Showing posts with label instructional casualties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label instructional casualties. Show all posts

Sunday, November 9, 2025

Part 2: Why Children Shut Down When Learning to Read

 


 Instructional Casualties and Systemic Blindness

In 2011, Malaysia’s National Service revealed that 1,000 out of 11,000 trainees were illiterate. But after just 30 credit hours of instruction, they could read and write. What happened during their years in school?

 

If 30 hours can reverse years of illiteracy, then the problem isn’t the students—it’s the system.

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Anna Stokke's podcast with Matthew Burns - Part 3

                                               

                                                                     Matthew Burns

This part is quite interesting and I hope that I am not misinterpreting what Anna is saying.

Anna Stokke:

If we immerse kids in books and we make reading fun and we start with meaning and understanding, the reading will just come.

And I hear this sort of thing in math. all the time. So it's sort of like a top-down approach to teaching instead of a bottom-up approach. So in other words, the idea is to start children with problem-solving. They'll get excited about the problem and the foundational skills will just come after that. But as a matter of fact, you can't solve a problem, right, if you don't have the skills to solve the problem if you don't have the foundational skills to do it or the techniques to do it. Does that resonate with you in terms of what happened with reading?

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

Then and now

 


This morning,19.7.23, I read the following tweets

Secretary Miguel Cardona @SecCardona

 

Every student deserves the opportunity to have a career in what they’re passionate about.

That’s why we are raising the bar in education.

Thursday, February 24, 2022

Tweets by Angie Neal - Part 2

 


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'?

 








Monday, December 9, 2019

Looking at dyslexia with a jaundiced eye



To look at something with a jaundiced eye means to look upon something with prejudice, usually in a cynical or negative way. The word jaundice is an adjective that means showing distaste, envy or bitterness.

Any human being who thinks that what he does not know cannot exist is wearing the crown of ignorance.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Dr. Thimothy Shanahan’s blog post on Phonics (Part 2)



This first paragraph below is from my previous post:

Dr.Timothy Shanaghan: The point isn't that phonics is an important thing to learn for English Learners, it is that it is not the only thing they need to learn. There is a reason that English proficiency is the top predictor of literacy learning for English learners.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Challenging institutionalized assumptions about reading failure



I think it is time to challenge our institutionalized assumptions about reading failure. Our assumption that many students will be poor readers can and should be changed. As Dr. G Reid Lyon said, these kids are “instructional casualties”.

Since they are “instructional casualties” what should teachers do to prevent it?

I ask myself as to why scientists, educators, and PhD’s are still groping in the dark when Dr.G Reid Lyon had said in ‘Children of the Code’ that most of the disengaged kids are “Instructional Casualties”?
Is he the only one to say that? No.  Many others have said the same thing and they had said it even much earlier than Dr. G Reid Lyon did. Recently Jo-Anne Gross, from Linkedin, a group I belong to, was daring enough to say (in Linkedin) that reading failure is a case of ‘Dystechia!’ I hope more people will be bold enough to speak their mind like Jo-Anne.