@staciemcclam I was an elementary teacher for 10 years. I taught 1st grade through 4th grade, but mostly 1st grade. Students entered my classroom at various reading levels. I did not judge my students based on their reading ability when they entered my classroom. My job was to teach children how to read and to improve their reading skills at whatever level they entered my classroom.
Some students had books at home, and some did not. Some students went to the library, and some did not. Some students knew how to read when they entered my first-grade classroom at the beginning of the school year, and some did not. Some parents read with their kids at home, and some did not. There are many other factors that contribute to becoming literate.
The majority of the students at my schools were not on grade level. I believe that a strong phonics curriculum in kindergarten and first grade could have significantly improved the reading levels of the students. Phonics needs to be explicitly taught for some students. Phonics works, but unfortunately, it is not taught often, if at all, anymore. Many school districts and principals do not emphasize phonics skills. Phonics is necessary for students who do not come from a home where reading is embedded in their daily activities and often times when English is not their first language. Why would school districts get rid of something that is so vital to some students’ literacy?
When I was in my graduate program at Howard University, I was introduced to the phonics-based vs. whole language approaches to reading. I believe that this debate began in the 1980s. Phonics-based reading instruction focuses on decoding words and reading comprehension. Whole-language reading instruction focuses on readers using the words as part of language to construct the meaning of the text. Whole-language is not helpful for students who have limited home exposure to books and reading. How can students understand the meaning of the text if they don’t understand the words? Whole-language assumes that students know how to read or have some reading skills in order to be able to understand how words are a part of the language. The whole language works well if students know how to read. But if the students don’t know how to read, then phonics is necessary.
I taught first grade in Kuwait for one year at a private school that used the American curriculum. The student population was the majority of Kuwaiti students with Arabic as their first language. The school used the Open Court phonics-based reading program. Open Court was a reading program that worked well for many Black and Brown students in California, but many school districts stopped using it. My school in Kuwait used the Open Court curriculum. By the end of the school year, my Kuwaiti students far exceeded the reading levels of students that I worked within urban schools in the United States. While there could be many factors for this result, I think the main reason is that our daily elementary school schedule in Kuwait included more than two hours of phonics per day. Students spent a significant portion each morning learning phonics.
Critics of Open Court and other phonics-based programs claimed that the children couldn’t explore or be creative – basically, that the curriculum was boring and repetitive. That’s exactly what I liked about it, and it worked. It taught students the basics, the rules so that they could be successful with understanding the structure of reading. Students learned the “reading” code. The students worked in Open Court phonics workbooks and enjoyed coloring rhyming words and beginning and ending letter sounds. Learn to read first. Then explore and be creative later after learning how to read.
Not all curriculum benefits all student populations. I think we should look at the population of the students that we serve at each school site and address their specific needs. I taught at a majority Black, Title 1 school where the teachers were told to believe in the reading curriculum. The required reading curriculum was not conducive to the learning needs of the students at the school. Yet teachers were told that the research supported the curriculum. But the curriculum was not designed for the students at my school. I often wondered about the research methods used in those studies and if the studies were compared and contrasted by race, gender, and socio-economic status. Where was this research conducted and what demographic of students were the research subjects?
It didn’t make sense for teachers to believe in a curriculum that did not allow our students to flourish. As a teacher, I was often put in an awkward situation. It became an internal battle that I experienced throughout my teaching career. Should I sneak to teach phonics because I know it would help students learn to read and “risk” getting caught if I wasn’t teaching the reading curriculum? Or should I “follow directions” and teach the required curriculum knowing that it is stunting my students’ growth? I remember attending far too many reading professional development sessions using a curriculum that did not help our students. Why would any school or school district use a curriculum that was not helpful to its students?
Some students had books at home, and some did not. Some students went to the library, and some did not. Some students knew how to read when they entered my first-grade classroom at the beginning of the school year, and some did not. Some parents read with their kids at home, and some did not. There are many other factors that contribute to becoming literate.
The majority of the students at my schools were not on grade level. I believe that a strong phonics curriculum in kindergarten and first grade could have significantly improved the reading levels of the students. Phonics needs to be explicitly taught for some students. Phonics works, but unfortunately, it is not taught often, if at all, anymore. Many school districts and principals do not emphasize phonics skills. Phonics is necessary for students who do not come from a home where reading is embedded in their daily activities and often times when English is not their first language. Why would school districts get rid of something that is so vital to some students’ literacy?
When I was in my graduate program at Howard University, I was introduced to the phonics-based vs. whole language approaches to reading. I believe that this debate began in the 1980s. Phonics-based reading instruction focuses on decoding words and reading comprehension. Whole-language reading instruction focuses on readers using the words as part of language to construct the meaning of the text. Whole-language is not helpful for students who have limited home exposure to books and reading. How can students understand the meaning of the text if they don’t understand the words? Whole-language assumes that students know how to read or have some reading skills in order to be able to understand how words are a part of the language. The whole language works well if students know how to read. But if the students don’t know how to read, then phonics is necessary.
I taught first grade in Kuwait for one year at a private school that used the American curriculum. The student population was the majority of Kuwaiti students with Arabic as their first language. The school used the Open Court phonics-based reading program. Open Court was a reading program that worked well for many Black and Brown students in California, but many school districts stopped using it. My school in Kuwait used the Open Court curriculum. By the end of the school year, my Kuwaiti students far exceeded the reading levels of students that I worked within urban schools in the United States. While there could be many factors for this result, I think the main reason is that our daily elementary school schedule in Kuwait included more than two hours of phonics per day. Students spent a significant portion each morning learning phonics.
Critics of Open Court and other phonics-based programs claimed that the children couldn’t explore or be creative – basically, that the curriculum was boring and repetitive. That’s exactly what I liked about it, and it worked. It taught students the basics, the rules so that they could be successful with understanding the structure of reading. Students learned the “reading” code. The students worked in Open Court phonics workbooks and enjoyed coloring rhyming words and beginning and ending letter sounds. Learn to read first. Then explore and be creative later after learning how to read.
Not all curriculum benefits all student populations. I think we should look at the population of the students that we serve at each school site and address their specific needs. I taught at a majority Black, Title 1 school where the teachers were told to believe in the reading curriculum. The required reading curriculum was not conducive to the learning needs of the students at the school. Yet teachers were told that the research supported the curriculum. But the curriculum was not designed for the students at my school. I often wondered about the research methods used in those studies and if the studies were compared and contrasted by race, gender, and socio-economic status. Where was this research conducted and what demographic of students were the research subjects?
It didn’t make sense for teachers to believe in a curriculum that did not allow our students to flourish. As a teacher, I was often put in an awkward situation. It became an internal battle that I experienced throughout my teaching career. Should I sneak to teach phonics because I know it would help students learn to read and “risk” getting caught if I wasn’t teaching the reading curriculum? Or should I “follow directions” and teach the required curriculum knowing that it is stunting my students’ growth? I remember attending far too many reading professional development sessions using a curriculum that did not help our students. Why would any school or school district use a curriculum that was not helpful to its students?