goldberry Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) So the school my daughter teaches at just cut the middle school science classes, because the reading scores are so poor. Where there used to be science classes they are doing reading intervention classes. They just decided this over winter break and one week into the new semester. So all these kids that had one week of science then got told the second week they would be doing reading interventions and not science. They gave my daughter, a science teacher, a pile of materials and said here you go, with zero notice. I understand there's definitely a reading crisis with this group that went through elementary during COVID. But this is not the smart way to address it. The kids are miserable and angry, and the teachers have no experience with what they are being asked to teach, and being given materials at the last minute. Many of them are looking for other jobs. Edited January 23 by goldberry 1 28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 Oh I forgot to mention, they did get a one day training, taught by a second grade teacher with the methods she uses...ON SECOND GRADERS. My daughter is approaching 11 and 12-year-olds with the book Harry the Woodchuck. (Or something similar I don't remember the exact title.) You can't tell me there aren't curriculums for older readers that are behind?? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scholastica Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Oh my gosh! This sounds doomed from the start. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madteaparty Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Whereas my school district is doing high school bio in 8th (with the grade going on the high school transcript). Same for algebra in 8th. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartstrings Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 32 minutes ago, goldberry said: Oh I forgot to mention, they did get a one day training, taught by a second grade teacher with the methods she uses...ON SECOND GRADERS. My daughter is approaching 11 and 12-year-olds with the book Harry the Woodchuck. (Or something similar I don't remember the exact title.) You can't tell me there aren't curriculums for older readers that are behind?? This part really gets me. Realistically, if these kids are 8th graders, they were 4th or 5th grade when Covid happened and 4th graders should be able to read. If they weren’t reading before Covid, presumably the methods used by the k-2 teachers weren’t working in the first place. So why learn how to teach reading from the 2nd grade teacher? Edited January 23 by Heartstrings 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terabith Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Not to mention that once you can decode words, the biggest issue for reading comprehension is background knowledge and vocabulary, which science class would be far more helpful with than almost any reading comprehension intervention. Now, if they have a bunch of kids who can't decode and they trained the teachers on Barton, that might be worthwhile. But the majority of the time when I see reading intervention, it's code for stupid reading comprehension exercises. 17 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmandaVT Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 27 minutes ago, Terabith said: Not to mention that once you can decode words, the biggest issue for reading comprehension is background knowledge and vocabulary, which science class would be far more helpful with than almost any reading comprehension intervention. Exactly - our district has terrible reading (and math, for that matter) scores, and one of the schools has changed science and social studies to essentially ELA classes through the lens of science and social studies. So they read and write just about those subjects. It seems to be working out well so far based on the mid year benchmark assessments we're finishing up this week! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 It's probably a violation of the state education code to NOT have science. And if they've taken away special skills classes, which provide planning time, a violation of the teacher contracts as well. Not to mention that it's counterproductive because content area reading is...reading! Applied math is...math! Every subject builds and applies material from every other. I once wrote a letter to the editor pointing exactly that out after a school had been profiled in the local paper for doing exactly that-assiging every teacher and para in the school to teach reading for half the day and math for half the day. Which meant test prep and practice tests and focused skills. The next day, I was in class and the principal called me to the office. I was sure I was going to be fired. He met me at the door and said "I just wanted to thank you for saying publicly what I've been saying in administrator meetings for months!!" 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Do they have to use the crap they were given? ElizabethB's reading lessons would work better. http://www.thephonicspage.org/Phonics Lsns/phonicslsnslinks.html Not sure if she has a secular version, but it's easy enough to secularise. (If that's a word.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I guess they don't understand that a huge part of reading ability once decoding skills are in place is background knowledge. Science is a huge part of that. So they are actually holding kids back in reading by withholding science (and other content areas). 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, goldberry said: Oh I forgot to mention, they did get a one day training, taught by a second grade teacher with the methods she uses...ON SECOND GRADERS. My daughter is approaching 11 and 12-year-olds with the book Harry the Woodchuck. (Or something similar I don't remember the exact title.) You can't tell me there aren't curriculums for older readers that are behind?? https://highnoonbooks.academictherapy.com These books are often recommended for older readers in need of easier reading materials due to dyslexia etc Could be worth a look if she has any funding. I have to be honest, I would rather kids get reading sorted than the full curriculum having seen what happens to older kids where that doesn’t happen, but they need to manage it much better. If the kids can at least decode I’d work on comprehension texts that cover science topics (there’s heaps in TPT). If they need decoding practice that’s what they’re going to need to focus on for a while. Edited January 23 by Ausmumof3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 The other thing is I know a lot of reading intervention people are using AI to generate decidable texts now. I wonder if it would work to give it a prompt to create a text with information about a specific science topic only using words with xyz sounds? She would have to proofread as it is error prone and sometimes uses stuff outside the parameters but it might be a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said: https://highnoonbooks.academictherapy.com These books are often recommended for older readers in need of easier reading materials due to dyslexia etc Could be worth a look if she has any funding. I have to be honest, I would rather kids get reading sorted than the full curriculum having seen what happens to older kids where that doesn’t happen, but they need to manage it much better. If the kids can at least decode I’d work on comprehension texts that cover science topics (there’s heaps in TPT). If they need decoding practice that’s what they’re going to need to focus on for a while. She has no funding or choices. Her degree is biology with secondary education. She has no experience or education for teaching reading/phonics/decoding etc. Other teachers are in the same boat. I agree they need to address it but I don't think dropping science and using unskilled teachers at the last minute is the answer. Edited January 23 by goldberry 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, goldberry said: She has no funding or choices. Her degree is biology with secondary education. She has no experience or education for teaching reading/phonics/decoding etc. Other teachers are in the same boat. I agree they need to address it but I don't think dropping science and using unskilled teachers at the last minute is the answer. I am seeing a lot of secondary English teachers complaining about this as well - they are being expected to teach basic reading and writing skills and don’t have the training to do it. Then primary teachers chime in and say they also don’t have the training to do it and had to teach themselves! I just finished my Ed Support qualification and mostly it was about legal stuff and behavioural management - one out of 24 or so units was on actual teaching. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartstrings Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 24 minutes ago, goldberry said: She has no funding or choices. Her degree is biology with secondary education. She has no experience or education for teaching reading/phonics/decoding etc. Other teachers are in the same boat. She shouldn’t have to and its a dumb idea from the district, but realistically she can learn quickly. Plenty of homeschool moms have no experience but we read a book or two, follow a decent guide and teach our kids. If she wants to she can read Understanding the Logic of English, the book not the curriculum. That’s a quick Saturday read that will refresh her phonics knowledge. Then she can get something easy like Webster’s Syllabary (which is free and public domain) to work through on the board. Even just a few exercises a day in addition to whatever they give her could yield tremendous results, if the issue is decoding, which it probably is to a certain extent. Get AI to generate reading pyramids, or from TPT. Edited January 23 by Heartstrings 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalmia Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 10 minutes ago, Heartstrings said: She shouldn’t have to and its a dumb idea from the district, but realistically she can learn quickly. Plenty of homeschool moms have no experience but we read a book or two, follow a decent guide and teach our kids. If she wants to she can read Understanding the Logic of English, the book not the curriculum. That’s a quick Saturday read that will refresh her phonics knowledge. Then she can get something easy like Webster’s Syllabary (which is free and public domain) to work through on the board. Even just a few exercises a day in addition to whatever they give her could yield tremendous results, if the issue is decoding, which it probably is to a certain extent. Get AI to generate reading pyramids, or from TPT. Lots of homeschoolers use only 15 minutes a day, every day, to drill phonics and spelling rules and often teach reading through spelling (which would be less insulting to middle schoolers) then that leaves the rest of the class time for her to have the kids read science books, so she won't have to be totally depressed that no science is happening. Science literacy is useful too! I agree with getting her the Understanding the Logic of English book: https://www.amazon.com/Uncovering-Logic-English-Common-Sense-Approach/dp/1936706210/ref=sr_1_1?crid=WI8E0PVA74ZD&keywords=Understanding+the+logic+of+english&qid=1705983354&sprefix=understanding+the+logic+of+english%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-1 Denise Eide also has free teacher training series on Youtube: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusyMom5 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 My concern is how bored will the kids who can read be? I would suggest leveled groups according to Phonics decoding skills. Paper Pie (Usborne) books has a Beginners Science series that are very easy for lower readers. They are also internet linked with activities, videos, etc. The Young Beginners are easy enough my 1st grader can read them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocolate-chip chooky Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Literacy is vital, clearly, but am I understanding correctly that this school has thrown science out the window for every student, regardless of their literacy skills? If so, what does this mean for the science education of these students for the rest of their schooling? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookbard Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 It seems a bizarre thing to happen, but if she's unlikely to leave her job, I'd encourage her to embrace it in order to broaden her skills. If she's going to be teaching permanently, she's going to come across non-readers throughout her career. People have given some great suggestions above about doing 15mins of phonics per lesson and following it up with easy reading science material. I would also suggest, if she is likely to be interested, to read The Writing Revolution. I wouldn't follow it 100% but it was developed for older kids with reading and writing problems and gives some good ideas about ways to improve writing across the curriculum, including in science. NB when I had my first teaching job, I was instructed NOT to teach my students to read, even though most of them could not read. I taught these kids to read 'secretly' and these were older kids with significant intellectual disabilities (around 70 IQ). It is possible to balance out what the superiors want from you and what the kids need from you - it just takes planning and research. Easier nowadays with the internet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faith-manor Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 It would be a violation of Michigan law. Science must be taught at that level. If literacy is that savagely low, the school should be encouraging science teachers to read the text aloud, themselves, or other books on scientific topics, and then encourage learning through experience by lab projects which can be completed with oral guidance/directions from the teacher. The answer in a nation already experiencing ridiculous widespread inability to understand basic scientific principles is to NOT eliminate the subject and especially so at a time when kids could be really getting into it and enjoying it. I am just gobsmacked by some of the decisions pointy headed education administrators make! 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Ugh. I hate things like this. School isn't working, kids aren't on level, so to compensate, they make school more dour, less fun. It's a neverending cycle. I feel like we see it with homeschoolers too where a parent pares down school to the essentials and then does it again and then again until they're just badgering their kid over writing and math every day. And the solution is -- ironically! -- to do more school, more enrichment, more random stuff to engage them and ease off a bit on the core skills. And I think the same thing is true with schooled students. But it's so long term that there's no way to defend that type of approach. And that's the other thing. If we could all go, okay, Covid set every kid back, but whatever, life is long, we just need to be patient, meet them where they are, and they'll catch up, then it would be mostly fine. But instead it's a crisis. They can't back up and teach what they need -- they have to push forward forward forward. They can't adjust the tests. And the ironic result is kids who can never catch up and are stigmatized, etc. Like the whole idea that the pandemic set all the kids back so far is a crisis that's like 90% of our own making. We all know that if you take two years and just unschool and then start back up again and meet your kid where they are, that they mostly catch up. But if you unschool for a couple of years and then try to make your kid suddenly do math they've never seen and shame them for not knowing it, that you'll screw everything up. And yet, that's what schools basically have done. 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephanier.1765 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 14 hours ago, goldberry said: Oh I forgot to mention, they did get a one day training, taught by a second grade teacher with the methods she uses...ON SECOND GRADERS. My daughter is approaching 11 and 12-year-olds with the book Harry the Woodchuck. (Or something similar I don't remember the exact title.) You can't tell me there aren't curriculums for older readers that are behind?? Other than the fact that sounds like an outrageously bad idea, it's too bad she has no agency over how she goes amount this reading intervention. At least if she could use reading materials containing science or about scientist, then at least the kids would be getting something scientific. And then use some of their time to pull out science materials related to their reading. Kids might be happier if they were reading and then doing vs just reading Harry the Woodchuck. But seriously, how are we to raise future scientist without teaching them science. This is crazy! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I guess I'd stock up on science-themed books and make the best of it. Reading, discussing, writing, following written directions to do an experiment etc. Keep some physical science activities up in the back of the room for kids to play with when they finish their LA practice. Looking at what my kids did for science (and social studies) through grade 8, very little subject matter was really learned. They would usually get through 1-2 chapters of the textbook, which went over the same stuff every year (basics of what is science). Honestly, it was a waste of time. It seemed to get a little better in middle school, but not much. If my kids learned science in K-8, it was from summer camps, home activities, and museum visits. So, while I'm sure your daughter is a great science teacher, I can understand why people would think it wasn't that big of a loss to temporarily ditch it in favor of reading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 The problem with reading instruction in schools, setting aside the whole language versus phonics issue, is that they offload the majority of the practice kids need to non-school hours. And poor readers aren't going to want to read if they're not forced to. So, if they come from families that are able to support the practice they need, they will probably do fine, but if they don't then they're out of luck. If schools truly want to help struggling readers they will find a way for every kid to have 20-30 minutes of supervised practice reading aloud (to someone who can correct their mistakes) every single day. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 It isn't violating any state laws here. They only test English and Math in middle school. So science and social studies were the two classes up on the chopping block. Supposedly science took the hit because the schedule happened to work better. The sad part is the kids had two weeks of "let's get ready for science!" and then suddenly bam, reading intervention. They were NOT happy. DD was given a curriculum that she is having to follow pretty closely without other options. She is by nature super-excited about science, she is struggling to generate enthusiasm for this really poor curriculum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 So, would it be crazy to, I don't know, do reading intervention during, say...language arts??? Then, maybe if most kids are behind in reading you could simply ALTER the science curiculum to be video based and have kids doing oral responses instead of written, if need be. That way they are still learning the concepts and getting background knowledge. But you know, that would be crazy. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 Just now, ktgrok said: So, would it be crazy to, I don't know, do reading intervention during, say...language arts??? Then, maybe if most kids are behind in reading you could simply ALTER the science curiculum to be video based and have kids doing oral responses instead of written, if need be. That way they are still learning the concepts and getting background knowledge. But you know, that would be crazy. EXACTLY! Supposedly they didn't want to take away any ELA because the state tests on that subject. Uhhh... but how far are they getting there with poor reading skills? It was never about the kids, just the testing. Too many schools are going straight up to a "test prep" model rather than true teaching. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ausmumof3 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, goldberry said: EXACTLY! Supposedly they didn't want to take away any ELA because the state tests on that subject. Uhhh... but how far are they getting there with poor reading skills? It was never about the kids, just the testing. Too many schools are going straight up to a "test prep" model rather than true teaching. This seems like a bit of a paradox. Testing generates data so in theory we can see what’s working. So it’s more of a science-based approach. But you can’t effectively measure all outcomes on standardised tests so the data means we modify to only teach what can be measured easily. Ironic that in a sense a “science-based” approach to teaching is resulting in dropping science 🙄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.