In yesterday’s post Angie Neal Replying to @DoctorSam7 @PATSTONE55 and 5 others had said:
“I’m not arguing for the sake of argument.”
I like debating which some may read as arguing. When I realise I am wrong I say sorry and move on. No one will be able to continue arguing when I have said sorry. No one will remember the event after a short period.
Angie Neal @angie_neal Replying to @DoctorSam7 @AGoninan @reading_league @ReadWellAlaska
Part of the reason it’s difficult to have a strong dyslexia screening is because it’s difficult to tease out instructional casualties who have never received systematic and explicit instruction in PA and phonics.
Readers of this thread - note that dyslexia screener difficulties are BECAUSE OF INSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE-BASED!
I then twitted.
I believe you got this wrong. Tell me, please, how there can be instructional casualties if no PA and phonics have been taught.
My comment now:
It was Dr. Reid Lyon who first coined the words ‘Instructional Casualties’ more than 20 years ago. However, no one has ever said what it is that has been instructed wrongly that cause kids to disengage/ shut down from learning to read. I believe I am the first person to have written on why kids shut down/ disengage from learning to read. Read more in my post here.
Dr. Nancy Hennessy, President of IDA between 2003 and 2005 said “We still don’t have the capacity nor the will to change what it is that we are doing with reading early on and so consequently unless we make those significant changes we are not only going to lose the dyslexics but I am also concerned about these other children; these other struggling readers.” Read more here.
What does Angie mean when she says; note that dyslexia screener difficulties are BECAUSE OF INSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE-BASED!
It is such misinformation that is spread by SoR proponents that irks me.
Angie Neal @angie_neal Replying to @DoctorSam7 @PATSTONE55 and 5 others
I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. I’m responding to baseless claims in the name of every parent who has told me their child wanted to kill themselves because they were taught to read using approaches and curriculum that had no evidence kids should have learned to read.
My response now:
This SoR advocate wants us to believe that kids told their parents that they wanted to kill themselves because of 'approaches and curriculum'. What utter rubbish is this? Would you ever believe that a child would ever say 'they wanted to kill themselves because they were taught to read using approaches and curriculum that had no evidence kids should have learned to read'?
Angie Neal @angie_neal Feb 20th 2022.
The only limitation is KNOWING 95% of all children are cognitively capable of learning to read, but they aren’t because of unproven, unreliable, non-evidence based methods. If we knew we could cure 95% of all cancers, would you be ok with only 32% being cured?
I responded as follows: Replying to @angie_neal @DoctorSam7 @ReadWellAlaska @AGoninan @reading_league
I believe you got this wrong. Engelmann had said that only a fraction of 1 % of his hundreds of 'dyslexic' students was unteachable. Do listen to my interview at
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KJl-IFrGiQk for the real reasons why kids are unable to read.
