Literacy & Reading

At a PD by @DTWillingham today. What he's saying is quite disruptive comparative to US norms: curriculum should sequentially build knowledge

@DTWillingham imagine if we put our focus and energy as a school/district towards the study of carefully selected texts & topics.

@DTWillingham it sounds deceptively simple, yet it would overturn nearly every rote process and approach currently relied upon by schools

If we can do this with giant flying sheets of metal, pretty sure we can figure out how to teach all kids to read. It requires a dedication to figuring out why failure occurs when it does, and what we can do systematically to address it. https://x.com/SimonCalder/status/947799731513823232

So I went to each individual state website to see how they label their ESEA mandated 3-8 reading/language arts #assessments.

Here is the list: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11n2BxNjeIOox8KyEcUFopk526yq7dAeeMXO861onIjw/edit?usp=sharing

@AchieveInc @edcommission @ed1stconsulting #testing

This is interesting to me because it's really quite revealing of the confusion in the we have between ELA as a subject and literacy as a set of general skills

ELA as a subject, one would think, would mean much more than just general skills. There's specific knowledge and study of genres, literature and literary techniques, historical epochs and literary canons, critical methods, etc

But because tests are labeled ELA, despite their general nature, literacy then falls under ELA, thus watering down what was once a rich subject

The irony being that our reading scores remain stagnant both on PISA and NAEP because we've completely confused ourselves about what we mean by literacy and thus flub how we teach it.

92% of states refer to their tests as ELA. 12% include the word "literacy"

Thread. Some thoughts on the important new study from Chetty et al. which shows that where a child grows up matters—down to the micro-level https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/upshot/maps-neighborhoods-shape-child-poverty.html @emilymbadger @qdbui

Why? Because if you live on a lower floor, you're exposed to more chronic noise. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-08197-001 Such findings have been replicated for sources like proximity to airports, trains, etc. Growing up with constant exposure to a source of pollution impacts outcomes.

There's a few points from other research to add to Chetty's data: a 1973 study of the Bridge Apartments in the Heights—a quartet of high rises bestride the highway that leads to the GWB—found that literally what floor a child lives on determines reading ability.

As part of my job working with schools, I take buses and walk all across the Bronx, from the East River to Westchester Creek, from Woodstock to University Heights. And it's endlessly fascinating to me just how much of a difference a block can make.

Another area of research, which Chetty et al.'s confirms, is the impact of the historical legacy of a neighborhood. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322679394_Towards_Conceptualizing_and_Empirically_Examining_Legacy_of_Place_An_Exploratory_Consideration_of_Historic_Neighborhood_Characteristics_on_Contemporary_Dropout_Behavior We have to not only look at the present characteristics of a community, but it's past.

There's so many other variables of a neighborhood that have been demonstrated to influence health and learning, such as greenery. A longitudinal study in 2016 found that green space in urban neighborhoods in So Cal reduced aggressive behavior in teens. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27343886

Because the very floor in a particular building that a child is raised in, the particular room in a school where the child is taught how to read, can influence outcomes. It's that specific. Environment and context matters.

So it will be interesting to see how these and other factors are rediscovered in Chetty et al.'s data. Such factors compound, which is why it is so complex. But look first and foremost at quality of life factors. Then look at the history of the building, the block, the zone.

A school can adopt standards-aligned, high quality curriculum for various subjects but remain completely incoherent. Literacy is the responsibility of a whole school. @chingos @Standards_Work @chiefsforchange @mpolikoff @EdReports https://schoolecosystem.org/2018/11/03/supporting-the-development-of-clear-and-coherent-literacy-instruction-in-schools/

I've been spreading the gospel of the Simple View of Reading. Such a useful lens, especially for educators working with students with disabilities. It clarifies how to understand psycho-ed reading information

Knowing the research on repetitive spaced retrieval and self-quizzing has made watching my 2 year old acquire spoken language especially interesting... I'm seeing how he keeps practicing words as he interacts with the world, over and over again.

One problem in the current resurgence of attention on problems w reading instruction: we need to be clear about distinction between skills that can be mastered sequentially (word reading) and knowledge/schema that is complex and cumulative (language).

Self-monitoring for comprehension is different than being unable to efficiently decode words. Word recognition should not be a problem solving strategy. https://x.com/DoctorSam7/status/1163568549299924992

Did you know that NYC stopped testing hearing in 2009? We need to bring them back as a universal screen. Especially given what we now know about the phonological basis for learning to read. https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/what-new-york-city-misses-by-not-doing-hearing-tests-on-students

Big problem with adopting newer "high quality curriculum": gaps in outcomes are increasing. Teachers need further support in how to scaffold more effectively and engage students in a productive struggle. https://t.co/jjDZfiAChB

I finished training on the PAST with an 8th grade self-contained class, and began working with the teacher to try and figure out how to incorporate phonemic practice into core instruction. This will be tough, but here's the good part . . .(thread)

One of the students I administered the PAST to today, after I was ready to move into the testing asked, "Why are we doing this?" I stopped and realized I hadn't been explaining the purpose of this, and that students should know. . . especially 8th grade students

This class, by the way, is presenting with severe reading needs. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. But now we can see the way. Rime word walls. Station or small group work that can incorporate PA drills with fluency work with grade-level text. Ideas? Send em my way!

When we explored the phonological basis of word reading and practiced some examples of phonological instruction, and we began brainstorming together, she said, "it's becoming clearer to me how I can help this class."

He taught me the narrative that I now will preface every PAST with. 1) Explain the purpose and 2) "We're going to play some word games that move from easier to harder, so if you feel like you're getting stuck, that's OK!"

So I gave an executive summary of the phonological basis of word recognition, and explained that we needed to see what help he might need with hearing and speaking of the sounds in words, so he could read more fluently. He then was ready to do the testing.

Correct and accurate D1 and E2, but 0s on D2 and E3. Then a mix of onset-rime, tapering off at basic phoneme level.

Finally got to assess the 6th grade student using the PAST today who was a catalyst for my push to learn and apply Equipped for Reading Success. He follows a pattern at the syllable level of phonemic awareness that I've started to notice, wondering if others have seen it...

How to design daily activities for his teacher/para that can bridge grade-level work and severe foundational remediation. How to remediate for letter-sound proficiency in middle school. The list goes on...

Such a sweet boy, who spoke with me for a while about his struggles with reading. I really want to help him. But I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with everything I need to know that I still don't know...

It's fascinating to watch the reactivity of entrenched speakers, PD organizations, and some educators to a recent resurgence of sci on lfoundational reading. Anyone committed to equity should be talking about how we teach reading in K-2 and how we can effectively intervene 3-12. https://x.com/markseidenberg/status/1203341625998659585

Disability, parenting, socioeconomic status, etc...none of that is an excuse. Decoding can be taught to mastery from K-2 for nearly all but the most rare and severe challenges due to hearing/speech impairment.

It's unacceptable that so many children, most especially in historically underresourced and segregated neighborhoods, are moving through our school systems unable to fluently and accurately decode. Most especially because decoding skills are constrained and achievable.

For all our kids. End rant. I got so worked up jabbing my fingers at my phone for this thread that I sent my phone spinning down the length of the bus. You're welcome.

So the reason so many of us are now focused on calling out fuzzy, ineffective practices K-2 that are not fully aligned to what reading research on decoding has revealed is BECAUSE WE CAN TEACH ALL STUDENTS TO DECODE. And currently, we aren't. We need to know better to do better.

Language comprehension and meaning-- the bailiwick of the current backlash--on the other hand, is much more complex and difficult to get right, requiring linguistically and print rich environments, sustained exposure to schema building curriculum, executive function ability, etc.

It's such a great feeling when you talk with someone who understands literacy but hasn't been introduced to orthographic mapping yet, and you see everything begin to "click" for them. It's not the visual memory--its the phonological memory! Aha!

I was rereading Equipped for Reading Success chapter in word study techniques this morning, and another threshold concept began to clarify for me: the importance of the rime. It's the memory link to spoken language that gets broken in straightforward decoding.

As you head home for the holiday weekend, don't forget the magic of the rime! And no, I'm not referring to hoarfrost. https://schoolecosystem.org/2019/12/20/the-magic-of-the-rime-mapping-sounds-to-letters/ #phonemicawareness #scienceofreading

A1: Throwing a bunch of random passages at students and asking them to practice MC strategies isn't going to magically help them become better readers. Kids need to read and discuss texts that are meaningful to them and that will expand their knowledge and vocabulary. #elachat

I'm beginning to think of The Simple View of Reading in a slightly different way -- I find it helpful to view fluency as the glue between word-level recognition and language comprehension. Thoughts? https://t.co/yGcDX0nrUM

I've gotten into more than few small spats here on Twitter about the nitty gritty of things: what is research-based practice, whether onset-rime is worth teaching, etc. It's all in service of the learning. There's so much more we need to research and figure out in practice.

I've been trying out The PAST phonemic awareness screener and other tools, and sharing pieces of my learning with various small audiences. There's been ups and downs on this journey. It's a tough burden to ask any individual teacher to shoulder, I've found. It's been piecemeal.

I've been on a learning trajectory since that post, reading Louisa Moats, Jeanne Chall, Words Their Way, Alfred Tatum, and many posts and research papers. I've been tapping into the learning of our Universal Literacy coaches, my excellent critical friends here on Twitter....

At the beginning of this school year I wrote about reading, and all the things I've been learning that I didn't know before.

Much in our world has changed since then.

But what we need to do to equip our children to read has not.

https://schoolecosystem.org/2019/08/22/learning-how-kids-learn-to-read/

Please welcome our Bronx ELA Liaisons from District 9. We want to build a shared understanding of the science of reading, culturally responsive teaching, and what can be done within an MTSS model to disrupt and invert the literacy outcomes of our district. #BronxELAchampions

I'm so excited to begin this collective learning journey within my district. We need champions for literacy for our students who are unafraid to confront the data, have a deep love for the communities we serve, and are willing to fight against norms that aren't working for all.

After the shift to remote learning, without the exhaustion of a daily commute on various buses and trains and the time I usually spend in individual schools and classrooms, I've discovered an opportunity to bring teachers in schools across my district together around this.

@MsJasmineMN's response also pushed me to see how making superficial connections to police brutality and racial injustice and coopting Black voices because it's news du jour can be damaging. https://x.com/MsJasmineMN/status/1270086882228043778

This response really got me thinking. I tweeted the original article w/o critical reflection, and I was going to use Hammond's interview myself in an upcoming PD, where I'm trying to link SOR to culturally responsive teaching. I'm rethinking how I want to engage participants https://x.com/Ready4rigor/status/1270194275838341122

I believe strongly that equity work is teaching kids to read, write, and foster critical consciousness about what they read and experience. Trying to bring these threads all together.

@MicheleCaracapp has also got me thinking a lot about how we need to be very careful about how we frame the use of universal screeners and targeted support and instruction. I believe we need to do both -- meet kids where they are, but use that info to scaffold grade-level texts.

Are we considering what students and their families bring to the table and responding to their experiences and knowledge? Are we looking through the remedial lens of a deficit model, or are we planning how we can accelerate learning with grade-level content and expectations?

I view the science of reading as deeply connected to the work of culturally responsive and sustaining education, but there are so many ways that framing of SOR through that lens can go wrong. What texts do we teach? Why?

It never fails to fascinate me that the impulse so many have when a child needs MORE language and literacy is to provide them with FEWER opportunities to engage with meaningful texts.

Instead of giving students less, what if we gave them more? What if we hosted a daily textual and linguistic feast? https://wp.me/pcrIPG-108

This idea that the "science of reading" focuses only on phonics is reductionist and sets up a straw man.

The science of reading includes the understanding that language comprehension is just as important to reading as word-level recognition & decoding.

https://co.chalkbeat.org/2020/12/15/22174706/colorado-emphasis-phonics-reading-hurt-english-language-learners

I definitely get the need to stress that both are important and not to lose sight of that. But the "science of reading" ain't the fall guy here, folks.

It's genuinely frightening to realize that reading is the "easier" ability to teach and acquire than writing.

I am a big proponent of the Simple View of Reading, but one consequence is that it positions phonology as solely related to decoding, when it also relates to oral language development. This may cause unnecessary debates about phonology instruction.

Clearly, they are deeply interrelated, but a narrow focus on phonemic awareness loses sight of the fact that language development at the word, sentence, and discourse levels is ongoing beyond decoding development.

So there's two strands here in working with speech sounds: the speech sounds necessary for morphological, syntactical, and semantic language development and articulation, and the speech sounds necessary for decoding and encoding.

I think the debates that position synthetic phonics proponents against linguistics approaches loses the forest for the trees. This isn't just about efficiency. This is about ensuring all students gain the opportunity to develop linguistic and cognitive flexibility and proficiency

Phonology is not only about developing the abstraction of phonemic awareness necessary for decoding and encoding writing systems. It is also about the ability to hear and speak the sounds of the language. And language ability is far less constrained and linear than decoding.

This internecine fighting about phonics vs. linguistics approaches seems like a waste of energy to me. We're not only developing students' reading abilities in the early years. We're also developing their language abilities -- and that work continues all throughout education.

So: when we teach decoding and encoding, focus first and foremost on phonemic awareness from the start. Makes total sense. But: when we teach oral language (are we teaching this? If we need to ask, that's part of the problem), we need to instruct at different grain sizes.

The more I learn about learning to read and write, the more I see the importance in a concurrent and ongoing stress on language development. https://languageliteracy.blog/2021/03/14/phonology-how-it-relates-to-language-and-literacy/

While reading 'Bear Came Along' tonight, my 4 year old asked about some marshy type of plant in a picture. After I explained what a "marsh" is, he asked, "Is that like where Martians are?" Really cool to see phonological and morphological awareness develop in real-time.

What if the beautiful theory that the brain is not born to read is not quite accurate? What if language development actually is enhanced by writing systems? I'm worried it's just a precious and convenient to theory. I should note it's one of my go-tos, so that's why I'm worried.

We often talk about the challenges of written language, rather than about the enhancements to our thinking and communicative ability that the technology can afford us.

Look, it just needs to be said sometimes as a friendly reminder:

A school can have evidence-based programs in place and get horrific results.

A school can use all the fuzzy stuff and get strong results.

We undervalue execution and coherency and organizational culture.

I'm saying this as much to remind myself, as someone strongly committed to research and evidence. I just have seen too many contradictions in practice.

Leadership and commitment and a shared purpose drives excellence, not just whether something on paper is "aligned" or not.

The reason there is no established morphology scope and sequence is because what morphemes you teach should be based on what words you teach, and the words you teach should be based on the texts you read. . .

"There is no silver bullet, no easy fix, no technological potion that will magically enable all kids to learn the preferred civic, academic, and social wisdom we’d wish them to ingest." Unless, of course, it's decodables and sound walls. (J/king) http://schoolecosystem.org/2021/07/16/what-will-it-take-to-improve-our-schools/

. . . not to mention many higher-level skills such as genre and text structure knowledge, executive function, text comprehension, even pragmatics (how do they choose to communicate in this medium to this audience on this task)?

One of the richest, and often overlooked, sources of information on students is their writing. Taking time to deeply examine their writing as a team can provide guidance on instructional strengths and needs in phonology, orthography, vocabulary, syntax, motor skills. . . .

If you want to know a student well, take the time to read and examine their writing at a word, sentence, and discourse level. As a team. It will tell you things you don't see in any other source of data. In combination with those other sources, it can be very powerful.

The missing link in literacy instruction: More frequent opportunities to connect oral language to written language through interactive read-alouds, peer discussion, and shared writing experiences across disciplines.

If we are talking about language and not talking about literacy; or talking about literacy and not talking about language; or if we are not talking about empirical evidence for either . . . . . . then we are not having the conversation that will improve learning.

How about instead of calling it the "science of reading," we call it the science of language and literacy development? Language and literacy development are reciprocal. So much unnecessary tunnel vision out there dividing the two, when we should be surveying all the evidence.

One of the problems with how we understand decoding vs. language/listening comprehension skills: we position phonological awareness under decoding, when phonological awareness is really oral language-based. Decoding (in English) is based primarily on phonemic awareness.

The root of language, literacy, and numeracy is (arguably) naming. The naming of things and places and people, the naming of letters, the naming of numbers. There is some poetry then, perhaps, in that "RAN" is one of the strongest predictors of reading ability.

In this respect it's similar to assessment of reading and language conprehension, which is also highly complex. But writing is arguably even more difficult to untangle.

OK opening a can of worms, but . . . Let's talk about writing assessments in elementary.

Writing performance draws upon a panoply of underlying skills, and assessment is therefore multifaceted -- you could measure any number of given criteria, much of it subjective.

All of it?

Rubrics, which rubrics, how normed? Comparative judgement, how trained what platform? AI automatic grading? Which vendor, how accurate?

Writing assessment is deep. What do you recommend?

So how do we assess writing in a valid and reliable way and gain useful information that will inform instruction?

Is it spelling? Handwriting and motor control? Is it sentence construction, grammatical accuracy? Paragraphs? Genre knowledge? Analysis of prompt and text? Planning?

First off, why haven't many heard of it yet? And why don't we just call it Speech-Language Impairment (SLI), which is the formal term used for IEPs and services in schools?

It's a rather recent term, not without some debate, that was introduced in 2016 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158753

Today is #DLDAwarenessDay! Here in the US, Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), seems to not yet be widely known or understood.

So let me try to lay down a few reasons why it has caught my attention, in the hope I can bring it to yours.

A 🧵⬇️

What is the definition of DLD?

DLD is "a language problem that endures into middle childhood and beyond and that has a significant impact on social or educational function."

Sounds important, right?

#Dyslexia has been getting a lot of (warranted!) attention over the last couple of years, resulting in legislation and important investments in early screening.

But did you know that up to 50% of those with dyslexia ALSO have DLD, and vice versa? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30458538/

By adopting a unified term, which can be recognized internationally, allows for stronger advocacy. This is important because "the lack of awareness among the general population translates into limited resources for addressing the problem."

Why use the new term?

There hasn't been consensus about terms, and the identification used for SLI has been too narrow. DLD is a broader term, which can include SLI, that allows for a diagnosis alongside co-occuring conditions, such as dyslexia, ADHD... https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2019_PERSP-19-00083

We need to improve identification of this need from the earliest grades, so we can ensure our instructional core address this need, with intensified supports when needed.

Check out the great work of @TrinaDSpencer2 and others on this: http://www.trinastoolbox.com/

We have many children in our classrooms who need our district, school, and teacher leaders to understand that they need supports with language development.

Wait time after questioning, talking slowly, providing concrete scaffolds to accompany verbal information.

And follow leaders in the US and beyond doing advocacy and research on DLD @tiffanyphogan @larchiba6 @SuzAdlof . . . I know I'm forgetting many here, please tag in more leaders!

"The bottom line is that a young reader must use everything he knows to move through a written text, to read it accurately and understand it." No, the bottom line is that word-level accuracy and automaticity must be developed for text-level comprehension. https://fpblog.fountasandpinnell.com/just-to-clarify-faq-blog-series-q2

I am totally on board with turning "the entire education system upside down" for that 20 percent who aren't learning to read. It's way bigger than 20 percent, by the way. https://x.com/EvidentlyR/status/1457857302170509312

I may have just spent almost an hour comparing the English word 'precipitation' against its Arabic equivalent, looking at differences in phonology and morphology. Two great resources: https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/phono/ https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/

To commune with the elders. To reckon with capital. To communicate into a void that returns ourselves in reflected potential, a snapshot of a timelessness in which we can almost see beyond our selves into an accumulating consciousness.

Learning a writing system requires the ability to recognize the compositional and combinatorial parts of words and sentences and genres, and to fluently and flexibly use that awareness to step beyond time and space into the realm of abstraction.

"The evidence is overwhelming that when students learn to read written forms that diverge from their spoken vernacular, this has a profoundly detrimental impact on learning to read"

Is this true -- that it is "overwhelming"?

https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rrq.401 https://t.co/FHb63Lbqkb

"the meta-analysis provides evidence that a more complex relationship between dialect use & literacy exists, one that cannot be explained simply by differences, or mismatches, in speech and print, as suggested by the mismatch/linguistic interference theory."

There is definitely a fair amount of evidence on this, but not sure it's as clear as they claim here. The metaanalysis they cite, for example, makes a more nuanced claim:

I'd also want to dig deeper into how many languages/dialects this effect has been found for. Majority cited appear to be AAVE or Arabic diglossia. Does this finding apply to Chinese dialects and learning to read in Mandarin, for example?

@AndrewWatsonTTB Took on the quest! Some findings above. The quest continues. . .

Reading a 1976 presentation by the Goodmans, "Learning to Read is Natural," and it's a fascinating read to go back to, given that our discussions of reading still go back to such fundamentals (natural vs unnatural, meaning vs. form).

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED155621.pdf

Goodman dpes make solid points about the need for knowledge of language and creating a language rich environment, as well as on the distinctions between oral and written language.

But the problem in his thinking on early reading instruction is drawn out by Posner and Venezky...

The paper is followed by a transcript of a discussion by attending researchers.

In response to a critique by Jeanne Chall, Ken Goodman states, "In what sense can you teach people to read? And the answer ... is that I don't believe you can."

And therein lies the problem.

...when they focus on the importance of the alphabetic principle, in distinction from logographic learning ("reading" signs in their environment). Venezky points out that kids can not deduce the "arbitrary" basics of the alphabetic principle on their own. https://t.co/uTUhMrEG3l

...that the sublexical metalinguistic awareness required for requires explicit and direct instruction for many kids, as it is not a "natural" aspect of language learning. More to dig in to here, I recommend reading both the paper and the discussion that follows.

Goodman replies "Just as children derive their control of phonology from the use of the functional language, they are going to derive their control of the orthography from their use of the functional written language."

The flaw here is that Goodman refuses to acknowledge...

The reason phonics is still being debated today is that the "artificiality" of sublexical units (phonemes & graphemes) strikes all too many as "unnatural," rather than as the awe-inspiring birthright of a remarkable human invention, akin to controlled flame. https://t.co/SMUoYwNnNv

Has anyone studied the potentially differential impacts of a synthetic vs analytic phonics approach for students new to the English language? And if not, why the heck not?

Language and literacy development are on a spectrum from effortless to effortful, with another axis around the individual profile of a child that requires either more explicit instruction or greater opportunities for more independent implicit learning. https://languageliteracy.blog/2022/01/28/a-finale-learning-to-read-and-write-is-a-remarkable-human-feat/

Our goal is to reach optimum encoding of a word across its sounds, spelling, and meaning so that it is anchored in our long-term memory (i.e. fluent, automatic access and retrieval). http://languageliteracy.blog/2022/03/13/an-ontogenesis-model-of-word-learning-in-a-second-language/

We need to stop talking about language as "four modalities."

Communication can be across modalities.

Language is oral. A writing system is a translation of oral language into written form.

Literacy is harder to acquire than language. Reading is NOT equivalent to oracy.

Thinking that reading/writing and oral language are equivalent was the critical misunderstanding of the Goodmans and "whole language"

http://languageliteracy.blog/2022/01/23/the-relation-of-speech-to-reading-and-writing/

For a small number of children, learning to read and write in English is relatively effortless, while for a great many others, it poses a significant challenge . . .

In other words, learning to read and write is something that must be observed, taught, and practiced, just as learning to hit a baseball, ride a bike, or drive a car. Many children need frequent and structured opportunities to practice and develop foundational literacy skills...

Before the technology of writing systems were invented, people had no need to break words into smaller sound parts and recombine them at high speed in our minds.

...(phonemes) and to fluently combine, read, and transcribe those symbols and sound parts into meaningful words, sentences, and texts (decoding, handwriting, spelling, morphology, syntax, and semantics) is a challenge that is relatively new to our species.

...that requires explicit and systematic phonics instruction and sufficient opportunity to apply and consolidate foundational skills through shared reading, spelling, and handwriting activities. Learning to associate written symbols (graphemes) with small parts of spoken language

They engage in small group and individual hands-on activities and centers to discover and learn about their world and make connections to their own funds of knowledge and experiences.

As students learn, practice, and apply their code-based literacy skills, they also listen to their teachers read-aloud complex disciplinary texts and culturally diverse and representative stories and discuss new ideas, concepts, events, perspectives, and vocabulary with peers.

This means that additional time and opportunity to learn is essential for many students, especially for those at risk of dyslexia. Developing proficiency in reading and writing does NOT mean that enriching content and project-based experiences are left to the side.

...as they will not acquire them simply through exposure. Furthermore, the English language has many irregularities in spelling, and our spoken dialects may not match up directly to their ossified written forms.

Through a comprehensive, structured approach to literacy instruction, all students can gain the skills and agency to be critical thinkers, speakers, readers, and writers.

This is why I'm excited about our NYC initiative to support students at risk for dyslexia.

Today my 3 year old came home and shared the word "metamorphosis" from her class study of caterpillars, while my 5 year old shared the word "bioluminescence" from his class study of fireflies. #universalpreK #NYC #knowledge #vocabulary

We all need to stop diminishing and devaluing de/encoding. It's not easy to gain. It's not rote. It does take applied effort over time.

Written language is an amazing feat of our species and every time an individual person gains the ability to read and write, we should celebrate

And when they gain that ability in more than one language . . . exponential celebrations 🎉

A wondering re: multisensory approaches to phonics instruction. Is it possible such approaches can at times add to extraneous cognitive load, rather than reduce it?

I wonder how much this plays into the everpresence of pedagogies in our schools that pretend that kids will gain mastery of all the hard stuff without the discipline and daily effort of practice?

In Hollywood films, the part where the hero or heroine suddenly develops mastery of Kung Fu or something is always a sped up musical interlude. In our culture, we want all the cool benefits without the actual hard work.

Mastery takes disciplined daily effort and practice.

At the same time, we need to hype up the payoffs in gaining those foundational basics. Because once they have that automaticity and fluency, they can jam, they can pick any books they can play with numbers. That's when it gets fun, and that's when lifelong learning becomes real.

Instead, we need to be honest and upfront with our kids that gaining mastery of reading, math, and other disciplinary domains requires a lot of hard work both up front to gain the basics, and for a lifetime to gain mastery.

The "science of reading" has become a loaded term — partly due to how "science" itself may be conceived. http://languageliteracy.blog/2022/08/31/how-you-interpret-the-science-of-reading-depends-on-how-you-think-of-science-part-iii/

It's the pervasive disconnect between what our children are capable of learning and doing and the motley assortment of materials and approaches that are used by so many in our schools.

I deleted an earlier tweet posted in frustration as a parent regarding the curriculum overview presented for his kindergarten class.

I want to be clear here. My issue is not the teacher, nor even the school. https://t.co/DJZjoKBCdJ

Foundational literacy and language skills and disciplinary and world knowledge and experiences should go hand in hand. It's not about having a program for every subject. It's about reading, writing, and talking around shared texts and topics.

My son came home from preK talking about metamorphosis. Now he's saying he doesn't like school and he only wants lunch time and recess.

So as a parent, and as someone who works to support our schools, I'm concerned. Granted, it's just the first full week, so I'll give it time.

So I shouldn't have tweeted in a way that makes it seem like I'm attacking his teacher. It's not about her. It's about a consistent pattern across schools I already well knew that disturbed me and that I have worked to push against that I am now experiencing directly as a parent

Teaching, and leading a school, is extremely hard work, and I don't want what I'm saying misconstrued. We have a lot of hard work to do collectively to ensure we have schools that are both supportive and rich in disciplinary and cross-disciplinary academic learning from Day 1.

There's a tension between multilingual learner advocates and SOR advocates that can be far more exaggerated than it needs to be.

Structured literacy (SOR) provides a great anchor for contrastive analysis, a foundational practice for building cross- and meta-linguistic awareness.

Furthermore, the stress is on explicit instruction of linguistic features, such as morphology and syntax, that are especially important for students learning English as a newer language.

And multicomponent approaches for all who need more supports.

https://www.readingrockets.org/article/structured-literacy-instruction-basics

Structured literacy isn't just about phonics, as it is so often misinterpreted. Approaches that are supportive of MLs--like @GreatCitySchls "3Ls," @ELeducation "language dives," and protocols for oracy--align with a structured literacy approach.

Structuring opportunities for direct instruction and analysis of spoken linguistic features and of how they relate to orthography can benefit all children.

By enhancing those opportunities with connections to students' home languages, MLs can bring their strengths to the table.

PSA: for an older student who comes to the US and speaks a language other than English, putting them on a laptop to do phonics as a default is not serving them well.

Unless there has been significant interrupted or inconsistent formal education, they will bring foundational literacy and advanced language and knowledge in their home language(s).

Instead, ascertain what they bring in their home language. NY state provides the MLS screener. Or provide a prompt, and ask them to write a response in their home language. If they are constructing words, sentences, and passages in their home language, they are fully literate.

Leverage their home language and literacy to make connections to the spoken and written forms of English. No, you aren't teaching them their language: you are inviting them to share their knowledge. But having at minimum basic awareness of their spoken and written language is key

CUNY-NYSIEB has a great overview of cultural and linguistic aspects of different languages in NY state https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NYSLanguageProfiles.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi-j6D0-Yz7AhX2kIkEHb83BY4QFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw0bVH7exrig1O8zJu1Z4fNt

Using contrastive analysis, you can support students in comparing and contrasting their existing knowledge of the phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, and meaning in their home language to English, and teach in to the areas that are most dissimilar.

ASHA also has some great resources on the linguistic features of specific languages and dialects https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/phono/

If they do require systematic instruction in the alphabetic principle, grapheme-phoneme correspondences, and so on, then by all means provide it. Just don't forget that they also need lots of structured discussion and peer interaction and access to texts in multiple modalities..

and in their home language aligned to core content and topics, when and where available, to support connecting to and building upon their existing conceptual knowledge.

I think there can be a place for F&P RRs in individual classrooms, when used judiciously. But not as a universal school-wide tool. It's inefficient, it's subjective, and most importantly, it takes time and focus away from shared content and language rich, grade-level texts.

Keeping the focus on daily high quality content-rich instruction in a school is always a challenge.

So why do we spend so much time doing F&P running records? For what?

To get a "level" that is not grade-level and takes access away from too many to shared content-rich texts.

"If ONLY teachers would do the miscue analysis!" is the common refrain of running record enthusiasts and the administrators who force them upon everyone. How about we don't waste time with an inefficient analysis based on vibes and faulty theory?

The sounds, spellings, parts, and associations of words have just as much to add to the weight of a page as does the overall meaning.

This starts, at the beginning, with disciplined practice with articulating sounds as they are connected to their symbols and scribed into form.

...just the beginning of this journey. Making meaning of a written text is not just about the message of an author. It's about how that message is crafted and delivered, both artfully and by the nature and constraints of concatenations of words in sentences.

Studying the orthography of a language system--how a spoken language is conveyed by an arbitrary set of written symbols--is fascinating and worthy of deep analysis.

Teaching our kids to pay close attention to the sounds in words and how they map into patterns is... 🧵

Learning to decode and encode words in written form is not some lowly, menial task that is to be mostly ignored or denigrated. It is one of the most awe inspiring vehicles of human creation, a skein of oral language that allows us to be transported intimately across time & space

But there is joy and meaning even there. How some letter names in English can bundle multiple sounds, how some letters take especial care to form just right, how sounds can assume multiple patterns like shapeshifting friends.

until they can swiftly and with ease take apart and put back together and rearrange those smallest parts to craft their very own timeless messages to the world.

There is beauty and meaning in phonics and spelling. There is poetry in oral reading practice to build fluency.

So let's honor it as such. Teaching our children to read & write in a language-or even better, in multiple languages-includes careful and critical and diligent and delightful handwriting, spelling, speaking, listening, and collaborative engagement with the smallest parts of words

“I don't think that there were classrooms that…were exciting, and poignant and beautiful, and...getting kids on fire as readers and writers, that were using that that train of thinking.”

Let's get this train back on the tracks.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2022/11/17/sold-a-story-e6-the-reckoning

I find it so confusing that "meaning making" is set apart from "decoding" by so many. The form in which a spoken language is encoded is rich with meaning.

Controversial opinion alert: Morphology and etymology should be viewed and taught as directly and reciprocally related.

The written code is part of meaning. It is an overlay, an enhancement to meaning. It is meaningful. It is worthy of study. It is not a one-size-fits-all to ensure that it is taught well, taught with joy, and taught systematically and explicitly with a shared scope and sequence.

It is our birthright to learn to read and to speak and write and think in the language that allows us to transport our minds and hearts into worlds far beyond that of our everyday lives.

http://languageliteracy.blog/2021/06/05/our-brains-were-not-born-to-read-right/

And it is therefore incumbent on those of us responsible for teaching our children this language to ensure that all of them will be equipped and empowered to do so.

If researchers can claim big learning effects on self-created measures, even when there is no impact on standardized measures . . . . . . well, shouldn't teachers be able to, too?

But these barriers are not barriers because reading is some alien thing being superimposed upon their delicate and fragile brain — they are barriers because of a lack of sufficient and coherent instructional opportunity.

https://languageliteracy.blog/2021/06/05/our-brains-were-not-born-to-read-right/

We need to acknowledge the barriers that prevent children from gaining the powers of written language, and tackle them headfirst.

Can we stop with the games of creating a rubric and then using it to pretend it says anything substantive about a curriculum? What we need are more empirical studies of the impact of curriculum on the academic outcomes and the reported experiences of real students.

Let me reframe this: bipartisan efforts to try to ensure the most disadvantaged children receive high quality instruction keep running into deeply entrenched ideologues who refuse to teach kids literacy coherently and systematically because it doesn't give them fuzzy vibes. https://x.com/alfiekohn/status/1670763796053278720

If we think of language as completely innate, then perhaps we don’t think it requires much of any teaching that is explicit, systematic, or diagnostic. https://languageliteracy.blog/2023/08/12/language-like-reading-may-not-be-innate/

If literacy improvement becomes more about a bunch of disconnected programs, and less about the collaborative planning teams must do to provide clarity, consistency, and coherence across the school, then we're getting lost.

This article on the continued pervasiveness of the discredited discrepancy model for dyslexia identification is important and rightfully getting amplified.

But I wanted to pause for a minute on a paragraph towards the end (screenshot below).

A brief🧵

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-flawed-dyslexia-screen-leaves-thousands-of-kids-without-help/ https://t.co/XuSKwzvdo3

More extensive and voluminous data, in other words, does not necessarily equate to better targeted instructional support or intervention. The idea of neuropsychs for all may be alluring but misguided both in terms of time and cost and in terms of scalability of impact

As a former SPED teacher and IEP coordinator, I loved receiving extensive neuropsychs on kids. I love data. Yet at the same time, making the connection to a specific instructional program or support that my school or class could provide each day was not a clear nor direct task.

There's a tension between a cost-benefit of the depth and extend of diagnostic assessment and its utility for gaining targeted instruction that is glossed over here. There's an assumption that having an extensive 'neuropsych' for more children will better ensure targeted support.

These reflect the measures used by screeners like DIBELS and Acadience. While there is still some work needing to be done to translate that data into targeted instruction, it is much more immediate and actionable -- and that is what is needed to prevent later reading challenges..

Look back at that last sentence I highlighted in that paragraph -- I think the scalable--and already happening here and nationally--solution lies there. There are efficiently administered and more cost effective assessments available for identifying specific literacy needs.

...rather than merely labeling them.

These are the shifts we can make more immediately to get more kids what they need. When we can move more directly from screening (identification of needs) to progress monitoring (targeting specific needs), then we will see impact.

Teaching decoding and encoding of sounds to letters is always in service to comprehension. Why the heck do u think we do it?! People are so weird about foundational skills, I swear.

We must practice with precision if we are to extend our abilities beyond that of everyday functioning and communication. Our context and environment does not necessarily lend itself to such practice unless we have guidance. https://languageandliteracy.blog/thinking-inside-and-outside-of-language

Maybe we need to shift from the simple explicit vs implicit learning dichotomy to "are sufficient structured opportunities for learning being provided"?

What I'm suggesting here is that precision on those distinctions may be less useful than whether students can have enough opportunities to be exposed to and practice with the target learning. Explicitly teaching a vocab word is not very helpful in isolation...

...while implicit learning of vocabulary and concepts across multiple texts can be incredibly powerful. It's more about whether the learning is designed and planned for in a manner that will provide those repeated opportunities over time in connection to a topic or discipline...

...and less about any given explicit or implicitness in one component or one lesson.

Don't think this gets the proper attention. We STILL need a strong base of literacy and knowledge in order to wield these cool new AI tools. Just like we did with Google search and all the other stuff before them. https://x.com/mandercorn/status/1751299301181985093

Like reading, using language drives increasing specialization of our brain—and this specialization, in turn, drives greater cognitive ability and communicative reach. https://languageandliteracy.blog/language-like-reading-may-not-be-innate

When language is more formalized, more abstract, and more removed from the immediate context of interaction with our physical world, it requires more explicit teaching and guidance. https://languageandliteracy.blog/the-inner-scaffold-for-language-and-literacy

The challenge of the English cipher: 26 letters map ~44 phonemes in a quasi-regular manner, with spellings and morphemes amalgamated from Anglo Saxon, Latin, and Greek origins. The nature of this cipher means not all can be taught directly. https://languageandliteracy.blog/what-does-it-take-to-internalize-the-cipher

So why do we call learning to read unnatural?

Yes, it developed farther down the evolutionary line.

But what we probably are getting at is that it takes more effort to learn.

That doesn't make it unnatural. It just makes it not immediately and easily available to all.

Here's the thing that's kind of funny about calling learning to read "unnatural":

We humans invented the technology of writing. We could put a trademark on it.

We also pretty much have spearheaded the advancements in language, though we share traits of it with other species.

Yet that very notion of "accessibility" is culturally determined.

We can teach all our kids to read, if we truly believe it is essential to all.

So stop pretending learning to read is some alien imposition.

Learning to read should be more properly viewed as our birthright.

Stated another way: if learning to read is unnatural, then the human species is unnatural.

New post! LLMs have demonstrated that implicit learning of statistical associations are fundamental not only to language and to reading, but to our knowledge and experience of the world. https://languageandliteracy.blog/llms-statistical-learning-and-explicit-teaching