Thank you for this well written article. I agree 100% with all of your points.
In my career, I worked for two districts in Northern Virginia and I now work for a wonderful state university, supervising elementary student teachers.
Northern VA is “off the rails” in its push for SOR materials. Three counties I work closely with have “thrown out” all DRA materials, Lucy Calkins materials and Guided Reading materials as proposed by Jan Richardson. This has me heartbroken. I am unsure at this point which materials each county will adopt, although one is using HMH. The emphasis is on scripted direct phonics instruction for early readers and writers. As a former Reading Recovery teacher, Literacy Coach and Professional Development Specialist, this emphasis also breaks my heart. How did it happen that “anyone” thinks we weren’t teaching phonics?! All teachers know readers need to have phonemic awareness and understand and apply phonics to read and write! Many SOR proponents which is connected to HG, are proposing scripted, one program fits all approach to teaching literacy.
I wrote this to ask what you are seeing with early literacy in your state and, of course, to express my dismay.
It's unfortunate the pendulum continues to swing, now in the name of "science". What's next?
What I am seeing is inconsistency in phonics instruction/phonemic awareness within schools. I also believe that many people who identify as adhering to the science of reading do have good intentions. But this should be such as small shift curriculum-wise - we're talking 15-20 minutes tops, and hopefully embedded in authentic contexts whenever possible.
Our state (WI) is very local-control, so all that can provided are incentives to engage in SOR-centered professional development. I think in a couple of years there will be a "new" demand for integrating rich texts with skills and strategies via responsive teaching due to the increase in wordcallers but lack of readers.
Hi Matt,
Thank you for this well written article. I agree 100% with all of your points.
In my career, I worked for two districts in Northern Virginia and I now work for a wonderful state university, supervising elementary student teachers.
Northern VA is “off the rails” in its push for SOR materials. Three counties I work closely with have “thrown out” all DRA materials, Lucy Calkins materials and Guided Reading materials as proposed by Jan Richardson. This has me heartbroken. I am unsure at this point which materials each county will adopt, although one is using HMH. The emphasis is on scripted direct phonics instruction for early readers and writers. As a former Reading Recovery teacher, Literacy Coach and Professional Development Specialist, this emphasis also breaks my heart. How did it happen that “anyone” thinks we weren’t teaching phonics?! All teachers know readers need to have phonemic awareness and understand and apply phonics to read and write! Many SOR proponents which is connected to HG, are proposing scripted, one program fits all approach to teaching literacy.
I wrote this to ask what you are seeing with early literacy in your state and, of course, to express my dismay.
Thank you, again!
Joy
Hi Joy,
It's unfortunate the pendulum continues to swing, now in the name of "science". What's next?
What I am seeing is inconsistency in phonics instruction/phonemic awareness within schools. I also believe that many people who identify as adhering to the science of reading do have good intentions. But this should be such as small shift curriculum-wise - we're talking 15-20 minutes tops, and hopefully embedded in authentic contexts whenever possible.
Our state (WI) is very local-control, so all that can provided are incentives to engage in SOR-centered professional development. I think in a couple of years there will be a "new" demand for integrating rich texts with skills and strategies via responsive teaching due to the increase in wordcallers but lack of readers.
-Matt