Teaching students to be successful readers begins early. We recognize this, and in response will be placing additional emphasis on reading intervention in the primary grades. We also know that many great programs already exist across the province.
We invite you to read our new A Focus on Reading discussion paper to learn more. We also invite you to provide feedback below. Brenda Lightburn, a well known and respected educator and reading specialist from School District 75, will be working with us to help respond to your comments.
Geoff Johnson, a retired superintendent, has a great op-ed piece in the Times Colonist this morning about the importance of early reading intervention. Geoff is optimistic that our new strategy will improve results for struggling readers in the primary grades.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Emphasis+early+reading+skills+welcome/7396105/story.html
Comments?
I think it totally miss the mark! I am very suspicious of articles about reading coming from people who have not taught for decades as a superintendent! Superintendents read a lot of books and because they have a title makes us think that they know a whole lot! As I have repeatedly stated you can keep throwing more money into making kids learn to read (memorize all of those irregular patterns and their exceptions)or come to your senses and reform the English spelling system so that it is –at least– more regular! Of course, THAT would be toooooooooooo hard! Kids, adults are so lazy!
I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments, but from what I understand of the educational system in Finland (and it seems the BC Superintendents just love to mention Finland these days) is better reading outcomes are a product of starting later, not earlier, especially for boys. As I understand it, in Finland, reading instruction does not begin until age 6 or 7, and that country has a 99% literacy rate.
On what basis are we deciding that kids will benefit from earlier and earlier reading instruction?
Interesting comment! However, it is important to understand the context. First, what “they” will not tell you or are not smart enough to get is that Finland has 2 linguistic population: Swedish-speaking and Finnish-speaking. The former comes from a higher socio-economic background, while the latter is comprised of the middle and lower classes. On PISA tests, countries can drill down for these kinds of groupings. Amazingly, the Swedish-speaking kids, who come from better educated backgrounds, have access to tutors,… does not do as well as the lower status Finnish-speaking kids in literacy (I cannot remember if this is across the board in other subject areas). Regardless, both groups are taught by the same kind of system that train teachers in the same manner, who are –apart from the language they use– following the same curriculum. We would expect the higher socio-economic group to do better. It turns out that Finnish (as explained thoroughly on my website) is a much easier (phonetic/phonemic) language and Swedish, not as much. This is one important element indicating that learning phonemic languages contributes to a better educated population. Sure, there are other factors that might help: teacher training, education budgets,… Incidentally, while Canadian students do well on PISA tests, “they” do not tell you how much more money is needed to educate a Canadian student compare to a Finn? (I argue, it is much more!) “They” do not tell you that when English-speaking kids are tested after Grade 1, they are the last in language acquisition (across all Commonwealth countries) compare to all other Western languages. “They” do not tell you either the extra time and effort needed to learn (usually memorize) and teach English spelling (or less, in the case of Finnish). In the case of Canada, I think the system is already excellent (training for teachers,… equal the training for Finn teachers,…). The only major difference is the language. Commonwealth teachers and students have a lead bowl attached to their ankle and the Finns have a natural advantage which allows them to take the lead. (Notice the word “lead’ which is pronounced differently! Is this the reason why we have “leders”?)) It is my opinion that improving the regularity of the spellikng system (at the very least) would prove a way better way to improve literacy and outcomes. All this is explained in detail and much more thoroughly on my website. Search for my name. Apparently, mentioning this website is deemed unacceptable.
I meet students who cannot read well every day in my role as a tutor for adults, and in my other role as tutor for learning disabled children. The worst comment I hear from various parents and TAs is that parents are to blame for not teaching their kids to read at home, and I am always disappointed that teachers are now trying to get the parents to do what they have been supposedly trained and paid to do. I learned to read at school, and my wonderful parents had no time to devote to helping me learn.
I also meet many children who read like they are dyslexic until they are given specific phonics instruction. I see lights go on as they realize that reading is not a guessing game. This is the value of direct teaching.
The constructivist theory of learning has left too many students wondering what they are supposed to know. I believe that the lack of direct teaching is a basic problem in today’s education system.
Brenda, You have not replied to any comments related to a reform of the English spelling system, yet the research on my blog (Google reforming-english as the Engage system is blocking the use of the direct link) is clear: the English spelling system is incredibly irregular: 91 spelling rules compare to an average of 50 for other Western languages), 3700 common words out of 7000 that do not follow those rules, thousands and thousands of “schwa” phonemes that are not transcribed as such, to list just some of the worst problems that English has. In contrast, Finnish’s spelling system is very simple: all letters or combination of letters are pronounced as they are written and can be written reliably when heard. English has not been reformed in 400 years, but many other languages have (and they didn’t have the same issues that English had and have, as the table on my website shows, a much higher degree of “phonemicity”. While Canadian students do well on PISA tests, they only tests 15 y. o. after 10 or so years of schooling has passed which allows the system to compensate by increasing resources and time spent on literacy (kids in Finland start school at age 7, BTW). Research shows that English speaking 6 or 7 year olds cannot read as well as other students from Western countries. Research also shows that it takes a lot more resources and money to achieve those Canadian levels on PISA tests (much more than Finnish schools). In view of the preponderance of evidence, why are you not looking at talking to other jurisdictions and attempt to regularize the English spelling for the next generation of students, say, the 2020 group, to allow the system to plan for the change? This phased-in approach will not force anyone who is currently literate to learn a new code. It will take 15 to 20 years to complete. There is no risk involved, but the production of an easier spelling system that would make learning to read and learning to write much faster and much reliable than any other changes in methodology could produce. BTW, we know that the Finnish language does affect positively outcomes as the Swedish population in Finland (even thought they come from better educated groups of people) doesn’t do as well as their Finnish-speaking Finns! All this info is on my website, all referenced. I look forward to an answer.
Having just found out abuot the latest government initiative on reading, I popped back onto this site after a lengthy absence. What struck me was that while over 200 comments are posted (many of a very combative and off-topic nature), I could only find one, yes one, teacher’s comment on ESL students. I have just spent the first week of school as an LST/ELL specialist pouring over lists of students and finding the names of those who need special intervention. My particular interest is ELL students. 50% of our current school population is currently coded for ELL; of the remaining 50%, half of these are “exit-level ELL, meaning 5 years of “service” have expired. By the way, this does not mean that all exit level ELL students have reached proficiency or full fluency in academic English. They are essentially on their own unless the situation warrants continued LST service. The implications are serious. Not every child “acquires” full English skill in 5 years. This has been documented by brilliant people like UBC’s Lee Gunderson, OISE’s Jim Cummins and many others. We have several new arrivals in our school who speak no English YET. They happen to be in the primary grades. I am sure this well meaning program will have them reciting sight words, letters of the alphabet, and “reading” before they know it. I am constantly thunderstruck by the well-meaning ideas of “literacy” experts who do not take into consideration the fact that reading is a follow up activity to SPEAKING! A child who cannot communicate orally in English has no other pressing priority than to learn to speak and understand spoken English. Decoding something in a foreign language because you know the code is useless until you know the code that the text represents. Reading is secondary. Sounding out words you do not understand is ridiculous, as I constantly encounter when testing new children from countries in which memorized decoding is considered to be the same as reading with comprehension. I could be taught the Punjabi or Cyrillic or maybe, with hard work, even the Chinese writing system, but until I know the words represented by the text, no one would consider me a literate reader in those societies. For goodness sake, when will all these new initiatives finally recognize the process by which our many, many, many ELL kids in this province from Kindergarten up to highschool learn their new language?? When will the government, including the federal level, recognize the language and cultural issues these children come with and fund their assistance services properly, and stop creating programs where their existence in this school system is systematically glossed over, as if they hardly even matter? Thanks for listening, I hope.
So, everyone has to change, to improve, to progress because there is always room for improvement, right? If this is so, then it seems logical that changing, improving the spelling system so that it is easier to learn and to teach is right TOO! SO, why don’t you have all of those leaders asking ALSO to have the spelling system improved? Why are they so adamant in asking kids and teachers to improve their ways to learn and teach respectively this highly irregular system when they could just as easily be just as adamant in asking to change and improve the system which is in need of an improvement, as stated by linguists like Dr. Noam Chomsky, Dr. Yule, Dr. Betts, G. B. Shaw, Mark Twain, Carnegie, Webster, and many, many others. ASK: “Why are they asking everyone to improve, but they don’t ask the spelling system to?” Take a look for yourself at the evidence at http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/ and demand a change. If they need to improve, why doesn’t the language? A 12 year, phased-in program in-school can be done if our leaders really wanted progress or is progress only for kids and teachers? Or is that too much work for THEM?
I hear the frustration with English, but there are several problems with changing the English language. First, there are many librairies full of books written in standard English that would become undecipherable to the reader of the ‘new’ English. Since English changed in a major way last time, the printing press standardized the forms, and books began to be printed in this standard. Second, language can change gradually over time, if it is one that has been “regularized” like French. But English has always resisted these rules of regularization (Benjamin Franklin tried to with his changing -our to -or), and readily accepts any new words from foreign languages and allows new meanings to enter the dictionaries without having to pass through a regulatory body. Thirdly, as English is taught around the world to every people group, it would be unfair to suddenly “regularize” English and make all their learning irrelevant.
Finally, English is not as strange as it seems to people who are convinced that it is. The Whole Language methodolgy has tried to convince people that English grammar and spelling is too difficult to learn, so it must be memorized, but that is not true. People are much smarter than that and can figure out all the anomalies with a little bit of teaching and learning. Millions have done it well. Changing the English language would only add complexity to an already complex situation.
Thank you for your comments! You raise some interesting points, which are discussed in the link I gave.
I am suggesting (as he explanation under the blog title delineate) a in-school, phased-in approach that would last 12 years and that would start in 2020. People who are literate today would go to libraries like they are now and the “new” children books (at first) would be slowly phased in, although I suspect e-readers will become ubiquitous in libraries and will be capable to handle both types of books. This will be a win-win situation for current and newer readers.
On your second point, French (and I suspect many other languages) commonly accepts foreign words just like English, but as stated in my blog the “regulators” transform the way they are written to adhere to the orthography of the language. English did not! When William came, the new words got to be spelled like they would be in Normans or French (this is why you have several ways of writing sounds in English: oo, ou, u_e, u,… because ou, for instance is how the oo sound is written). English has 2 sets of orthography (and more) like it has 2 sets of words, one derive from Latin/Norman lexicon and one from the Anglo-Saxons lexicon (comprehend and understand), among others. There is duplication and that is part of the issue. It does not need to be. The oo sound (phoneme) could easily be represented by one or two different ways (preferably with one), so that there is a one-to-on correspondence. Why 10 or 15 ways to represent one sound? Imagine an efficient system: a simple and fast way to learn so that more important concepts can be learned. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Again, I am not suggesting that anyone who can read will have to learn the new code!
As far as the issue of the English language being dispersed around the world, again my blog states it at the start a reform would take 12 years starting 2020: 8 years to prepare new teachers from all countries for it and time for the older teachers to retire.
While it is true that many people can master reading and spelling in English to a satisfactory level, literacy rates for the people who speak English in Commonwealth countries is low, even in countries like in Canada when governments try to increase literacy rates by allotting more time in the classroom to learning English spelling, by spending a whole lot more money and resources (more teachers,… more taxes). Learning English is an exercise in memorization. The ones who read a lot and have a good memory will do well. The ones who are looking for patterns, good luck! They do exist, but like it is stated in my b log, there are often more exceptions than there are words that follow the rule, so why bother! I invite to read my blog. It is long. Unlike many education leaders with or without PhDs, I do have a degree linguistics. Many people who are behind this reform do have PhDs, if it matters. My blog is digest of the best evidence (and there is a lot of evidence), indicating that regularizing English orthography would be beneficial not only for new learners, but for the taxpayers who are footing the bill of extra teachers, time, tutoring lessons,… to learn an ill-designed and contrived system that children must spend a lot of time learning and teachers, a lot of time teaching. How efficient and progressive is that? It took me a long time to write my blog and I guarantee that it explains things thoroughly, precisely, and clearly better than I could here in just a few words. http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/
I am correcting a sentence above that I did not finish:
“[...] because ou, for instance is how the oo sound is written)… in French[: chou, genou, vous,... So, either accept the Anglo-Saxon way (oo) or the Latin/Norman way (ou) or another way (u_e, u, or ...). I explain in my blog how several academics have ruled which way would make more sense, BTW (read fixes) in my blog].”
As you are trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, may I suggest that you do the only sensible thing and have all the education ministers of the Commonwealth meet to regularize the English orthography! Some of you might not know that English has the worst spelling system of all European languages and the research shows a strong correlation between lack of :phonemicity” and reading difficulties. This language is a mess and you are asking kids and teachers to learn and teach it. FIX the language, not the kids, not the teachers, not the programs. Fix the language! Many languages have had reforms. English hasn’t had a worthy reform (Samuel Johnson made a mess of it) in 400 years! Do you know anything that has not been reformed in 400 years? 91 spelling rules! 4000 irregular spellings! 1/2 of the common words grade 1 must learn do not follow any rules! Even “English” is misspelled! “The” is misspelled! “are” is misspelled! The kids are not disabled, the language is!
I forgot to substantiate the aforementioned claims: http://reforming-english.blogspot.ca/
I would also like to add my applaud to the Ministry of Education for trying to improve the Literacy of our students.
I have been in the trenches on the front line of assisting troubled learners for the past 33 years or so as a Resource Teacher. I have also worked in the regular classroom at the Elementary level. I am retired but on call. I loved my job because of the success when a light-bulb went on for my students as they learned to read. I would like to add my success formula for increasing our Literacy rate to those that have been mentioned thus far. But first I would like to make a very serious recommendation:
-throughout my career I have offered to take on Student Teachers into my Resource Centre so that they could be prepared to go into a Student Services position at schools. However, the Universities do not place Student Teachers into Student Services positions. There is a shortage of trained and experienced teachers to take on the role of reading specialists in schools today. Mentorship programs help but if the Universities could offer Student Teacher Practicums to teachers that are interested in school level Student Services, the Learning Assistance, Resource programs in this province would have much more consisent and experienced teachers to fill these vital positions. If I were the Minister of Education, I would do whatever is in my power, to have the Universities allow interested Student Teachers to take their practicums in the Resource Centres of experienced teachers.
Now on to what I recommend how to improve our Literacy rate. This is “The How To” that has worked very successfully for me. I hope this is the “nitty-gritty” of what some participants of this forum have complained was missing. It is a combination of Early Identification, Early Intervention, whole word and phonetic decoding, utlizing exciting books that children love to read, and experiential learning. This model could be utilized with other practices as well, such as the DSBONE model that Toni Stewart talks about. But if the DSBONE model cannot be implemented, the following practice can be utilized in any form of Student Services.
The actual method that has worked for me as a Resource Teacher, assisting those students that struggle with learning to read is a combination of learning phonetic components for decoding words, learning whole words, using experiential learning, and using those wonderful levelled books that have come into practice over the past few years.
Early Identification (Or Identification at the higher grades): Using the DRA or PM Benchmarks level tests, students are easily identified as being at risk for becoming or being a struggling reader. Students who are not minimally meeting their grade level reading level, are candidates for receiving intervention. (The K-TEA II test is less time consuming to administer at the higher grade levels than the DRA at Grade 4 and higher although it is an excellent test.)
Once identified as possibly being at risk for reading difficulties, students are checked for their knowledge of whole word recogntion and phonetic decoding strategies. The Schonel Word Recognition test is relatively quick and easy to administer. The first 100 Dolch words are also a good start for whole word recognition.
For determining the level of phonetic awareness I have devised a Test of Phonetic Analysis (similar to the Reading Readiness test of long ago) which I would administer to each child to determine which components have not yet been learned in order to reach the level of reading the child should be at. The phonetic components for each grade level follow:
1. Kindergarten (and any grade school non-reader): By March of the K. year, (and at any time for students in higher grades) the students should be able to recognize most of the letter names and sounds as well as print them. If there are students who do not recognize the letter names and letter sounds, these students should receive Early Intervention for the next 3 months before Gr. One. Along with the phonemic awareness, knowledge of whole words should be checked at this time. I know that K. teachers do a lot of reading to their students so the students are exposed to whole words. By March K. students should have several whole words they can recognize, depending on the subjects taught and the experience the children have. However, should some of the K. students not have acquired any whole words by March, they should also receive Early Intervention by the Learning Assistant teacher for the next three months.
Grade One (And any non-reader): Grade Ones and higher, who are not minimally meeting their grade level reading level need to have intervention. Those students who have not learned their letter names and sounds in addition to acquiring several whole words for reading recognition should be flagged to receive Early Intervention. Also, students who are reading at DRA level A or PM Benchmarks Level A in Oct. of Grade One are at risk for reading difficulties and should receive Early Intervention.
Early Intervention should develop phonemic awareness and also give opportunities to learn whole words through levelled books. The progression of phonemic components should go from initial consonant sounds, to short vowels, then the silent “e”, minimally in Gr. One.
Coupled with this is again, adding more whole words for reading fluency and speed using the levelled books. At the beginning of the lesson, I introduce words that I know will be difficult for the students to read from levelled books at their level of reading. I may read the text to them so they get the modelling of good reading. Next I let them try to read the text to themselves, giving them the oppotuntity to practice figuring out words they are unfamiliar with. Subsequently, I ask them to read the same text to each other. Finally, I ask them to read the passages to me. A good rule of thumb for struggling students to develop fluency is to re-read the text at least three times. By the time they read the text to me (or a helper) they are fluent, with good speed, accuracy and understanding. The books could be sent home to re-read to parents or older students could come to hear the younger students read but careful monitoring of what is read is very important.
The key is to identify those students who are at risk for reading difficulties and to intervene before the students struggle so much that they give up on learning. Help must be given to them, inspite of recognizing that children develop at different times. There has to be a minimum that must be met by all students to ensure they are not going to have difficulty learning to read at a later date. At the Grade One to Grade Three level, the DRA or PM Benchmark levels are good indicators as to where the student is at in learning to read.
On the phonetic side of things, learning the letter names, sounds, short voweled words, and words containing the silent ‘e” are minimum for Grade One. If they can read books with these phonetic components and can read to at least DRA Level 12 or PM Benchmarks Level 10 by the end of Grade One, realistically, they are on their way to reading.
Gr. 2 and Gr. 3 (and struggling readers at any grade): Again, continue with learning whole words through exciting books on a variety of subjects at the students’ reading levels, determined by the DRA or PM Benchmark tests. Re-read at least three times for fluency, speed, accuracy and always check for understanding. If students are not minimally meeting the reading levels at their particular grade level, they need to be receiving intervention by a Reading Specialist which is your Student Services person. Along with whole word recognition, it is imperative that students receive instruction on the phonetic components of words so that they can “sound out” unfamiliar words. Yes, there are other ways to figure out an unfamiliar word such as context, but the struggling students need to have these basic phonetic components to decipher the context in the first place. Asking students to sound out words without giving them the keys to decoding, is frustrating for the students.
The heirarchy of the phonetic components that I check for and teach if necessary at the Gr. 2 and 3 levels are as follows:
-Using the Test of Phonetic Analysis, I check that all letter names and sounds have been learned, then check the knowledge of words with the short vowels. (I might skip the letter names and sounds segment for students in higher grades.) It is amazing how many students in Gr. 4 and 5 that I have come across that do not know all of the short vowel sounds and cannot decipher words that contain them and higher level words.
-next, I check and re-teach if necessary, the student’s knowledge of the silent “e’. Again, many students at the higher grades that I have come across do not recognize the “magic” of that silent e. The struggling student appears to need to have many exposures to this particular rule of decoding to implement it accurately.
-then we go on to teach the consonant blends with short vowels.
-next are the regular long vowels “ee”, “ea”, “ai”, “oa”.
-next come the digraphs: “ch’, “sh’, “th”, ‘wh”
-followed by the “r” controlled words,such as “car” “bird” “her”
-then come the vowel dipthongs: “ou’, “ow” “au” “aw”, “oi” “oy”
There are several interesting novels at the Grade Two level now which utilize these phonetic components. The students love to feel that they are reading “novels”.
Grade Three (And struggling readers at any grade): There are some other phonetic components that should be learned at Grade Three and above to build on to what has been learned in Grade One and Two. If those Gr. 1 and Gr. 2 components have not been learned by Grade Three, the students need to be taught these in order for them to be able to decode with comfort.
The Grade Three level components are:
-soft “c” soft “g”
-”-sion”, “tion”,
-”ph”
-”ew”
- regular and irregular “ough”
There are some other components but once the students know the above, they can read almost anything and use other strategies such as contextual cues to decode unfamiliar words. Once these phonetic components and many whole words have been learned, most books can be read at Grade Three level.
Once students have reached Grade Three level of reading (or DRA/PM Benchmark 40)they are well on their way to becoming literate. Then all those other wonderful strategies talked about can be implemented. The above is a basic foundation needed for reading.
Now you might ask, how can you teach the phonetic compnonets to mastery while also teaching whole words in levelled books? There isn’t enough time in a 40 min. period of Learning Assistance to address all of this. This is true, but there are ways. I focus on the phonetic component aspect of the program for 3 days per week and do guided, levelled reading at least once per week. The students can read out of books at their level to parents, other students, aids, etc. as well as much as possible. Assisting the students in finding books at their reading level is well worth the time and effort. I reiterate, re-reading a text to develop fluency, accuracy and speed is essential. Also essential is careful monitoring of accuracy of reading by a focused listener. I have found that at the Grade One to Three level, once fluency, accuracy and speed is attained, comprehension is easy for the children although it is always recommended that comprehension is checked either through follow-up discussion, artwork, question and answers, logs, re-tells, re-writes, Story Frames and many other comprehension activities.
Now then, for materials:
-for guided reading and whole word learning, I use the levelled books at the students’ reading levels determined by DRA or PM Benchmark testing. There are many good levelled books out there on the market.
-to assist in learning of those phonetic components, I like to use the Primary Phonics booklets and readers for Gr. 1 and 2. For later Gr. 2 and higher, I would use the Explode the Code workbook series (Level 3, 6 & 7 are most helpful) as the lessons are presented in a more comic format and appear appropriate for older students. Not only do the students work through these lessons for practicing reading words and sentences for learning the phonetic components, it also checks for comprehension. I also have the students read some of the text to me orally to ensure that they are reading accurately. To supplement these, I would use the levelled books mentioned above that happen to have those components scattered throughout the book.
Direct instruction, playing games to make learning fun, incentive programs, all are integral parts of my program. But the greatest motivator for the students in their own success after many months and sometimes years of struggling to read. Success breads success, as the saying goes. I know I am using some of the old materials, and some of the newer materials, some of the older strategies but also some of the newer strategies. These have served my students well over the past many years.
One other aspect that I have devised is a spelling program which incorporates the phonetic lesson being taught with some non-phonetic Dolch words. This is a focus for 5 min. at the beginning of each lesson where the children get to practice spelling these words in a game fashion. The students see the words, they hear the words, they write the words and sometimes they even feel the words they are learning. This gives practice for learning these words for reading as well as for writing. Writing is also an essential part of the reading program and a writing activity incorporating the phonetic lesson being worked on and/or the whole word study is a weekly activity.
By the way, I grouped my students according to their needs, not according to their grade. At one point in the year, I may have had students from Gr. 3, 4 and 5 together if they needed the same sort of lessons. Flexibility was very important and I was able to move students to other groups as they developed at their own rate, again depending on their needs, their home support, their attendance and their development. I usually had no more than six students in a group.
An ad-on: I was called back to teaching from retirement this past school year to provide Student Services because there wasn’t anyone qualified to do the job. During this past year among many others, I had the challenge of teaching a very reluctant, Grade Five ADHD, Dyslexic student with a very negative attitude, to read. I was shocked to find that he was at PM Benchmark Level 10 in Grade Five, in January when I first received him in my Learning Centre. By May he was “sneaking” reading time at home on books of his choice. His reading level soared. This method works.
PS: If anyone would like a copy of my Test of Phonetic Analysis, I would be happy to send a copy through our Moderator.
PPS: A note to the Minister of Education: I loved the teaching aspect of my job. What made my job tedious was all the meetings and paperwork that comes with the role as a LA, Skill Development, Resource and ELL teacher. Is it not better to spend my time teaching the needy students than sitting in meetings and doing paperwork? There wasn’t so much beaurocracy when I first started teaching Special Education in 1979 after leaving the regular classroom. What can be done about limiting the administrative aspect of providing Student Services?
Wow, what an amazingly detailed response. Erma! Clearly, you love teaching reading and put a lot of effort into it! What do others think of Erma’s ideas?
Erma Vietorisz, With all due respect, the success that you claim to have is mostly related to the time and the system that you have put in place. What? You have to re-0teach the silent “e” trick in Gr. 2 or 3? You will because the silent “e” trick is unreliable. There are many examples: I am/you are, there, forte, service (about 100 words of those are irregular), definite, ultimate, believe,… and there are many others (the e in “other” is not silent and it is not in many words, BTW). Most kids who don’t just rely on rote learning and never question rules will just go along, while the others will and maybe get frustrated.
So, Erma, how do you feel about regularizing the English spelling system? About half of the 400 words a Grade 1 kid might come across is irregular. About 3700 out of about 7000 common words are irregular. Italian and Finnish kids can learn to read ANY word in their language by the end of grade 1 (50,000 words). They can spell them too. In English, most kids are not even cracking 500! Google reform-English for more info.
Actually, since the system does not allow me to post a direct link to my blog, please google reforming-Engish and look for “Regularizing the English Spelling System”
Hello Peter and other interested Educators,
I am fully aware of all of the irregularities of the English Language, thank you Peter. However, we have the system we have in place and we need to work with the English Language that we now have in order to assist those that are in the system to learn to read. Yes, changes are going to happen…especially with the “now” generation texting as much as they do. However, until a new English Language is in place, I will advocate the method I spoke of in an earlier article because I know it works for students who have difficulties learning, are new English Language Learners and non-readers.
What I am advocating is a systematic way to ensure that students learn how to spontaneously recognize words in the early stages of learning to read. This is done through using a phonetic system that decodes many words for the new reader and learning whole words; using leveled books to encourage success and practicing reading books of interest. Always checking for understanding and vocabulary development is also incorporated into a good reading program. The system I am advocating takes a learner to a Grade Three reading level. Once they read at a Grade Three level, they fly at reading using many other methods, as long as they read. Research indicates that students who do not learn to read to a grade three level by the time they leave Elementary school have a very difficult time to learn to read in later years and with limited success. Once children learn to decode those first three years worth of phonics and learn the most frequently used non-phonetic words to Grade Three level, sail along developing reading skills. I stand by my method which I have had many years of success with. And, this system is also good for ESL students.
Thank you, Erma, for that wonderful, helpful article. You are the kind of teacher that will persevere and teach the “unteachables” in spite of all the theories on teaching reading. I have saved a copy of your methods for use in my role as a teacher/tutor with the Learning Disabilities Association. You suggested that we could have a copy of your Test of Phonetic Analysis. Please let me know how I may get one.
Hello Judy,
Thank you for your kind words. I would be happy to send you a copy of the Test of Phonetic Analysis and I will if Moderator Mike let’s me know how I can either attach it to this forum or send it to you directly.
Moderator Mike,
Please advise as to how I can post a copy of materials that others may want, such as the Test of Phonetic Analysis.
Thanks.
Erma
Hi Erma – can we give Judy your email address so you can connect directly about this?
Yes, Mike, you may give Judy my e-mail address.
Thank you.
Erma
Hello Moderator Mike,
I have just read Erma Vietorisz’s very informative article and would appreciate getting her Test of Phonetic Analysis. Would it be possible to get her email address so that I can request a copy? If yes, will it be sent directly to my email address or listed on this forum? Thank you.
Hi Everyone,
I will follow up with Erma regarding the Test of Phonetic Analysis. It would be great to have this info on our site.
WOW! 3 months and we still don’t have any info! Are we going to get it or are we not? Before I die?
Peter, we’ve tried contacting Erma again several times but haven’t heard back from her. If we do, and she agrees to us posting the test, we will.
You have not really addressed the ‘how’. How will that struggling child, who comes to my grade one class, expecting to learn to read just as his/her friends are learning to read, accomplish this difficult task? My heart breaks time and again as these children come through my class and I know that no matter how hard I try I do not have the time, resources or expertise to create this miracle of reading for all children for I am just one, ordinary classroom teacher.
Thanks for your comment, Alison. As you may have heard, we recently appointed Maureen Dockendorf, a well known and respected educator with a wealth of experience in early reading, as our first Superintendent of Reading. Maureen is working closely with staff in all of the districts to gather and promote best reading practices in the early grades. Under Maureen’s guidance, early reading support teams are being put together in each district.
I also think it is important to remember that when you work with any school resource people in your classroom as a team it becomes a little less challenging as you have another set of hands, ears and eyes. There are learning assistant teachers, teaching assistants, ELL teachers that can all support children with developing literacy skills. Older students and or buddies can read and listen to your grade ones work with books, telling stories, etc.
Hope this helps.
WOW! That’s a lot of resources to help kids learning to read! How expensive all of this is? Isn’t there a better method? Isn’t there a better system? A better spelling system, perhaps? That 400 year old car is getting really old and expensive to maintain!
I am pleased about this announcenment as I see this as being a truly worthwhile educational goal. I am a highschool science teacher who, many years into his career, has only recently began to understand the important role that I have in developing expert readers in my classes.
Much of what I’ve learned comes from the book, “Focus – Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning” by Mike Schmoker. Mr. Schmoker is clear that all educators, regardless of course content or grade level, can improve student reading, writing and thinking simply by doing more of these with students in class.
It is my hope that Mr. Abbott, Ms. Lightburn, and others involved in promoting the new reading goal will consider the ideas in Schmoker’s book; they would be a valuable guide in helping teachers to develop strong readers beyond the primary years.
I would love to know the details of this apparent “revolutionary” method that Mr. Schmoker uses to teach reading (and those thousands of words that do not follow the 91 spelling rules that English has)! Was there a controlled study done to prove that his methodology works?
I like the emphasis on reading for the primary grades. I think K – 3 are the most important grades in a child’s education as everything else is built on this base.
I’ve read and heard many times that parental involvement can help improve a child’s reading ability. Every teacher my daughter has had so far has told me this and they all tell me that I should be reading with her for at least a half hour every day. Somedays this is easier said than done…
Since it seems like there are so many pressures on parents today, I have some suggestions that I think may help parents be able to collaborate with the teachers in order to help the children with reading.
Would it be possible for the Ministry of Education to provide to the schools a package that gives a brief outline of what the expectations are for each grade level and to include a sample list of books relevant to that grade? This package could then be given to the parents when they register their child for kindergarten or when the parent comes in for the intake meeting in September for older children.
My thoughts about this are that if parents are given some basic information about what goals the teacher will be working towards, that they could then assist with those goals. As for the list of books, I’ve found many times parents/grandparents are unsure if the book they are buying is suitable to the age level of the child and they may buy something that is too easy or too difficult. If they had a list of books, then they could check with the librarian or book store clerk and borrow or buy books of a similar level.
If I might also suggest that if teachers want to pass along ideas about how to incorporate learning the alphabet, learning to spell, or learning to count in everyday activities, that this be given out to parents as a separate handout and not incorporated into a child’s report card. When my daughter received her very first report card in kindergarten there were so many suggestions listed that it was extremely difficult to determine if she was doing ok or doing poorly. Many of the parents were very frustrated as they felt that the report cards were too generic and some even suggested that the teacher had done the exact same report card for many students and just changed the name each time. I’m sure that wasn’t the case, but all the suggestions that went along the lines of “start or continue to sing the Alphabet Song” or “start or continue to have your child count the forks and knives on the table” made it appear as if the report card was quite generic.
If the school has a home reading programme, I would suggest that the instructions be sent home each year and not assume that the child remembers from one year to the next. Also, I would suggest that these types of programmes should focus on the length of time the child reads each night as well as the number of pages or number of books completed and, if possible, to keep the results between the student and the teacher. Many of my daughter’s grade one classmates were discouraged that they didn’t read as many books as one of the boys in the class – they thought that they were doing very poorly when in fact the boy entered grade one reading at a grade four level.
Anyway, these are just some things that I think may help. I am not a teacher, so I don’t know if they are feasible or not, I know I would have appreciated this information.
And, what about the parents who does not have the time or the ability to read to his/her kids? The child of immigrants? Again, this system is only working for some parents and for some kids. There is a better way: a regularized spelling system that makes learning reading by way of reliable spelling rules that have no exceptions.
Any instruction has to be fun or students will not engage. Most students when told read 5 pages will groan and maybe read them just before next class –retaining maybe 1 page. Make it fun and suddently they want to do it. Not unlike getting up in the morning–can’t get up for school but can get up to go skiing. The use of books that students enjoy to read or the use of fun activities to supplement the instruction would go a long way to making instructional reading fun. You might find a lot more students taking what they learn home and doing it on their own because it was fun to learn.
Sure! Great idea! But, maybe the underlying reason why kiids don’t like to read is because it is exhausting to decode all of those irregular words that do not follow those 91 spelling rules. Most languages have 50 and a dramatically lower number of words that do not follow those 91 spelling rules. Can you imagine what a kid who has not yet memorized all of those exceptions must do to read? Would you enjoy running if the track was full of holes?
Reading does not happen without instructions in writing and comprehension as well. I am a grade 1/2 teacher and have been using Compassionate Communication to teach my students the language of needs and feelings. This has improved their writing, reading and comprehension skills enormously. They are excited about stories, characters, adventures, descriptive language and problems (plots).
This is how we hook students in. If reading is a chore, they can not be excited about it, and the ones who struggle will soon give up. Some children need whole language, some phonics and mostly they simply need practice. Smaller classes, fewer designated children in a classroom, more LAC support, a full time librarian, and more parent volunteers would help.
While I agree with almost all of what is said here I feel the need to comment on smaller class sizes. When I went to school we had 30 kids in a classroom, from grades 1 to 3, and it was not a problem. Our teacher was friendly and calm, he always gave us time to play and work off energy so that we could then all get down to work. He was an awesome teacher and we all behaved very well for him – being kids we were not perfect but we played at playtime and worked at learning time. He made school fun and we all learned a lot from him. I always did very well in school and I give credit for that to him.
Sure! I agree! More compelling stories are important! But, what about the boys who love to know about anything? I was an avid reader when I was a kid (not in English, fortunately for me)! I love adventure stories,… I wish more teachers would choose compelling stories. I agree. Still, regularizing the English spelling system is needed.
When children struggle with learning to read, there is no “magic” to help them. The reason we have the “Focus on Reading” now, is to prevent an “uncertain fate” for children who haven’t learned to read the beautiful informative books they yearn to understand on their own.
I was told that the “uncertain fate” that my struggling Grade 5 daughter had was that she would “never finish school” due to her reading problems. She did, thanks to direct systematic instruction of alphabetic principles, grammar, sight words, comprehension and writing skills. The controlled texts helped her, and many like her to develop fluency skills. Most of all, slogging through them, learning the predictable part of our language, gave her the HOPE that she would one day be able to confidently read on her own. The problem was that this instruction was only available from tutors and private specialty schools. We have the knowledge and the ability to change pre-service training of teachers to ensure they can help children appropriately…using some books as stepping stones, out of the demoralizing mire of functional illiteracy. Some B.C. schools are providing such instruction now…however, undergraduate teachers are not taught the principles.
It is admirable that the MoE finally has shown leadership to help all schools have access to successful programs. Perhaps then, teachers will also have HOPE knowing they can help the “children they lose sleep over” (personal communication with a Vancouver teacher).
The inability to read kills a child’s desire to read books. Trying and failing makes them feel stupid, not trying earns them a “lazy” label which is easier to take. The lack of informed instruction kills an individual’s desire to try to read when it is the “same old, same old” instruction (look at adult literacy surveys). Many people refer to the “brown books” (controlled texts) as “drill and kill”…I can assure you “lack of skills kills” the desire to read and learn. Lack of skills sometimes kills the desire for life…look at teenage suicide facts!
Let’s continue to road to helping more children learn to read well…even if it is not a “quick fix.”
How about going back to basics. All of us of a certain age learned our ABC’s and phonics were given a reader and it was not too difficult. My eight year old Grandaughter is coming home with scraps of papers and expected to read about and spell “jaguar” in grade two. The “Readwell” program from the U.S.of all places is useless. Keep it simple and these kids will
learn!!! Also most of these kids are being pushed ahead to the
next grade without understanding the grade they are in so it
compounds over the years.
Two quotes (one rather long) capture what I have come to see as the essential approach to promoting a love of and ability in reading. The first, witty yet poignant, is by Ferreiro (2003): “There are children who enter written language through magic … and other children who enter written language through training in basic ‘abilities.’ In general, the first become readers; the others have an uncertain fate” (p. 25). The second is from the semi-autobiographical story ‘Baa Baa, Black Sheep’ by Rudyard Kipling:
But the reading was, just then, a much more serious matter than any creed. Aunty Rosa sat him upon a table and told him that
A B meant ‘ab.’
“Why?” said Punch. “If A is ‘a’ and B is ‘b,’ why does A B mean ‘ab’?”
“Because I tell you it does,” said Aunty Rosa, “and you’ve got to say it.” …
… But that week brought a great joy to Punch.
He had repeated [from the brown book] till he was thrice weary the statement that “The Cat lay on the Mat and the Rat came in.”
“Now I can truly read,” said Punch, “and now I will never read anything in the world.” He put the brown book in the cupboard where his school books lived and accidently tumbled out a venerable volume, without covers, labeled Sharpe’s Magazine. There was the most portentous picture of a griffin on the first page with verses below …
“This,” said Punch, “means things, and now I will know all about everything in all the world.”
He read till the light failed … (Kipling, 1888/1937, pp. 36-39)
Punch was fortunate. The magic, the ‘great joy,’ came to him, quite … magically, in the form of a magazine with an entrancing image on its cover. Otherwise, he might always have associated reading with the ‘brown book,’ and never have become a reader. In all our consideration of, and promotion of, reading instruction, I feel strongly that we must never forget to find and keep the magic in reading. Then our students will read till the light fails – and they might have to use a flashlight under their bedcovers.
Ferreiro, E. (2003). Past and present of the verbs to read and to write. Toronto, Canada: Groundwood Books.
Kipling, R. (1937). Wee Willie Winkie and other stories. New York, NY: Grosset and Dunlap. (Original work published 1888).
The comments in your paper make it sound like you expect a quick fix in a year. You have a wonderful goal, but it needs to be a 10 or 20 year project. The problem is multi-faceted and a successful solution needs to be a long-term one.
Dear Mr. Abbott, How will this exciting 10m be spent? Your paper was vague and missing valuable information to process.
If it goes into more instructors for low-ratio teachers/assistants who can select the programs for those students– A+! If it goes into more teacher librarians and library resources– A! If it goes into pre-packaged resources sent to teachers– C-. If it goes into more bureaucrats studying something that we already know to be true and dilly-dallying about how to get something implemented– Fail.
Afternote: why do I have chose if I am an Administrator/Teacher/Student or Parent? I am three of these “labels.”
Hi Sharon,
Our idea is that some of this money will be used to support professional development opportunities for teachers around reading. We will be working with districts in the coming months on this.
I’m not entirely sure how most teachers feel about pro-D day programs…in my various employment history I’ve had jobs where I’d be periodically offered free attendance at day-long workshops and programs related to my job. While most of these programs were actually inspiring, empowering, and interesting, the amount of impact that they actually had on how I approached my job was fairly minimal. It’s really just the equivalent of one day of school….and of all the days I attended school in my life, I personally can’t say that I could find one that had a significant impact by itself. It would be more worthwhile to embed such philosophies and resources in the required courses to get a BEd.
Now, not being a teacher, I’ve not attended a pro-d day…I’ve only been privy to the approaches taken by teachers prior to and following pro-d events throughout my lifetime as a student…and honestly, it doesn’t seem like they’re especially fruitful, relative to the cost. There are teachers that have been teaching subjects successfully for 30-40 years using the same old methods, as well as teachers that have had success using newer methods, and examples of each failing miserably too. A lot of it comes down to the character of the teacher themselves, and not to whether or not they have had this or that training.
Sure, 10 million doesn’t go a long way with regard to putting warm blooded teacher librarians in schools…but I think it is still better spent on actual human beings than it is on pro-d day programs that only succeed in further indoctrinating the indoctrinated.
-Rob
With each FTE teacher on average earning 71,000 plus 16,000 in benefits, 10 million would pay for about 115 more teachers. Spread over the approximately 65,000 classes in the province, this additional number of instructors is insignificant and will have little or no effect on the issue at hand. I am thus confused as to why you think this is the best use of the funds.
What could be done with this money is supporting professional development for parents in the school to read to their kids. Showing kids at home that reading is important is much more important than any new program presented to the kids in school.
Key information on early learning is in these two documents from the OECD:
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49012097.pdf
and
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa-letsreadthemastorytheparentfactorineducation.htm
The key is for parents to demonstrate both an appreciation of reading, and learning in general, and to model this behaviour.
For the funding, many jurisdictions around the world fund education at a higher level than we do in BC, yet get worse results. The US for example spends about 25% more per student than we do in BC, yet gets far worse results. It’s not how much, it’s what you do with the funding that counts.
More here: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf
Thank you for sharing this great new 2012 resource. Hopefully Maureen can work with parents to support and enhance our home reading programs. The more integrated parents and teachers are with our efforts the greater the learning possibilities.
A made in BC study (1990) Peter Coleman and Linda LaRocque (SFU) “Struggling to be Good Enough” provide a thorough review of the educational research literature and great recommendations for schools and districts. In Chapter 8 “Community Integration: The Co-Production of Learning”, “Parent integration in instruction is not costly, and is clearly beneficial to students:’direct parent involvement in instructional activities designed to contribute to child development…consistently influence(s) educational achievement of students’(Fullan, 1982).
From Barth (1979) to Fullan (1982) Epstein (1984)and Hoover-Dempsey (1987) to OECD 2012, the achievement benefits from parent integration have been consistently revealed.
As parents, we would love the opportunity to see best practice revealed and to have the opportunity to better engage with our children and teachers.
(Note to Moderator: Thank you for posting previous comments recommending a reference for developing training standards for reading teachers. This my third attempt to share about successful local reading research. It is difficult to do so without naming principal researchers and naming the school district. Plus, I hope that I have expressed concerns that pass your Moderation Policy. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Fran Blackwood. Community volunteer and mother of two adult children with dyslexia.)
Submission Regarding B.C.’s “Focus on Reading”
The Select Standing Committee on Education (2006) recommended universal screening in Kindergarten. Last year, Minister Abbott was reported as citing that recommendation to prevent a high-incidence problem like reading failure. Please consider tabling the $2 Million B.C. Anti-bullying Plan, designed to improve a low-incidence problem, if it precludes universal Kindergarten screening of potential reading failure and professional development.
Reading failure can be prevented with the right diagnostics and classroom and/or small group reading instruction. Please refer to the longitudinal work of UBC’s Dr. Linda Siegel, universal screening and continuum of district instruction in North Vancouver (Explanations and research references on North Vancouver’s Firm Foundation’s website; plus, the original work has been cited hundreds of times in subsequent research articles (Lesaux, N., & Siegel, L. 2003). Knowledge Network produced a 5-minute “Success in Literacy” television vignette on this reading program which included teacher and parent interviews (the vignette was partially funded Minister of State for Early Childhood funding).
Thank you to Education Minister George Abbott and his staff for trying to move forward to improve education with an intention to survey the existing reading research and current best practices in this province. We have committed teachers, as “Learning from Classrooms” video indicates. Provincial leadership in providing a listing of existing effective programs is helpful to educators, as not all school districts have the scope and resources to find the research and programs. Our families deserve equitable access to the best programs.
When developing reading policy and programs please ensure that all recommendations of U.S. National Reading Panel (NRP-2000) meta-analysis are considered, as one program doesn’t fit all students. Many people disparage the U.S. NRP because it is American study. Critics should remember that the NRP focused on best practices for teaching English, The U.S. National Institutes of Health oversaw the review using the same meta-analysis research principles used for medical research. It should not matter that the NRP is an American-based report. Moreover, B.C. teachers deserve to learn from its findings in pre-service training and professional development. I am sure school districts and school leadership would appreciate the support!
Plus, please use recommendations from the U.S. Access Center for K-8’s “Considerations When Considering a Reading Program-Research Proven Strategies in Language Arts/Literacy,” (especially for our struggling readers):
“Qualities of Effective Reading Programs
1. Effective programs are driven by reading research and not ideology.
2. Effective programs emphasize direct, systematic, intensive, and sustained reading instruction.
3. Effective programs require school-wide buy-in before they are adopted.
4. Effective programs are supported by initial professional development and then extended follow-up training throughout the school year.
5. When implementing an effective program, the school needs to be committed to the integrity of the program’s instructional approach and materials.
6. Effective programs make effective use of instructional time, provide multiple reading opportunities, and employ a variety of reading assessments (Schacter, nd).”
In closing, The Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network summarized Dr. Siegel’s North Vancouver longitudinal work in their 2006-2007 Annual Report:
“…a study that followed children over the course of seven years, beginning in kindergarten. At the start of the study, she found that 25% of the children for whom English was a first language and 50% of the children who had English as a second language were at significant risk for reading difficulties. But a simple, classroom based intervention resulted in a dramatic improvement – by Grade 6 the number was reduced to 1.5% for both groups.”
I hope that you will post this submission even though I have recommended a local expert and successful local program.
Thank you for the opportunity to share.
Respectfully,
Fran Blackwood
I too do not think that we need to have pay someone to oversee this. I do think that we need funding to go to more librarian time. In our school the librarian is there 2 days a week, this is not enough. There should be someone there more than that – five days would be best but any days over 2 would be a bonus. Teachers do get to take their children into the library any time, but having the librarian there is extremely valued. Our school had a “floater” teacher one year to help any primary student struggling to read get up to a “meeting expectations” level. This was very successful. We also have One-To-One reading, where parents voluteer their time to help students refered to the program read better. I think that more funding could go into the support staff as well. There is something off when a class has 2 or 3 disctrict numbered children in it and only 1 part time support worker for that class. It is disruptive learning for the whole class when they have an episode and is only worsened when it happens and only the teacher is there to try and deal with it and keep the class going at the same time. I have seen lots of comments about the government below and am disgusted to see this forum used to promote the teachers in their labour dispute and take knocks at the Liberal Party. I am a parent who is involved in my childs school and have seen that there are wonderful teachers out there, but there are also ones that just want to put in their time – as in any profession. This forum is about our children’s literacy.
I was very disappointed to see yet another administrator. Wasted money in my mind. Te teachers are trained to focus on reading. What is needed is better funding where the children are. Put money back to library support. The children and their parents can access the library support to increase reading potential. I think all the region could use a reduction in consultants, administrators and return to more front line support. The high paid think tank likes to add expensive band aides that reap little benefit.
Spends some time in the classroom and ask those doing the job.
This article omits the issue of ESL students. As an ESL teacher, I know first hand that ESL students, except low Level 1 ESL students, are required to write the FSA’s. This important issue is not mentioned in the article and must be considered in the interpretation of FSA results. BC teachers have excellent skills when it comes to teaching reading. But their struggle is immense when faced with ongoing cutbacks to Learning Assistance and ESL. I’m frustrated with my caseload increasing every year with the direct result of cutting back service to ESL students. I would like to see restored funding for LAC, ESL and School Librarians.
I believe this is another attempt at making us think we can participate and contribute. Your political party has a long reputation of not listening to teachers (e.g. at the bargaining table), refusing to meet with teachers, cutting funding, etc. etc. which, when considering the adage of actions speak louder than words,leads me to suspect this is just another ploy to appease the public. I will be unsubscribing as well.
It would seem that the BCTF has a longer history of not listening to government dating back to the Socred days.
To set the record straight, it is the BCTF who is refusing to attend both the Learning Roundtable and SPCs. Indeed they are boycotting most meetings with the MoE.
Your de-subscribing from this discussion is clearly indicative of a refusal to discuss the issues, or don’t you feel that teaching children to read in the best way possible is important?
Hi John,
Is there any chance you could please stop treating this forum like it is your own personal debate? Teachers and others who decide to put their ideas and comments forward have just as much right to their opinion as you. The only person I see here playing politics is you, as you provide ministry talking points in order to somehow counteract the effect of the honest and clear comments made by justifiably discouraged teaching professionals and others. Your earlier comment about declining enrollment is laughable to those in the system who know how the funding system was changed under this government so that it is now per pupil instead of by program needs. School boards know why they are coming up short, as do many parents and all employees- none of your rhetoric will change that. But never mind, it seems that anyone who has a contrary opinion to yours will get a rebuke and, as valuable as you believe your “redirections” are, I certainly don’t find them at all useful. I would, for one, appreciate it if you would go back to trolling the newspaper comment feeds where I don’t get an email update every time you decide to spread your wisdom– I find it ironic that you might actually be contributing to others not wanting to follow this forum…
Hi Everyone,
Just a friendly reminder: this forum is a place to share & exchange ideas. That means that although we won’t necessarily agree with each other all the time, we still need to be respectful and honour a wide spectrum of opinions. Sometimes a comment may be technically in keeping with our moderation policy, but can tread precipitously close to crossing that invisible line. Let’s try to keep the constructive conversation going.
Mr. Abbott,
As a teacher of 47 years, I have seen the standards in reading and writing declining in the last 15 or so years.
We need to have full time elementary librarians, who help students choose books to read and help them (and their teachers) do research and write reports, be it using books or computers. You cannot promote reading successfully, when most elementary libraries are closed or are providing prep time for the teachers. You feel Physical Education is also a priority – then have the physical education teachers provide the prep time.
Students need help with their report writing and research. Today, too many students are just going online and copying information without reading it or understanding it.
I suggest going back to a text book for teaching/learning writing skills. Forget creative writing, for a bit, and concentrate on writing sentences/paragraphs.
Please,do not just rely on online consultation or a conversation, that occurs for a moment or two while you are visitng a school, to develop a new curriculium.
Why not use one of the Professional Development Days, in the fall, to have teachers at all schools in the province discuss how they would improve reading/writing skills? The teachers are the ones with the knowledge and the everyday experience on how children are learning at this time.
In the last 10 years I have worked in both elementary and secondary schools and the teachers in both areas are upset with the present standards and the lack of responsibility of the students!
Please, try to change this. It should not cost a lot of money, just a change of attitude and goals.
Sincerely,
Rita Spearman
A few months ago, I attended a session called “Make it Meaningful! Literacy Development in a Reggio-Inspired Environment” at an early education conference in Richmond.
Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers from Bishop Strachan School in Ontario discussed their approach to literacy development.
The teachers described how when it comes to teaching literacy, there is a pressure to use prescriptive, teacher-led programming. They discussed how, following Reggio Emilia principles, they support literacy development with work led by students. Literacy is incorporated into all classroom activities. Through art, play and hand-on experiences, they engage their students in meaningful ways to help them become ready to read and write as well as to think critically.
I’m not a literacy expert, but I was really impressed by this method of teaching.
What I found interesting:
• The teachers don’t teach their students the alphabet one letter at a time. In class, they discuss the alphabet as a whole and encourage children to sound out, spell and write words and stories using letter sounds as soon as they begin school. It doesn’t matter how they hold their pencils or if they are just scribbling. This is valued as part of the learning process. On an individual basis, teachers will decide when students are developmentally ready to be corrected.
• Students are encouraged to label everything. If a student has a comment about a science project they’ve worked on or a book they’ve read, the teacher will encourage her to write down the idea and stick it on the wall in the classroom. Again, it doesn’t matter if the writing is just scribble or if they prefer to draw a picture. The teachers record what the student has told them in the student’s workbook, but does not translate or write the comment beside the labelled note. By the end of the year, the classroom is full of sticky notes with students’ comments.
• Many of the students become proficient in and reading and writing before they leave kindergarten.
When I read “A New Focus on Reading,” I thought of Bishop Strachan School. Perhaps this is something that could be looked at for British Columbia? It seemed like such a positive and successful way to learn.
For those who wish to learn more about Reggie Emilio, the Institute for Early Childhood Education and Research at UBC has an interesting website.
My goodness, years ago Ii observed this method of teaching reading by students learning new words through related learning experiences in life. Without going into a lot of detail, I remember the classroom having word cards stuck (before post-it-notes) to so many things around the room and each student had a bank of “their” words and students could borrow others’ words to write their stories. This was perhaps 40 years ago and it was called, “Chalk in Hand” and published in a small book. This method was very successful. By the way, I know there are so many amazing teachers who have had successful focuses on “teaching reading” for years and they are the ones who could mentor new/young teachers. On another thread, we do need to return teacher-librarians to elementary schools–they are trained to choose the best books to promote literacy and to share just the right books with students.
I agree – tap the expertise of those who have proven success!
Not only do I agree that we need a return of full time teacher librarians (not doing prep time as part of their job), the research very clearly agrees with their need for success in reading.
Mentorship is also really important, but almost every district has cut or cut out mentorship support due to lack of funding. While teachers do try to mentor beginning teachers, the more complex classes we’ve seen in recent years, along with the cuts to support, make this very difficult to fit into any teacher’s schedule.
I read your paper and am curious as to how the allocated money will be spend when no reason can be identified as to why some young students are not are not reading well. I believe the teachers educating these students are providing their charges with the best opportunities for learning. But, since the results are not forthcoming, we must consider another possibility. Perhaps some student are simply not ready to learn to read at the age it is forced upon them. And then,even with all the extra help,they simply end up feeling they are dumb. Would it not be more efficient and affective to wait until each individual was ready read before spending resources that would not have been necessary if we had waited. Like what was said in your paper everyone can learn to read. More food for thought can be found in a book called “Better Late than Early” by Raymond and Dorothy Moore.
Please refer to following The International Dyslexia Association’s website post on Teacher Training:
“Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading
The International Dyslexia Association is pleased to announce a major new document entitled Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading. The document will serve as our guide in endorsing programs that prepare teachers of reading and/or programs that specialize in preparing teachers to work with students who have reading difficulties and disabilities. One of IDA’s long term goals is to inform the public regarding the knowledge base required for skilled reading instruction. Another is to define the specific teaching capabilities that should characterize any person responsible for teaching students with dyslexia and related reading difficulties, and to identify programs that meet the standards. In addition a website dedicated specifically to promotion of these standards will be launched later this Summer. We invite you to review the document and we hope that you will partner with us in promoting high standards for comprehensive and rigorous training of teachers.”
The document can be found at:
http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/KPS3-1-12.pdf
Dear Mr. Abbott,
Thanks for this opportunity where I can share my ideas.
I find your recent message about improving our education system a rhetoric. If you truly intend to do so, I invite you, in retrospect, to review what has the Ministry of Education under the leadership of your Party has offered so far. Sadly and surely, there has been a continuing decline in our education system since 2002, when your Party came into power.
To refresh your mind, by the end of June 2002, many teachers like myself were laid off. Some of us were recalled in the September of the same year. Upon returning to teaching, we learned that it was not guaranteed to either resume our full-time positions or teach in the subject areas of our expertise. So, most of us were left with no choice. I clearly remember that on the Monday night of September 2nd, at 10:30 P.M., I received a call from my school board about my new teaching assignment. I was expected to arrive at 8.00 A.M. of the following morning at the Adult Centre to teach ESL. That meant I had to prepare myself to teach a new subject in less than twelve hours with no prior experience! Let me also share that my salary of the time barely sustained me. I had to live with my mother in a small one-bedroom senior apartment building until I was recovered financially.
The Department of Visual Arts, where I am a member of, suffered major cutbacks. It was decided that much emphasis had to be given to the academics than art education! To this day, I wonder what great intelligence would deprive one from receiving food for soul?! Is it not true that holistic education will help the mind achieve to its fullest potential? And that, receiving art education is a right than a privilege? What about those senior art educators that had to carry the load of the eliminated art teachers whose students were added to their rosters? What about the safety, physical and mental health of both students and teachers, working under those tight conditions? After all, studio arts is a hands-on practice; and therefore, demands safety!
Special Needs Students have not been immune from cutbacks, either. They are simply present in crowded classrooms, without receiving help from teacher-aids. Thanks to this Government that the number of teacher-aid positions have also been badly reduced. Moreover, over the past years, I had witnessed even some of Administration staff whose presence would have been so detrimental to the well-being of their school communities chose to take an early retirement, because they believed they were unable to facilitate what they had so far.
Mr. Minister, is your Government blind to what holds for our future generations as a result of implementing your negative policies in our education system? Have your ever thought that first, and foremost, it is the Government’s responsibility to prepare our children for leadership for future? Have you ever wondered that we can not expect our children to compete with international students who hold a solid and strong education background? It is about the time your Ministry received a wake-up call. Our children are not being prepared for a future which is just around the corner!
Your comments are confusing as by international standards BC is one of the best educational jurisdictions in the world. There have been no declines in student outcomes, nor do our students suffer from having a weak educational background. Quite the contrary.
Further the cutbacks you describe are largely as a result of declining student enrolment and completely as a decision made by boards to allocate the resources they have.
As these premises are what you base you conclusions on, I question their validity.
I have found that my child made the most progress with reading due to the help of a support worker who focused on problem areas in her reading development. Therefore, I would suggest a portion of the money would go to having support workers in the schools more often, helping any of the children that are not meeting expectations within their reading level. I feel this should be extended to not just kindergarten to grade three, but up to grade five.
In case you missed it, there was a great article in the Vancouver Sun this morning you might be interested in.
Provinces urged to appoint Superintendents of Reading
The National Reading Campaign, a not for profit organization, is calling on all provinces to follow BC’s lead and appoint their own superintendents. The article also includes a transcript from the a recent CBC Radio interview with BC’s Superintendent of Reading Maureen Dockendorf.
We invite you to read the article, including the transcript and let us know what you think
Though I agree with portions of the discussion paper I will be truly surprised if any real progress results from it. It seems to me that you hit on popular buzz words and teaching beliefs but have neglected to outline how your ministry will support needed change. I suspect this ‘discussion paper’ will be a positively promoted media tagline to make it look like you care about quality education when your actions thus far do not support that.I do applaud the ideas of collaboration and looking for ways to utilize the resources currently available to teachers and students but you are willfully ignorant if you think teachers aren’t already doing this. I work in an inner city school where my struggling students are VERY disadvantaged. Though I am always pleased with the growth my students make in year the fact remains that without the support they need at home from birth on they will always be behind. What are you doing about that? Your paper neglected to emphasize the significance of the teacher-student relationship. I know that my students are more successful when they feel connected to me and have adequate attention from me. Some research even suggests that the relationship between teacher and student accounts for 70% of student success. I can assure you that when I am exhausted from being overworked and under appreciated those all important relationships are tested. What are you going to do about that Minister Abbott?
Dear Mr. Abbott
I can’t believe that you have the audacity to ask for input from teachers when it is clear through you and your government’s attitude and actions that teachers are not valued. If you really want our input try treating us with the respect that we deserve. Once you start to do that then I will consider taking part in a forum on improving education in BC. I am removing my name from this forum. There is absolutely nothing that you can say which holds any credibility.
It is sort of ironic that you complain about being asked for input, refuse to give it, and then claim your input is not wanted.
Not sure how you expect the government, any government, to have any sort of dialogue with teachers if the teachers refuse to participate.
Maybe you can explain yourself. (Assuming you actually are still listening.)
I have been working with children from preschool to grade 10 for the past 27 years – reading, like toilet training, puberty, or when you first learn to talk, etc. is developmental like anything else. A five year old child may or may not be ready to read – it is not a good thing to force! But we can nurture it with wonderful outdoor experiences, enjoying books, doing things with our families that are meaningful and enriched, etc. In grade one we learn both phonetic and sight words, however within a meaningful and enriched setting; that is if the children are learning about jets and words and reading are taught within the context, we know that they will absorb more than if its taught as a separate entity. Appealing to the creative mind will make learning more enjoyable and meaningful; even with the many ELL learners i have taught. Let’s NOT force reading as a K focus – this is the best time in their lives to have experiences and learn to love learning. We know from many studies done in countries like Sweden – children do not even start school until they are 7 – they have some of the highest and bright people in the world – check out Ted Talks on Bulgaria (Steve Keil)and why we need to focus on play first in ealy childhood and why the country is scoring the lowest in the world. Please – reading is a natural progression like any other developmental process – as you know, even adults do not all grow up at the same time. It will happen with the right nurturing and care – using starting in the home – and then beginning focus in grade one. Teacher and parent of 3
Students in Sweden, and many European countries, start preschool far before we do in BC.
The current K program is play-based, so I am not sure why you think it isn’t.
Anything you practice will improve. To use your words, deliberate & relentless leadership is a must. Your struggle will be in motivating the adults to change. To change what they “think” will work to doing those things that we “know” will work. Reading has always been a foundation of public education. Sadly, our society is becoming less and less familiar with practice. Being a good reader takes deliberate and relentless practice. Read Craig Alexander’s report on the cost of literacy.
I believe the report to which Kathy is referring is “Literacy Matters: A Call to Action”. For those interested, you can view it here.
I am wondering why we are not using the “synthetic” phonics programs that are being taught in Great Britain, Australia etc. With so many children in the school system having LD’s, ADHD, Dyslexia, etc. why are we not putting in place a system that teaches what the they need to learn to be able to read throughout their lives?
I am glad to see the government wants to focus on k-3 — I watch every year as children are moved up to the next grade while still struggling to even “meet expectations” in these fundamental skills taught in the early grades. As the years go on they fall more and more behind and struggle with the most basic reading and math assignments.
So why are we moving children onward and upward when they have not mastered different parts of the curriculum – it only becomes harder and harder for them and they fall further behind – LST teachers are great but it is not enough. The children struggle to re-learn what they missed the year before and learn the new information in their current year!! So unfair to them. Is there not a way to create classes based on academic performance? Have classes made up of “not meeting…meeting” and classes of “meeting….exceeding”. All children get the opportunity to move themselves up to the next level, plus they have the opportunity to learn what they need to learn without being made to feel dumb in a class where they don’t understand what is being taught – having not mastered it in the last grade.
I wonder why there is not a consistent program being taught all over BC as another responder writes below (Toni Stewart) – why is everyone teaching different things at different times so if a child moves to another school or district in the province they get different programs? Again, this makes children fall behind or miss out on learning outcomes.
Why are class sizes not being addressed? They need to be smaller.
In response to the comment of why are we not putting money towards the underlying reasons why students are struggling to learn to read…I wholeheartedly agree. I used to work in the public system, and would see so many bright students with so much potential falling further and further behind due to their learning challenges. Eight years ago I was introduced to the Arrowsmith Program, created by Barbara Arrowsmith Young in Toronto over 30 years ago. Since that time I have taught the program here in Vancouver and have seen incredible changes in our students’ ability to pick up the code of language, to read aloud, to track while reading and to comprehend what it is they are reading. The students are rewiring and increasing the cognitive capacities of their brains…changing country roads into superhighways if you will. Once this happens, THEN the wonderful work of our teachers could really be effective. The brain is then ready and able to learn! If only this program was available in a public setting…to all K-3 students who were showing flags of reading struggles. If this money was put into this program, or one similar…think of all of the money saved in the long run…let alone the changes of the lives of our students!
Hello: Most cost effective and direct contact is to have the students read to volunteer parents every day. The parent(volunteer) reads, then the student reads. Set aside an area in the class room for this activity for all students and volunteers. By having the parents as volunteers they become better informed as to the requirements for the children and may then continue at home as well. ie story time before bed and read it with me, follow along. Parents(volunteers) are the largest untapped resource available and it is free. sc
Wonderful idea, but totally impractical in many of our schools. In areas where two parents working is the only way to afford a home or in inner city schools where parents are often working at two or even three part time jobs trying to feed their families this is simply not a solution. Years ago, parent volunteers were often seen in schools (I loved having them in my classroom), but now it is difficult even to get one or two who are available on any consistent basis.
As a parent, I have made myself available to my children’s teachers and, of the 7 teachers my children have had, only one used parents regularly in the classroom for reading practice. She was fabulous, had an open-door practice in her classroom and there were 5-7 parents showing up at our scheduled time 2x a week. The parents got to know each other and felt great about the community of learning she was creating.
Sadly, the other teachers don’t seem to want parents in the classroom, or, in a couple of cases, lock the classroom door during the day and instruct parents not to go to the classroom except for before school starts (for 5 minutes) or after school is out (for 5 minutes), that is, if you could find them in the classroom at all.
The resources are there, but many teachers don’t seem to want them or know how to use them.
I would like to strongly encourage the ministry to consider a link missing in the development of this work: do not underestimate the amazing power of arts integration in the development of your decisions around resource allocation. There is some amazing work begin undertaken in BC, and forging alliances and approaches with those who have dedicated themselves to infusing the arts in education is a smart move that will help make huge inroads in the improvement of early literacy. Thanks for sharing and addressing this issue. check out artsinfusion.ca for more info. Good luck with your plans!
Greetings Mr. Abbot.
As a BC teacher, I have UN-subscribed to your “newsletter.”
The topic of how best to support reading in my classroom is NOT best discussed online with you.
At my workplace, I am surrounded by a competent, creative, professional group of educators and administrators. Together we share best practices. Together we research and choose books for our book clubs and conferences we might like to attend together.
I reject the pseudo-openess of your “discussion paper.”
Restore adequate funding to BC schools!
Repeal legislation that makes class sizes too big for students’ needs!
Act on your so-called respect for teachers as professionals!
Sincerely,
Jayne in Victoria, BC
Jayne,
You seem to be saying that your school has all the answers, and that no other schools, either in your district or elsewhere in the province, have any approaches to reading that have any merit at all.
You seem to know it all. (Yet Victoria is not noted as a shining light of reading success.)
Paradoxically you refuse to share any of these claimed superior techniques with other schools and districts in the province, which is what this discussion is about. That’s kind of selfish, isn’t it?
Can you reconcile this?
Mr. Puddifoot, I do not see any, “claimed superior teachniques,” with respect to reading instruction from Jayne here. She only advocates for a type of Professional Learning Community (PLC) being superior to this type of debate. She speaks of a “competent, creative, professional group of educators and administrators.”
You state that she is not sharing the ideas and that she is selfish, but her PLC could be bringing in outside speakers that would help the spread of ideas. They could have members from out of district and meet online. They could network with other PLCs in BC or elsewhere and spread ideas that way.
You state that she feels she has all the answers, but her membership in a PLC shows a committment to continued learning that sadly not all educators have.
I hope you speak only for yourself, and not for BCCPAC when you condemn the use of PLCs. I would hope that part of the process with this discussion of reading is that the goverment and boards would support PLCs. My experience is that there is often more follow through in terms of implementation and follow up in terms of the results of an inititaive with a PLC compared with more traditional professional development.
We have a good system here in BC, but what holds it back from improving is our attitude towards each others. There are too many teachers here that start with the opinion that they want to speak out against the government and too many people who start out with the opinion that they hate the BCTF and so they want to speak against teachers.
To these people I want to say that you should go and fight your political battles elsewhere. As much as you might think you have the research to back your opinons, you are usually only looking at the information that validates your pre-formed opinion instead of the big picture. Therefore, you will always miss important facts in your haste to score political points against the government or the union.
If more of us could stick to the issues, stay focussed on student achievement and enter each debate with an open mind (someone with a different point of view can be right people), we will be able to make needed improvements.
Sorry to rant, folks.
Thank you for your efforts and congratulations on the success you are having.
John,
I work for the Greater Victoria School District and I don’t appreciate your indirect criticism (Yet Victoria is not noted as a shining light of reading success.) of my school district. We have many teachers who are truly making a difference in regards to reading achievement. Please don’t generalize as it discredits the work of many talented and dedicated educators.
Personally, I have had a lot of success in working with Learning Assistance students (Grades 1-5) as over the past school year, 22 students who were reading below grade level were reading at or beyond grade level by the end of the year. My formula is very simple as the students I work with read, read and read. All my teaching is done in context using continuous text (usually leveled books). In a 30 minute intervention block children spend 23 to 25 minutes reading books (5 to 7 minutes is spent on word work). My small group intervention (3 to 4 children) runs daily for about 8 weeks. In general to improve reading achievement we must have children reading as much as humanly possibly at both their independent and instructional levels.
I am very passionate about teaching struggling readers and writers and I am asking that all participants in this professional dialogue keep the comments positive as collectively we can all make a difference with vulnerable students.
Recently, I read a book called “The Book Whisperer” by Donalyn Miller. This book clearly describes one incredible teacher’s journey in making all her students become life long readers. I rarely say this but this is a must read for all teachers of reading.
Thank you for your time,
Paul
I’ve taught in a variety of countries and types of schools in my professional career as a teacher and the best approach re: the highest success rate for reading abilities improvement was in Northern Ontario. I strongly recommend that you get in touch with the superintendents of District School Board Ontario North-East and discuss with them, but better yet go see, how it’s done out there. They adopted a Balanced Literacy approach, rooted in Debbie Miller’s “Reading for Meaning” text, plus they wrote their own handbook on literacy interventions. There was an unparalleled commitment to teacher education and support networks (I worked as a literacy coach there too, not just in my own classroom) and the board made small classroom sizes (no more than 20 in primary rooms) and a solid 100 minute literacy block for K-3 mandatory. No preps were allowed during the literacy block, no assemblies, no interruptions – period. Literacy happened everyday. They had teachers use the same basic approaches in their rooms to provide consistency throughout the board, so that if a student moved to another school in the district, they already understood the expectations and procedures that formed the literacy block in their school day – no time wasted adjusting. Each and every school day, teachers incorporated guided reading, shared reading, interactive reading, individual reading using levelled books, and read alouds, PLUS interactive writing, shared writing, guided writing, write-think alouds, and individual writing. Sometimes, some aspects became part of the science or socials or music or drama parts of the day, or even math (for which they also mandated a 90-minute uninterrupted block from K-3), but each aspect was touched on in a school day. That meant that reading and writing centers were a big part of the literacy block, as was individual and small group attention from the teacher and literacy coaches and learning resource teachers were available to support in the literacy block too. No student was pulled from the literacy block out of class for remediation in reading or writing. They enjoyed the benefit of the 100-minute block plus any needed intervention time later on in the day as a bonus time for more practice with their weaker skills. No pre-programmed reading or writing methods were allowed anymore (e.g., SRA Corrective Reading, etc); only specifically tailored skill building activities based on current targeted assessment data conducted by either the classroom teacher, literacy coach, or learning resource teacher. Bottom line is: they did their research on what works best, even with students from challenging backgrounds (which I can attest to since I also used them in New York City with good results there too), they invested time and resources to get their teachers and administrators on board, and they made the monetary commitment to a) purchase appropriate resources for their schools to run the methods well, b) pay for supply teachers to cover the training and teacher discussion groups that occurred during the school days (never after hours), and c) hire extra prep teachers since the literacy block was not allowed to be interrupted ever (classroom teachers then required prep at the same time in the afternoons, after the uninterrupted literacy then math blocks). They made the necessary investments in their personnel and in their resources and scheduling to make that sound research work. They have been reaping the results every year for the past 5 years. More and more students are reading within grade level and holding onto those gains as they move through the system into middle and high school. Writing skills have also improved dramatically. The BC Ministry of Education would be very wise indeed to visit DSBONE in Northern Ontario, in any primary classroom, and explore and investigate how they make literacy work for their students, irrespective of their backgrounds. I look forward to seeing a more cohesive, well-rounded approach to literacy development in primary classrooms in BC. Make the investment early and you have less work to do in Grades 4 and up. It’s not a cure-all approach they have embraced in DSBONE, but it sure beats the weak and/or inconsistent results I see here in BC.