Shocking News . . . CT has decided that one needs training to teach reading!

[jeri]

And I've never been trained! What do my three children do there every day with books in their hands??? I feel like an utter fool to have thought that I, without any training whatsoever, could have taught them this skill!

 

Part of an article called New Teachers Take the Test which explains how "teachers will have to prove they know how to teach reading on a test [before they can teach]."

 

<<Many things can be taught by someone who just knows how to do them, she said, but not reading.

 

"That may be true for riding a bicycle, that may be true for driving a car," said Gillis, a senior scientist at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven. "Unfortunately, reading is not that. It's so complex that it requires knowledge of language."

 

Research suggests that effectively teaching reading requires knowing how to break down a language system and explain the pieces to children, she said. "We're not adequately training teachers to do this very important job," she said. "I don't think we've recognized fully how difficult a job it is.">>

 

 

jeri

wondering how she will teach addition with no real training <sigh>

[pmegan]

I dunno, I don't think this is so different than what the book WTM says when it suggests which reading curriculum to purchase. I think most adults don't really think about how they read because it gets to be second nature, and it can be difficult to teach the mechanics to a non-reader who is having trouble "getting it." Remember that some kids require more help than others when they're learning to read. Not to mention that teachers in PS aren't teaching one non-reader: they're teaching 20-30 (or more) at a time.

[In The Great White North]

Hmm. They used to teach EVERYONE to break it down. Check out the Blue Backed Speller or an 1800's grammar book.

 

What I find laughable is that they think anyone learns this in the process of getting a teacher's degree. I certainly didn't.

[Danestress]

until I trained myself by reading WTM and some of the resources they recommended. I'm sure I would have managed to teach my children anyway, but with a lot more 'error' in the "trial and error."

 

I also think that teaching in a classroom is much different from teaching one child at a time, and honestly if my child were enrolled in a classroom situation, I would be happy to know that the teacher had received training in teaching children to read rather than just assuming she could wing it.

[Parabola]

WTM also says (and repeats and repeats) that teaching reading is easy.

 

I agree with that. I don't think you need extra training for it at all. You don't even need books like OGP or 100EZL...you can do with a pencil and paper.

[In The Great White North]

I also think that teaching in a classroom is much different from teaching one child at a time, and honestly if my child were enrolled in a classroom situation, I would be happy to know that the teacher had received training in teaching children to read rather than just assuming she could wing it.

 

Why would you assume the teacher had?:confused:

[Just a Jen in Mississippi]

Hmm. They used to teach EVERYONE to break it down. Check out the Blue Backed Speller or an 1800's grammar book.

 

What I find laughable is that they think anyone learns this in the process of getting a teacher's degree. I certainly didn't.

 

I have an elementary education degree and I didn't learn the first thing about teaching reading. Nothing, nadda. What I've learned about reading if from teaching my own children how to read.

[Susan in IL]

<<Many things can be taught by someone who just knows how to do them, she said, but not reading.

 

"That may be true for riding a bicycle, that may be true for driving a car," said Gillis, a senior scientist at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven. "Unfortunately, reading is not that. It's so complex that it requires knowledge of language."

 

Research suggests that effectively teaching reading requires knowing how to break down a language system and explain the pieces to children, she said. "We're not adequately training teachers to do this very important job," she said. "I don't think we've recognized fully how difficult a job it is.">>

 

He hadn't been trained in teaching either but taught himself how to read. I didn't have anything to do with it, he just started reading on his own and he not a gifted child in any way. He knew how to break down the language system all by himself. So complex a 4 year old can figure it out?

[HSMom2One]

I started reading to my dd when she was a baby. Every single night we read together from a huge, growing stack of books. She loved language immediately. When she was four years old she shocked me by starting to read the books to me. I checked very carefully to make sure she had not just memorized the stories...but she really did know how to read them! I had never deliberately taught her, yet she cracked the code on her own and was reading way before she started kindergarten. The teachers in ps (where she attended k-2) would sometimes have her read to her fellow students during story time, or even be a reading buddy to a younger student.

 

I wonder what the state of CT would say to that?

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[pmegan]

I started reading to my dd when she was a baby. Every single night we read together from a huge, growing stack of books. She loved language immediately. When she was four years old she shocked me by starting to read the books to me. I checked very carefully to make sure she had not just memorized the stories...but she really did know how to read them! I had never deliberately taught her, yet she cracked the code on her own and was reading way before she started kindergarten. The teachers in ps (where she attended k-2) would sometimes have her read to her fellow students during story time, or even be a reading buddy to a younger student.

 

I wonder what the state of CT would say to that?

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

 

He hadn't been trained in teaching either but taught himself how to read. I didn't have anything to do with it, he just started reading on his own and he not a gifted child in any way. He knew how to break down the language system all by himself. So complex a 4 year old can figure it out?

 

So because both of you had very smart children who picked up a skill without being taught, that should be a universal experience? There are no children that have trouble learning to read, and need an adult's help? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but surely you realize that your childrens' ease in learning how to read is not universally shared?

[Parrothead]

So because both of you had very smart children who picked up a skill without being taught, that should be a universal experience? There are no children that have trouble learning to read, and need an adult's help? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but surely you realize that your childrens' ease in learning how to read is not universally shared?

I think they they were trying to point out that the state of CT would have a hard time testing kids for teaching competency that learn to read on their own.

 

Butting back out now.

[Nestof3]

Good grief. She's really making herself look ignorant! People were reading for centuries before the "reading specialists" came along.

 

I taught both my younger boys to read. They are 6 and 8, and they read aloud almost every day to me and read for one hour on their own before going to sleep.

 

All I used was AlphaPhonics and Leap Frog DVDs. Yes, I used materials to teach my sons how to read, but I didn't have to take a course to learn how to do this. If it hadn't gone well, I would have sought out other methods/resources.

 

More than anything, I think it has been the loving environment, the fact that I read to my children, and the fact that I communicate with my children.

 

Don't you just want to invite this lady over for some tea and a wake-up call?:smash:

[HSMom2One]

Good grief. She's really making herself look ignorant! People were reading for centuries before the "reading specialists" came along.

 

I taught both my younger boys to read. They are 6 and 8, and they read aloud almost every day to me and read for one hour on their own before going to sleep.

 

All I used was AlphaPhonics and Leap Frog DVDs. Yes, I used materials to teach my sons how to read, but I didn't have to take a course to learn how to do this. If it hadn't gone well, I would have sought out other methods/resources.

 

More than anything, I think it has been the loving environment, the fact that I read to my children, and the fact that I communicate with my children.

 

Don't you just want to invite this lady over for some tea and a wake-up call?:smash:

 

Thank you.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it's easier for some kids than others. My eldest was reading fluently by 4 and I had just used refrigerator magnets at that point. My son has been a little bit slower in the reading department but he's more advanced in math.

 

I just felt a little bit of animosity in some posts. I definitely don't think teaching kids to read is a skill that is hard to learn.

[Deidre in GA]

the way we can teach our children to read in the home is vastly different than what one teacher in a classroom of 15 or more children needs to do. i used a number of resources to teach myself how to teach my son to read. i read to him every night from the time he was 3 months old until he was 12 but i doubt he would have cracked the code on his own. some kids do; some need help.

 

if one choses to ask the government to educate their child, i am glad said government recognizes that the teacher needs to learn how to do this for a classroom full of children. think of the love of learning damage possible if someone mucks it up badly.

[Catherine]

wrong. When we teach our children, we use a recommended curriculum, teach them one on one, and go at the pace that makes sense. When teachers teach, they are handling an entire class of children, who are probably not all moving at the same pace, and with a curriculum that may or may not meet the needs of any given child very well. Given that, a good knowledge of the language would be much more important, because they are given such little time with each child, and they need to quickly assess the child's progress-if they are even able to do that. It's simply not comparable to how we teach.

[In The Great White North]

Part of an article called New Teachers Take the Test which explains how "teachers will have to prove they know how to teach reading on a test [before they can teach]."

 

 

This implies that CT is planning on testing teachers on a method of teaching reading, not on the knowledge of the language itself.

 

The effect will be to emphasize a particular method or

a curriculum that may or may not meet the needs of any given child very well.

 

It will not assess classroom management or how well they teach reading (whether it is 15 students or one), merely how well they know all the current methodology buzzwords.

[Night Elf]

My guess is that they are trying to explain the problems in schools. I'm sure they would love for it to be such an easy fix as training in one subject. Lots of training isn't going to help a child read faster if they are not yet developmentally ready to do so. The school system labels the child as being 'slow' and unresponsive to teaching. The student's file is passed around. Any teacher or admin can look at that file and perpetuate that label continually making the child feel bad. Once the child really feels 'slow' or any number of other really unfortunate labels, they believe it and stop trying.

 

I think one great fix for schools to change the compulsory law and begin students at age 10, at the very least. They can have prep type schools before hand, but nothing that labels the child for not being on par with everyone else. I'm absolutely stunned at the knowledge we have of child development and yet very few people actually put it into practice.

[Eleni]

WTM also says (and repeats and repeats) that teaching reading is easy.

 

I agree with that. I don't think you need extra training for it at all. You don't even need books like OGP or 100EZL...you can do with a pencil and paper.

 

 

I completely agree. I struggled for awhile trying to teach my son to read and was stressing out that he was 7 and unable to read. I thought I was doing it wrong, and I just stopped trying.

 

Guess what happened?

 

HE took the initiative and taught HIMSELF to read and would ask me when he got stuck. It was so amazing to watch him bloom like that...and I had nothing to do with it. LOL!

 

I have come to agree that reading is not difficult....I taught myself to read when I was 3.

 

What I find so ridiculous about states making these laws about homeschooling, is that they first should look at the dismal results coming out of their schools. Is 75% reading proficiency in high school an ok thing??? How about a 60% graduation rate?? :glare:

[angela in ohio]

Dh did much of his graduate work on reading instruction. There are many, many studies on this, and they overwhelmingly agree: For some children, it doesn't matter if anyone teaches them to read, they will be able to teach themselves up to a basic level on their own or with a parent's or teacher's efforts of any sort. But for the children who do not learn to read that easily, it is critical that a systematic program be used.

 

A parent can find this in a scripted curriculum. Teachers can be well-trained or also use a scripted program.

 

Unfortunately, the NEA fights this type of training and the scripted programs, and many children continue to suffer. Meanwhile, teacher colleges teach many PC things, but not how to teach a child how to read. The state makes attempts to fix the situation, but their hands are tied by these two problems and so their efforts seem futile.

[Amy in NY]

Rather, right now CT is one of the few states that has NO homeschooling reporting requirements. NONE. As someone who lives in the land of high regulation, I am envious. How long do you all think it will be before someone in the Gov't there attenpts to make a similar requirement of the homeschooling parents because it's too hard for the average person to teach a child to read?

[Susan in IL]

So because both of you had very smart children who picked up a skill without being taught, that should be a universal experience? There are no children that have trouble learning to read, and need an adult's help? I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but surely you realize that your childrens' ease in learning how to read is not universally shared?

 

Sorry, I was being a bit sarcastic. I surely did not mean that all kids should be able to do that, just like all are not ready for algebra in 7th grade. I should have also clarified that he is a very auditory learner which may have contributed to him being able to break down the language. My older one, a visual learner, was taught whole language with no phonics instruction (the disaster that led to "Why Johnny Can't Read") and didn't start reading fluently until 3rd grade.

[Nestof3]

How long do you all think it will be before someone in the Gov't there attenpts to make a similar requirement of the homeschooling parents because it's too hard for the average person to teach a child to read?

 

Yes, this is the sort of question that pops into my head. Some of the homeschooling laws already show that there is little understanding of the homeschool life. # of hour requirements? # of teaching days requirements?

 

And the lowering of compulsory attendence

 

(which comes from pressure to have taxpayer funded daycare at an earlier age and also pressure to get "at-risk" children where they should be because their own parents don't interact and teach anything to their own children)

 

affects homeschoolers. I want my little ones to be little ones for a while. Sure, I teach them from the day they are born, but I don't want to have to document what I teach to my 4 year old. I don't want to bother with testing them. I just want to be able to be a mom for a few years. I think kids need that.

 

Can you imagine SOLs for 4 year olds? 3 year olds? Where will they stop?

 

And how many of these decision-makers have every read a book on child development? educational philosophies?

[Myrtle]

And I've never been trained! What do my three children do there every day with books in their hands??? I feel like an utter fool to have thought that I, without any training whatsoever, could have taught them this skill!

 

Part of an article called New Teachers Take the Test which explains how "teachers will have to prove they know how to teach reading on a test [before they can teach]."

 

<<Many things can be taught by someone who just knows how to do them, she said, but not reading.

 

"That may be true for riding a bicycle, that may be true for driving a car," said Gillis, a senior scientist at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven. "Unfortunately, reading is not that. It's so complex that it requires knowledge of language."

 

Research suggests that effectively teaching reading requires knowing how to break down a language system and explain the pieces to children, she said. "We're not adequately training teachers to do this very important job," she said. "I don't think we've recognized fully how difficult a job it is.">>

 

 

jeri

wondering how she will teach addition with no real training <sigh>

 

While I can see how one can interpret this quote to mean that they want all sorts of fancy expensive training programs, at the same time it can also be interpreted to mean that public school teachers should have some very basic knowledge about phonics.

 

A 22 year old with no kids who has never taught anyone to read and can't remember how she herself learned probably does need a quick primer at some point in her teacher training. I certainly would expect anyone being paid 30-40 K of public money their first year on the job to understand that knowing the names of the letters of the alphabet doesn't have a direct connection to sounding out the sounds of the letters in a word, that a six year old isn't going to guess how to pronounce or say "Dr. Maharashtra" from a picture clue, or that there is more to motivating a child to read than worksheets and word walls.

 

I didn't have the knowledge I needed to teach my dyslexic son to read, but I quickly fixed that by getting a $15 book from the bookstore written by someone who did have that knowledge. I was more motivated than that childless college grad in figuring out how to get him to read because I was the one that was going to have to support him when he was 18 and illiterate.

 

As for the politics of homeschooling parents and public school teachers being held to the same standard: Rather than having homeschooling parents pass tests meant for those teaching large groups, the teachers, administrators, and publishers should sign an agreement to have the illiterate students move in with them when they turn 18.

[Michelle in MO]

because both my brother and I learned to read at early ages. I don't know whether or not we were that bright, or if we were just "natural readers" (if that's the term), but I do remember my parents reading a lot to us and somehow we just picked it up.

 

I do realize training is important, but I don't believe it's necessary in order to properly teach reading. There are many good programs out there: Sing, Spell, Read & Write works for some; 100 Easy Lessons; Phonics Pathways; and other methods. But, teaching reading is something parents have been doing for literally centuries, and I would imagine they should be able to continue that. That doesn't eliminate the need for intervention, in some cases, and the parents going through training or looking for specialists.

[Kathy in MD]

Dh did much of his graduate work on reading instruction. Their are many, many studies on this, and they overwhelmingly agree: For some children, it doesn't matter if anyone teaches them to read, they will be able to teach themselves up to a basic level on their own or with a parents or teacher's efforts of any sort. But for the children who do not learn to read that easily, it is critical that a systematic program be used.

 

A parent can find this in a scripted curriculum. Teachers can be well-trained or also use a scripted program.

 

 

 

May I add a third level of children's reading ability? That is one for the children with physical problems which make it difficult or impossible to read. All too often the signs are unknown to the average parent or teacher (or even doctor) and these children are often labeled as careless or lazy. I would love for all teachers to be taught the signs of these problems (generally language or developmental vision based). The reading manuals parents use also should include the signs to look for if the child isn't progressing steadily.

 

I have a child who once couldn't wait to read that now hates it. His teacher didn't see that his inability to make the leap from individual words to lines of text was because of a physical problem. Unfortunately his is not an isolated case.

[Mamagistra]

I certainly would expect anyone being paid 30-40 K of public money their first year on the job to understand that knowing the names of the letters of the alphabet doesn't have a direct connection to sounding out the sounds of the letters in a word, that a six year old isn't going to guess how to pronounce or say "Dr. Maharashtra" from a picture clue, or that there is more to motivating a child to read than worksheets and word walls.

 

Yep. :iagree:

[Mommy22alyns]

I'm sorry, I actually had to laugh out loud at that! :glare:

 

My mom had no formal training, only a high school diploma. But she taught me how to read before I entered kindergarten.

 

I have no formal training, only a high school diploma. Becca is a very fluent reader for her age. I have every confidence in my ability to teach Sylvia how to read as well.

 

I know that I'm lucky, because the girls are natural readers. But still - I really don't think that special training is needed to teach reading.

[jeri]

I tried to link the whole article and couldn't--guess I'm technically illiterate, LOL. Anyway, I was just bemused by the haughty comment of "Many things can be taught by someone who just knows how to do them," she said, "but not reading. "That may be true for riding a bicycle, that may be true for driving a car," said Gillis, a senior scientist at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven. "Unfortunately, reading is not that. It's so complex that it requires knowledge of language."

 

Yes, I know that some children have more difficulty with reading than others and I know that some kids teach themselves to read at age 2. But I was taken aback by this comment that implied that only a select few (those who have been "trained" by the state of CT) can possibly understand how to teach someone to read! And if that doesn't smack of elitism, I don't know what does!

 

In addition, to explain that teaching reading actually requires knowledge of language is banal. Of course one needs to know about language to teach reading! But other than the left to right eye movement and the sounds of letters and letter combinations, I'm not sure what else is needed! Yes, I *know* some children have difficulties processing sounds, reversing letters, etc. But for the average child, what knowledge of language is really necessary? Do they need to know Latin roots? How dialects play into the English language? Grammar?

 

To go back to her bicycle riding example, that's sort of like my countering and saying that riding is very difficult to learn to do on one's own! After all, one should understand the dynamics of balance, the equation for torque-ratios, and be able to change a tire.

 

Fortunately, CT is a state with very little, actually no, reporting requirements. So I can just continue with Phonics Pathways with my next three!

 

Enjoying the conversations!

 

Jeri

[mommaduck]

It bothers me on another level: not all people are able to learn to crack the code of reading by the same method. That is obvious by those that have simply picked it up and started reading young, those that learned through traditional phonics and structured program, and the methods that dyslexics have used to learn as their minds don't break things down using the typical methods.

 

So to show "competency" in a method with no thought to context and variables, is either ignorance, an excuse, or a weak attempt.