Very thoughtful, important article Matt. The research is clear that oral fluency in the early grades aligns highly with comprehension, but not so for upper elementary readers who may be low in fluency and still comprehend well. We are always teaching readers, each of whom are unique in their strengths, interests, and needs..
Hi Regie, thanks for commenting. I appreciate the confirmation that oral fluency aligns with comprehension, plus your important reminder that we are always teaching readers.
I found Duke's and Cartwright's article on the active view of reading to be helpful for me in understanding fluency as a "bridge between word recognition and comprehension".
My concern is that ORF is used as a high stakes outcome for determining whether or not a student is deemed as "struggling", even at early grades. It feels like a step backward in our profession. Does it communicate to families and students that reading is this simple process that can be evaluated and then addressed with simple responses? That would seem to serve the companies that produce these simple resources.
This is why I appreciate the latest work by Duke and Cartwright. It offers a mental model that represents a more accurate representation of how to teach readers. If SVR and the Reading Rope were successfully conveying what is happening when students become readers, then why are we seeing updates to these theories? Because they are models that work for *some* kids - likely neurotypical and culturally homogeneous - but not the kids who need more flexible and responsive instruction.
Matt, I agree with all your concerns. I appreciate that you highlight the significance of the excellent Duke and Cartwright article and the flexible, human, active, mental model the authors present and recommend. There is also the important and award-winning research by Valencia and Buly (2004) which found, among other things, that kids who "struggle" as readers struggle for different reasons and, therefore, require different solutions and support. An active view of reading is a necessity.
An active and interactive view of reading considers the reader who is doing the reading--background knowledge, engagement, interest, strengths, needs, motivation, and more. As well, instruction and assessment are responsive to the reader, including up-and-coming-readers, to be considered valid and useful. We also need to be sure parents get that message and are not sidelined by the current overemphasis on phonics and "one size fits all."
Thanks Joy. I appreciate the speakers at the Wisconsin State Reading Conference who shared vital information and expertise with colleagues. They give me the support and knowledge to write here with confidence.
As a teacher currently being mandated to teach CKLA with fidelity, I ask myself every day if what I am being forced to do is really what is best for kids. Will it really give us the results the district is hoping for? For a teacher who has always been responsive to student needs, cultivating pivots and lessons in real-time, this has been a tough pill to swallow. I'm trying my best to use engagement strategies, but when you're given extremely intense and dense things you have to do in a certain amount of time daily, you still feel like your hands are tied. Funny thing with ORF, in our grade 4 manuals, they indicate the use of ORF materials as optional, which means there isn't any time embedded in our 90 minute mandated ELA instruction, which makes it extremely tricky to fit into our WIN time, which is the only time students have to read their own self-selected books and the only time for me to do focused intervention time for math and reading. On a positive note, I was able to observe a kindergarten CKLA lesson and saw some really good things - - I just hope its not at the cost of losing other valuable kindergarten experiences.
Thanks Michelle for sharing your experience, especially as a classroom teacher impacted by these changes. It's hard when our values are not aligned with system expectations. Very wise to observe other classrooms and see how they are making this work for kids.
Very thoughtful, important article Matt. The research is clear that oral fluency in the early grades aligns highly with comprehension, but not so for upper elementary readers who may be low in fluency and still comprehend well. We are always teaching readers, each of whom are unique in their strengths, interests, and needs..
Hi Regie, thanks for commenting. I appreciate the confirmation that oral fluency aligns with comprehension, plus your important reminder that we are always teaching readers.
I found Duke's and Cartwright's article on the active view of reading to be helpful for me in understanding fluency as a "bridge between word recognition and comprehension".
https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/rrq.411
My concern is that ORF is used as a high stakes outcome for determining whether or not a student is deemed as "struggling", even at early grades. It feels like a step backward in our profession. Does it communicate to families and students that reading is this simple process that can be evaluated and then addressed with simple responses? That would seem to serve the companies that produce these simple resources.
This is why I appreciate the latest work by Duke and Cartwright. It offers a mental model that represents a more accurate representation of how to teach readers. If SVR and the Reading Rope were successfully conveying what is happening when students become readers, then why are we seeing updates to these theories? Because they are models that work for *some* kids - likely neurotypical and culturally homogeneous - but not the kids who need more flexible and responsive instruction.
Matt, I agree with all your concerns. I appreciate that you highlight the significance of the excellent Duke and Cartwright article and the flexible, human, active, mental model the authors present and recommend. There is also the important and award-winning research by Valencia and Buly (2004) which found, among other things, that kids who "struggle" as readers struggle for different reasons and, therefore, require different solutions and support. An active view of reading is a necessity.
An active and interactive view of reading considers the reader who is doing the reading--background knowledge, engagement, interest, strengths, needs, motivation, and more. As well, instruction and assessment are responsive to the reader, including up-and-coming-readers, to be considered valid and useful. We also need to be sure parents get that message and are not sidelined by the current overemphasis on phonics and "one size fits all."
Thanks Regie, important that you note that we consider the reader who is doing the reading.
Hi Matt,
In my humble opinion, this is one of your best articles and needs to be shared widely!!
You have very succinctly summarized the most important issues facing both readers and educators at this time!!
Thank you!!!
I will share it with my FB, BlueSky and Threads people.
Thanks Joy. I appreciate the speakers at the Wisconsin State Reading Conference who shared vital information and expertise with colleagues. They give me the support and knowledge to write here with confidence.
Its excellent!!!
Are you on BlueSky?
I just shared it there and on FB.
Nvm. I follow you there 🙄
As a teacher currently being mandated to teach CKLA with fidelity, I ask myself every day if what I am being forced to do is really what is best for kids. Will it really give us the results the district is hoping for? For a teacher who has always been responsive to student needs, cultivating pivots and lessons in real-time, this has been a tough pill to swallow. I'm trying my best to use engagement strategies, but when you're given extremely intense and dense things you have to do in a certain amount of time daily, you still feel like your hands are tied. Funny thing with ORF, in our grade 4 manuals, they indicate the use of ORF materials as optional, which means there isn't any time embedded in our 90 minute mandated ELA instruction, which makes it extremely tricky to fit into our WIN time, which is the only time students have to read their own self-selected books and the only time for me to do focused intervention time for math and reading. On a positive note, I was able to observe a kindergarten CKLA lesson and saw some really good things - - I just hope its not at the cost of losing other valuable kindergarten experiences.
Thanks Michelle for sharing your experience, especially as a classroom teacher impacted by these changes. It's hard when our values are not aligned with system expectations. Very wise to observe other classrooms and see how they are making this work for kids.