

    On one hand, too many science of reading advocates claim an unwarranted degree of certainty, for example, that we know from the science how to get 95% of all students on grade level. Vague and unhelpful definitions make matters worse. I’ve even heard advocates say we should treat all children as if they were dyslexic, a claim for which there is zero evidence.

    On the other hand, science of reading skeptics spread mischaracterizations and outright fictions. An egregious example was a recent California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) webinar intended to “debunk” the brain science behind the science of reading by claiming that a key tool used to study the brain (functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI) could not detect brain activity that involved meaning or comprehension. The world’s foremost reading neuroscientist debunked the would-be debunker by pointing out that 20 years of research have shown that writing and speaking “activate extremely similar brain circuits for meaning.“

    How can we ever make progress when we’re locked in an eternal game of whack-a-false-mole?

    We can all agree learning to read is complicated, and so is the teaching. But there are also a few straightforward and irrefutable findings from research that should constitute the foundations for reading policies. This is particularly important for the students who are most harmed when we fail to use the best knowledge available: low-income students and students who have difficulty learning to read.

    • Learning to speak and understand oral language is fundamentally different from learning to read and write. A first language is typically acquired effortlessly if we’re with people who speak it. Learning to read requires explicit teaching to one degree or another.
    • Oral language is foundational to reading, because reading requires visually accessing the oral language centers in our brains. Our brain is prepared from birth to make sense of what we hear when people talk, but to read we must learn how to see written language (print), connect it to oral language, and then make sense of it. Neuroscientists have identified the transformation of brain centers and the development of neural pathways that enable an individual to connect print to speech and speech to print.
    • Without those connections, literacy is difficult, if not impossible. Foundational literacy skills — usually called “phonics” or “decoding” — are essential for connecting spoken English to written English. Teaching these skills is “nonnegotiable,” and explicit, systematic instruction in how the sounds of the language (“phonemes”) are represented by letters is the approach most likely to lead to individuals’ learning to read.
    • In contrast, “balanced literacy” (sometimes called “3-cueing”) is far less effective and even counterproductive — particularly for students who benefit most from direct and clear instruction — because it does not clearly and systematically teach the necessary reading skills described above. (“Balanced literacy” is a misappropriation of the National Reading Panel’s use of “balanced” to mean phonics instruction balanced with language and comprehension-oriented instruction.)
    • After acquiring decoding skills, word recognition must become automatic. Decoding a word each time it’s encountered is an obstacle to comprehension. Individuals must know and apply spelling (orthographic) rules, including the exceptions, then practice and apply the rules to words they know orally as they encounter words in print. This creates a growing bank of words that are instantly recognizable once readers have connected each word’s sounds, spelling and meaning several times. This is very different from memorizing whole words. Connecting (“binding”) individual sounds to corresponding letters, then to the word’s meaning is critical. Once readers can read words they didn’t already know, reading becomes a way to learn new words.
    • The importance of language development, comprehension, knowledge and other skills is widely acknowledged by those who actually understand the research into how people learn to read. These skills and attributes must be a focus of attention even before reading instruction commences and should continue as children develop foundational literacy skills and throughout their school careers.  (See Scarborough’s iconic “Reading Rope” depicting much more than phonics and decoding, and including background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge.)
    • Language, vocabulary, knowledge and other skills must merge with automatic word recognition skills to produce fluent reading and comprehension, which then must be continuously supported and improved as students progress through school. Continued practice and development of skilled fluent reading is particularly critical for students most dependent on schools for successful literacy development. Neither word recognition nor language comprehension alone is sufficient for successful reading development. Both are essential.
    • All of the above is true for students in general, and especially true for vulnerable populations. Some students require additional consideration. For example, English learners in all-English instruction must receive additional instruction in English language development, such as vocabulary, since they are learning to read in English as they simultaneously learn to speak and understand it. 
    • English learners fortunate enough to be in long-term bilingual programs can become bilingual and biliterate. The processes involved in becoming biliterate are essentially the same in each language: Building on spoken language skills, foundational literacy skills link print to the sounds of the language, then to the oral language centers in the brain. Ongoing development of language, vocabulary, knowledge, and other skills and dispositions is essential for continued biliteracy development, as it is for literacy development in a single language or in any language.

    California has a long way to go if we are to develop useful policies around reading education for every student. All relevant parties, including teachers and parents, must have a voice in formulating such policies.

    But those voices must be well-informed. Misinformation and falsehoods must be eliminated from the conversation, replaced by clear understandings of the best knowledge we have.

    With fewer than half of California’s students — and even fewer English-learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities — able to read at grade level, can we afford to waste another day?

    •••

    Claude Goldenberg is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and a former first grade and junior high teacher.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • A Personal Report to My Friends Who Read the Blog

    A Personal Report to My Friends Who Read the Blog


    I spent this past weekend at my sixty-fifth reunion at Wellesley College. Since I graduated in 1960, I have never missed one. Part of my faithfulness is grounded in nostalgia, in a chance to relive a wonderful part of my life. The four years at Wellesley were transformative, and today my closest friends are classmates.

    The high point of the weekend is the parade of alumnae on the last day. The youngest cohort goes first, marching about 3/4 of a mile from one end of the campus to the center, called Alumnae Hall. As each group reaches its destination, it stops and lines the road. Then along comes the next group of graduates, five years older. Eventually the road is lined with alumnae from different cohorts, with the oldest ones marching last. That was my group, about 50 women in their mid-80s. The group behind us was the class of 1955, mostly 92 years old, riding in antique Fords, Model A.

    1931 Model A Ford

    Since we were the last grads standing, we marched past all the younger groups, and they cheered us vigorously, while we applauded them.

    What was striking was to see the demographic changes over time. Our class was all white, though we did have a few Asian students.

    The classes of 1965 and 1970 had a few nonwhite faces.

    Starting with the graduates of 1975, the numbers of African American, Hispanic, and Asian students noticeably increased. Every class from that point was markedly diverse.

    I have to say it filled me with pride to see how my Alma Mater had changed.

    An example: when I arrived at our lodgings, there were students to help us settle in. A beautiful and vibrant young woman brought my luggage to the room. I asked her where she was from. “Rwanda,” she said. “Do you like Wellesley?” She replied, “I love it!” She is majoring in biochemistry and plans to be a medical doctor and to return to Rwanda. Again, I was proud of how my college was changing the world for the better.

    But there is another personal note that I wanted to share with you.

    In late February, I went for my annual mammogram. The test spotted an anomaly. Several mammograms and a sonogram later, the doctor told me I had breast cancer. In April, I had surgery and the cancer was removed. But the surgeon reported that she didn’t get it all, so I had a second surgery. The pathologist decided that it was all out. None of it was painful.

    But that’s not the end of the story. I start radiation on June 2, which will be five treatments in five days. Then a daily pill, all for the purpose of ensuring that the cancer doesn’t return.

    I am not worried or frightened. I’m taking it all a day at a time, knowing that my case was caught early and that I have excellent doctors.

    Frankly, I am truly worried about my beloved dog Mitzi. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2023, we took her to an oncologist, he put her on a drug that worked, and in June 2024, he declared her cancer-free. But a few weeks ago, we noticed that something bad was happening to her skull. The oncologist said she apparently has a trigeminal nerve sheaf tumor. Her head, on the right side, is noticeably recessed. That is, it’s caved in above her eye.

    I am much more worried about Mitzi than about myself. I will be fine. She won’t be. There is no treatment for her medical problem. So we intend to love her, spoil her, make every day a good day for her.

    I love this sweet dog
    When Mitzi met Martha Stewart in Greenport
    A beauty



    Source link

  • EdSource’s Best of 2024: Our most read stories

    EdSource’s Best of 2024: Our most read stories


    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    In the past year, EdSource has continued to carry out its mission to highlight critical issues in public education across California. As we close out 2024, we look back at the most-read stories of the year as selected by you, our readers.





    Source link

  • The Power of Read Aloud & Come See Us in Denver

    The Power of Read Aloud & Come See Us in Denver


    Reading aloud to students creates the music of text for them…

     

     

    In mid-March we’ll be in Denver leading a workshop on reading.

    The workshop will incorporate content for our new book, The Teach Like a Champion Guide to the Science of Reading.

    One of the themes of the book is bringing the text back into the center of the classroom. When we read together, from a book, during class, often aloud, we can bring the text to life and make the story compelling, we can socialize students to sustain their attention in text, we can practice fluency if students read, and model it if we read to them.

    Check out these beautiful moments of Pritesh Raichura’s science class reading aloud—excerpted from the outstanding Step Lab documentary Great Teaching Unpacked for example.

     

    Or this montage—from the book—of Spencer Davis, Will Beller, Emily DiMatteo, Jo Facer and Rob De Leon reading aloud with their classes.

     

    Read Aloud, then, is a literacy tool that shouldn’t be overlooked, even among older students, we note in The Teach Like a Champion Guide to the Science of Reading.

    Some other key benefits of doing what we see Spencer, Will, Emily, Jo and Rob doing.

    Read Aloud can be an opportunity to share in, relish, and savor the beauty of books—one of the most joyful parts of the students’ and teachers’ day. It is also more critical to building fluency and preparing students to comprehend rich, complex texts than we originally understood.

    A good Read Aloud allows students to access a text well beyond what they can read on their own, enabling them to familiarize themselves with more complex vocabulary, rhythm, and patterns of syntax.

    Read Aloud also has the benefit of speed. A teacher reading a book aloud to students can cover more ground, more quickly, than the students themselves could if they were reading on their own, especially if the text is complex and challenging. In that case, the rate of exposure to key ideas, background knowledge, rare words, and technical vocabulary is accelerated.

    Teacher Read Aloud also provides a model of fluent expressive reading for students. It helps students hear what language sounds like when read aloud with mastery and develop a mental model.

    Developing such a mental model, will not only inform how students read aloud but also how they read silently. One of the core outcomes we seek as reading teachers is a sort of cognitive afterimage in our students when they read silently. We want their internal reading voice to be characterized by expression and prosody that bring the book to life during independent reading, thus enhancing meaning and perhaps pleasure.

    Some details that we love about the clips in the montage.

    • 90/110: Good read aloud is of done at 90% of your natural pace—providing students a bit more room to hear and process the words and information clearly but not so slow as to lose the story—and 110% expression—to build that mental model of expressive meaning making. You can hear that for sure in all of the clips
    • Check for Attention: We want students locked in and listening and often reading aloud themselves. So it’s important that they have texts out and are following along. Quick call and response checks that they are with you can help. Spencer, for example, pauses to say “We were specifically told….” And students respond “not to go past,” proving they are locked in. Rob does something similar
    • Circulate as you read: This lets you get near to students to observe them more closely and interact with them subtly if they need direction. It also somehow makes the reading a bit more dynamic.
    • Feed knowledge: Emily very quickly explains that the phrase “in league” means “teamed up with.” Jo asks students to clarify who ‘her father’ was in Othello’s soliloquy.
    • Shape Attention. It’s often helpful to give students something to “look for” such as “be on the look out for ways in which Squealer is scapegoating Snowball.”

     

    We’ll spend two days “close reading” dozens more videos of teachers in action at the Reading workshop in Denver. Come join us!  Details here: https://teachlikeachampion.org/readingreconsidered/mar2025

     



    Source link

  • How Kids Learn to Read

    How Kids Learn to Read


    How do kids learn to read? Kids learn by explicit, systematic, and cumulative instruction. Structured literacy and the five pillars of literacy help provide students with the best instruction for learning how to read and comprehend.

    Previously we taught kids to read by memorizing numerous sight words and using guessing to read leveled readers. I remember my beanie baby collection of “reading strategies” such as Eagle Eye, Stretchy the snake, and Lips the Fish. While we tried to provide some phonics instruction and word walls for memorization, research has proven these strategies have not effective in helping kids learn to read. Science of Reading research shows how students truly learn to read through a structured literacy approach.

    New Research

    Research over the past five decades have discovered the scientific proof on how students learn to read. Instruction needs to be explicit, systematic, and cumulative. National Reading Panel also identified five pillars of early reading which include, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Simple View of Reading and the Reading Rope came about to better help teachers understand the interconnected strands that effect reading.

    learn to read – How Kids Learn to Read

    Simple View of Reading

    According to the Simple View of Reading graphic, reading has two basic components: word recognition (decoding) and language comprehension. If students are lacking in either of these areas they will not be successful readers. The Simple View of Reading formula was developed by Gough & Tunmer in 1986. This image and formula helps to clarify that phonics is not the only component of reading. Both components are important to become a fluent reader. Therefore, teachers need to provide explicit instruction to support both components.

    learn to read – How Kids Learn to Read

    The Simple View of Reading helps teachers and interventionist identify patterns in reading difficulties in both word recognition and language comprehension. Knowing our learners and their reading patterns helps us identify reading difficulties and where to focus our instruction. The continuum below from The Reading League (2021) depicts three patterns in which there is a weak area that will result in diminished reading comprehension. To identify student strengths and needs, universal screening and diagnostic assessment data must used to inform instruction and intervention.

    learn to read – How Kids Learn to Read

    Scarborough’s Reading Rope

    We can turn to Hollis Scarborough’s Reading Rope as another way to explain Science of Reading and the components of a skilled reader. This rope is a great visual aid to show that each component of reading needs to be explicitly taught and practiced and eventually be woven together to be a fluent reader. Scarborough describes ‘skilled reading” as happening when students are able to read fluently while comprehending it. All components of the rope need to come together to produce a skilled reader. The Reading Rope has two main strands: word recognition and language comprehension. Language comprehension consider of background information, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge. Word Recognition includes phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition.

    learn to read – How Kids Learn to Read

    How does this change our current teaching practices?

    These models and SOR research might affect how you teach the components. In younger grades, it is important to teach many of these components of the two strands in isolation. For example, in primary grades teachers might spend some time teaching phonological awareness, some time teaching decoding (phonics) skills, and some time teaching background knowledge & vocabulary. In later elementary these strands are more woven together as students become more fluent readers. Some ELA programs have separate sections to teach the two different strands while others break the sections into different elements.

    We should be explicating teaching all these components to students and not focusing on one or the other. Science of Reading is not just phonics instruction as many people believe. As the Simple View of Reading equation shows us, if our students are lacking decoding (phonics) skills, they cannot have reading comprehension. If students are amazing at decoding and phonics skills but struggle with language comprehension, background knowledge, vocabulary, etc, they will not be skilled readers either.

    More information Visit Reading Rockets

    Images courtesy of The Reading League – Science of Reading: Defining Guide ebook



    Source link