Why Does He Want to Hurt Kindergartners?

1/23/2015

Tim says, "The problem with that is there might be other social or economic variables that are leading some districts to teach reading in kindergarten and for kids in those communities to do better."

Of course, there are always exogenous "social or economic variables" operating in all comparative experiments, including randomized assignment to treatments. The matched pairing of E and C kindergartners, the very large number of participating districts, and the consistent superiority of the experimental seniors over the control seniors on all 16 criterion dependent variables provide strong support for your argument.

1/25/2015

I just went back and read the link at the beginning of this post. It looks to me like the writers of the report aren't caring as much what the research does or doesn't show as that some teachers are teaching the standards in a developmentally inappropriate way. That's like saying lets throw out all the standards because teachers may make a mess of teaching them. Seems like a more sensible approach would be a report on guidelines for teaching in a developmentally appropriate way.

1/26/2015

Fair question, Mary. I believe the standards themselves--that is what they are asking us to teach the 5-year-olds--are developmentally correct. I don't think there is anything there that 5s can't learn, and certainly nothing that would be harmful to teach them. How teachers go about that may or may not be appropriate for the age level, but that is a separate problem. Good point.

1/27/2015

The flaw in the CCSS standards for K and the early grade is that they are "trickled down" from the alleged "college and career readiness" at the end of secondary schooling. This makes it easy to test the K-kids while at the same time imposing arbitrary and totally ambiguous instructional strictures on teachers. Look at 3 K-standards as "proof of point:
With prompting and support, ask and answer questions about key details in a text
What prompting and support?
There is a big difference in asking and answering.
What key details?
What texts?

Ask and answer questions about unknown words in a text.
If the words are "unknown" to a child, just how is the child expected to deal with them. And how is a teacher expected to meet the standard?

Actively engage in group reading activities with purpose and understanding.
Reading is an individual rather than a "group" matter. The standard explicitly prescribes "group activities." How is "purpose and understanding" in the group activities to be instructed?

How teachers go about the standards really isn't a separate problem. It's inherent in the standards. They insure that teachers will go about the standards "variously" that children will learn "variously" and that tests will attribute failures to the teachers and kids rather than to the standards.

1/27/2015

Dick--

This is kind of Zen. The problem isn't our effort, but our goal. So, if I'm looking for a job and not finding one, the solution is to not want a job?

tim

1/27/2015

I may have flunked the Kindergarten standards, Tim, but even with a "close reading" I just don't understand the three sentences or how they relate to my comment.

If you can expand on them a bit for a slow learner, I'd appreciate it.

I thought the purpose of CCSS was to ensure all students graduate from high school college and/or career-ready by 2020. Are you saying it's something different?

1/27/2015

Standards are just goals, Dick. They are what we are trying to teach kids to know or do. There is absolutely nothing in the kindergarten standards that are beyond the intellectual level of 5-year-olds. I've been working with little kids for about 40 years. They actually don't find asking and answering questions that hard (I've even got 2- and 3-year-old grandchildren--they're already doing that).

1/28/2015

OK, Tim. Thanks. Now I get what you were saying in your comment, and I agree fully.

The thing is, this take on standards bears no resemblance to the CCSS in whole or in part. They are promulgated and promoted as part of a multi-billion dollar Federal-Corporate initiative that leaves the public school institution, and the population of teachers and kids from k-12 holding the bag for "meeting the standards.' And the buck starts and stops with teachers (to mix metaphors).

The reality of CCSS is about as far removed from the actuality that you describe as Zen permits. And reality rules. Unfortunately, you aren't Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, or David Coleman, the axis of CCSS.

1/28/2015

Dick--

While I don't agree with your characterizations, we are in 100% agreement that some of what is being doing for implementation and accountability in pursuit of the CCSS standards is inappropriate and unsound and neither represents education nor the CCSS standards appropriately. Sound standards--and I believe that for the most part these are sound standards--is not the problem.

1/29/2015

With 100% agreement, we can quit talking about it for now while the "implementation" the Standards stimulated continues. Seems to me the "pursuit of the standards" will get worse before it gets better, but that remains to be seen.

I appreciate this summary! I get the same argument about writing. Mostly from people who are privileged enough to give kids a year spent in libraries, stimulating playrooms, museums, and lovely parks, with no shortage of books, paper, paint, crayons, and stimulating toys. If we had an empirical way to measure joy, I wish we could measure the joy of a year filled with play (which, for many kids, would be hours in front of a device) vs. the joy of learning and seeing ones own words on paper!

Would you address the need to "teach writing right away" as you discussed about reading? I feel the developmental writing research is far behind the reading research, and it is often focused more on content than on early instruction. There is growing research that writing strengthens reading skills. (For example, in Ehri's work she states that writing facilitates transition through her theoretical phases of sight word development.)

Re: my background, I am an SLP working with struggling readers and writers in my private practice. I also teach parents why and how to teach reading, writing, and spelling together, which I do online through my website. It is difficult to cross the divide between research and practice, so I try to keep informed, read for myself, rely on people like you, and grow as the evidence mounts. The reason your work matters is that following and applying good instruction is such a difficult task, and I fear for schools across the country as they try to cobble SoR into a workable program!

After decades of evolving intervention, this is what I teach today for the K-1 level: (PA games and systematic, explicit phonics instruction is taught reading and practiced in writing.) Early writing includes "saying sounds as you write," with phonics (and handwriting) instruction practiced in word building and copywork sentences. Kids also engage in original writing activities using invented spelling, "writing the sounds you say and hear with the letters you know." Original writing activities are often on topics that support phonics instruction, and are encouraged at all skill levels, from words, short sentences, to multiple sentences, depending on the child. As kids learn common words with unexpected spellings, we practice those in their copywork and their original writing, "matching the sounds you say and hear to the letters you see." We even teach early, gentle editing, in which kids monitor their own work. But we only teach editing in copywork at first, and then gradually add it to their original writing. I think all these areas of writing: sound tracking, phonics, invented spelling, sight word development, handwriting, copywork, original writing, and gentle editing can all be taught in a developmentally appropriate way! This is not extreme, and it is not taught for 6 hours a day. Short, strong, but consistent lessons go a long way. Since I work with struggling learners, I can tell you joy is sometimes hard won--but it happens and feels far better than being behind in 4th grade.

I understand this posting is a “Blast from the Past”, which might answer my following question:
Is the latest data on fourth grade NAEP reading scores still at their highest.
I thought scores had become almost stagnant in the last ten years with an actual dip in 2022 because of Covid?

Nancy--

No, actually scores dropped a bit before COVID and then plummeted as kids got less and less teaching (at kindergarten but also at the other grade levels). A key element of learning is the time invested in whatever one is trying to learn. Kindergarten is a valuable way of increasing the amount of time devoted to reading, which is particularly helpful for kids who are not getting a lot of that kind of thing at home. As amount of instruction declines, we tend to see declines in achievement like we are seeing now. I’d love to say that is over, but in many places the kids haven’t come back to regular attendance patterns from pre-COVID.

tim

Rita--
I began doing research on the relationships between reading and writing in the late 1970s and was teaching it to 6-year-olds in the early 1970s, so I'm a big fan of what you said here.

You might want to look up my blogs on How to Teach Writing in Kindergarten (there is a Part II to that as well)... and Teaching My Daughters to Read, Part IV.

good luck.

tim

Stop reading the research and just teach. Do not make demands of children, at any age. Reading should be introduced to children as a pleasure, not an assignment. I have had success with reading taught to three, four, and five-year-olds, but they came from homes where reading was a family activity. Individual children still bring different home experiences to any classroom, thus, the irony of efforts to equalize children. They are still individuals who will mimic what they learn in your classroom. Why do we not trust teachers who are prepared, experienced, and aware, professionally? It is the system that fails to perform, not the teachers.

Elizabeth--

We could do the same thing in medicine -- ignore the research because doctors are so good. Good luck to you on that. Most parents wouldn't be happy with it either. I'm sure you are a great teacher, you are certainly self satisfied.

Your position writes off kids who grow up in poverty, kids with disabilities, minority children, immigrant children, even relatively advantaged kids whose moms and dads don't know how to support their children's learning... if the parents aren't providing what is needed, then those children will likely never reach the level of readiness needed to teach them to read and if they don't we certainly shouldn't try to provide them all with equal opportunity to succeed. It's lucky reading isn't that important in this society, as that could be a real drawback some places.

Excuse my sarcasm... your anti-research position and your notion that we shouldn't try to teach all children to read, just kind of brought that out of me.

tim

Due to my professional experience, I stand on the other side of this fence. So, my opinion is not based on research. The EL and low SES students I work with lack vocabulary and background experience. I can teach them how to read, but their challenge lies in comprehension.

Research does tell us that the brain is focused on language through age six. Research also shows that the vocabulary gap widens as students move through the school system.

With a limited school day, I would love to see my 4.5, and 6 years old students immersed in rich language and experiences. This language development, in my opinion, is more valuable than drills of phonics/letter names.

I remember doing a Masters course with Warwick Elley in NZ in the 80s and his view was it was gendered; that boys would benefit from a later start. NZ children start school and formal literacy instruction on their 5th birthday. He pointed that in countries where children started learning to read later the gender achievement gap wasn’t as wide. Your thoughts, it was 40 years ago

As a second grade teacher who is EXPECTED to create a "possible retention list" each year, this comment got me thinking: "If a youngster is behind in reading in grade 3, then he/she would likely still be behind in high school." What are you thoughts (and the research) on retention during the K-2 years?

As you are all aware English is by far the most difficult of all the European languages to learn to read. Taking this into account the English tradition was to start formal reading instruction when a child arrived at school on their fifth birthday.,(K2 ?) If it is true children lose their ability to hear sounds so well ,as they get older as evidenced by their astonishing ability to learn at least two languages as preschoolers then the earlier they have instruction on phonemes awareness and phonics the better?
Since learning to read is so fundamental to all schooling would it not be a good idea to advocate all children where possible start reading instruction at home at three or four years and hence be reading fluently by six years when they start school ?Then ,if the child's school district is adverse to a beginning intensive phonics programme the child will not be disadvantaged and also sufficiently fortified against the school( unknowingly) damaging them with whole language stuff.
I have been advocating for years this to parents who have experience with dyslexic children . The parents say they couldn't handle having the stress of two dyslexic children and fewer than ten percent of schools in NZ have structured literacy. Legally here , children must start school at six years.
When is someone going to make a phonic based "Sesame Street "?

Tim, I am a fan of the research on reading and writing reciprocity. Teaching for transfer during reading and writing instruction accelerates learning in my kindergarten. Children love to learn and move easily between playing at reading and working at reading. Your point about children from impoverished backgrounds needing early instruction and literacy learning opportunities is spot on. These children depend on school for literacy.

Rae--
Most research on retention indicates more problems than benefits... however, there are exceptions (though it is impossible to know if the retention itself in these cases was exerted any positive benefits -- for example in the early 2000s, Florida adopted a plan that included retention, but it also provided statewide reading training, placed reading coaches in the schools, purchased commercial programs that were consistent with the research, provided early screening and monitoring testing and Tier 2 educational supports. Overall, kids did much better under that regime than previously, but it is impossible to pull out any one part of that as what drove the success. I would discourage most retention efforts and in those cases where retention is to be used, it ought to be for a much different level of instructional support than for one more year of the same regime.

tim

John--
Boys definitely mature at a later age than girls (my wife points that out about me with great frequency). However, I don't see that as an argument for delaying teaching -- though it does argue for instructional adjustments such as changing activities frequently, incorporating movement and out of your seat responses over worksheets, etc. Patience is important, too.

When I know kids are going to struggle more to learn something, I don't provide less or later teaching but more and more careful teaching.

tim

Patty-

It sounds like a time management problem to me. I bet I could identify unproductive time during your school day that could be used wisely for supporting these children's reading development. The studies show that it is possible to teach such children early on well enough that you can reduce (or even erase) the gap between them and their more advantaged peers. That's something you can't see observing your own teaching (that's the real benefit of research, you can make the kinds of comparisons that none of us can do in practice alone).

tim

Gaynor--

The fact is that middle class parents tend to send their children to school knowing alphabet letters, letters sounds, how to print their names, etc. The arguments that teaching such things to less advantaged children is harmful makes little sense. When I was a first grade teacher, kids were expected to master reading during that school year. That was a lot of pressure. Trying to accomplish that same goal over a 2-4 year period as you suggest both reduces the pressure greatly and gives kids the opportunity to go even further than in the past. Of course, the long term benefits of that can only be realized if the rest of the system is organized so as to build quality on quality -- taking advantage of those benefits by continuing to encourage further development.

tim

Phonology is the first step in teaching reading. Teachers have to meet the individual child where the child is on the developmental continuum NOT where they think that the child should be. start teaching from that point not some arbitrary point that some generic product suggests. Structured literacy will work if the teacher determines the correct starting point and follows the correct teaching method. Just putting children in early reading without understanding the individual needs leads not only to failure but also to social emotional issues.

Elaine--

I believe you are incorrect. Phonology is not the first step in teaching reading. It is one of the first steps. Teachers should simultaneously be building language (including vocabulary and listening comprehension), introducing writing and activities like language experience and finger point reading. The only time you give precedence to one major area of reading over the others is when a child shows a clear deficit in one or another area (and then some additional focused attention on that makes sense).

tim

Dr. Maria Montessori observed something called "sensitive periods" which refer to periods of development where a brain is "ripe" or ready to take in information. Things are "easier" to learn during such periods to brain plasticity and specific neurological building. Reading, writing and language development are best taught during the years 3 - 6. It is actually easier to learn when they are in Kindergarten compared so, for example, first grade. Montessori schools have strong success with reading between ages 4-6. This has been validated by modern day brain research.

Miriam P. Trehearne January 28, 2023
With regard to “Why Does He Want to Hurt Kindergartners?” Thank you, Dr. Shanahan, for setting the record straight, again! Similarly, recently I came away from a conference disillusioned by what was shared by a keynoter. It was stated that children should not be learning to read until age seven. No research was provided to support this belief. That is because there is none.
The essential question is this: “Do differences in the age at which children begin receiving formal literacy instruction, not simply reading, have any measurable impact on their subsequent schooling experiences, reading achievement, attitudes and literacy levels?

What we do know is:
-Kindergarten teachers can predict at the end of the kindergarten year where most of the children will be in literacy learning by the end of Grade 1. Allington says it best in the title of his article, “What Schools Should Do: Start in Kindergarten on Day One!” (2011).
- Regardless of ability, “we have evidence that 98 percent of all children entering Kindergarten can be at grade level by the end of first and second grade” (Allington 2010).
- Literacy learning in kindergarten is extremely important, for school systems have a small window of opportunity (K-2) in which to get students off to a strong start. According to a study by Connie Juel (1988), the probability that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4 is 88%.
- One research study you mentioned, The long-term effects on high school seniors of learning to read in Kindergarten (Hanson and Farrell,1984) is as you know, a large-scale longitudinal study of 3,959 high school seniors from 24 school districts in 10 U.S. states. The major finding of this study, briefly stated, is: Students who learned to read in Kindergarten were found to be superior in reading skills and all other educational indicators measured as seniors in high school. Further, this finding held up across districts and schools, as well as ethnic, gender, and social class groups. Also, there was absolutely no evidence of any negative effects from learning to read in kindergarten.

So yes, based on much research, we do know that early reading performance is predictive of later school success.

But why the seemingly exclusive focus on the best age for learning to read?

The research is clear. It is not only developmentally appropriate but also crucial to support writing as well, beginning in preschool. The quality of writing support for 4-year-olds is highly related to their language and literacy growth at the end of Kindergarten and Grade 1 (Dickinson and Sprague 2001). Unfortunately, the sad truth is that writing, like oral language, is often a curriculum casualty, neglected in many K–2 classrooms, while reading gets most of the focus (Teale, 2007).

In her landmark research, Dolores Durkin (1966) discovered that the parents and caregivers of children who had learned to read before coming to kindergarten had read with their children.
However, they did more than this. They wrote to and with their children. They also gave their children many writing opportunities. It became clear that early readers generally are very interested in writing, and many write long before they read.

Harrison, Ogle, McIntyre, and Hellsten (2008) reviewed K–3 studies (Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States) on early writing. The findings reveal “The Influence of Early Writing Instruction on Developing Literacy,” indicated that early writing supports the development of phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, and phonics. It also enhances early reading (word identification, decoding, passage comprehension, and word reading) and often precedes early reading. That is, many students come to reading through writing.


And Dr. Shanahan (2017) as you have said:
Reading-writing relations start when reading and writing start. Many folks delay writing until a solid reading base is established. Research doesn’t support that: kids are able to draw reading benefits from the beginning. When young children first try to write, they have to think hard about print concepts. When young children first try to spell, they have to think hard about phonemic awareness.

The impact of writing on reading must be considered part of any acceptable definition of science of reading instruction (Shanahan 2020).
So, it is clear Dr. Shanahan that your intent is not to hurt kindergartners! Au contraire!
Thank you for all that you do!

For poor countries such mine, Argentina, the only way to improve literacy results and social problems is an early literacy program, starting with 4 years old children, thanks for your support of this issue, Ana Borzone