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.
High Five Literacy@FaithBorkowsky·
Why aren’t more men following my Facebook High Five Literacy page?
Do men read? I hope so…
Are men interested in #literacy? It doesn’t look like it.
I’m sure every father wants to see his child reading. And I know male educators want their students to read.
I just don’t think enough men take an active role in advocating for better #reading instruction.
We need male role models for kids, and we need men involved with literacy initiatives.
Curriculum casualties, of which there are millions, could be virtually eradicated…(IDA)
International Dyslexia Association and National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development’s definition of dyslexia is:
Here are some extracts from Dr. Sam Bommarito’s blog post and my comments.
Sam:
We know that SOME (not all!) Science of Reading Advocates use half-truths and misdirection to promote a very limited and limiting way of teaching.
We know that some SOR advocates use tactics like swarming, personal attacks, and misinformation to dissuade educators with views other than their own from speaking out. I call those advocates the “my way or the highway” crowd. I’ve personally experienced the tactic of misinformation, and I’ve been swarmed many times. But not all advocates of direct instruction agree with the pronouncements of the “my way or the highway” crew. A well-known advocate of direct Instruction has accused some SOR folks of “making that stuff up” when it comes to their claims about the efficacy of the long-term use of decodables.
Yesterday, 25.1.2021 (USA time 24.1.2021) I had a Twitter discussion with Dr. Daniela O’ Neill. At the end of the discussion she said:
I think we actually agree. Because English is an opaque language, scientifically backed instruction that is based on how the brain learns to read is all the more important for children learning to read in English.
Here is a YouTube video by Dr. David Kilpatrick and my comments.
Dr. Kilpatrick:
At minute 2.08 it says: Poor access to the phonemes makes reading alphabetic languages very difficult.
At minute 2.47 it says: The ability of identifying unfamiliar words by sounding them out.
On 16.1.2022, I read a post on Dr. Sam Bommarito’s blog. Here are a few extracts and my comments.
Dr. Sam:
On the one hand, everyone agrees that the current state of reading instruction is not acceptable. SOR advocates claim Balanced Literacy is the root cause of the problems in reading. They view Balanced Literacy as lacking instruction in phonics and the use of orthographic information.
I had stopped teaching in 2019 but started guiding parents to teach their kids who were unable to read.
Here is an email I received from the mother of my latest student whom I weaned off last week.
Jan 17, 2022, 8:15 AM
Good morning Mr Luqman,
On December 17th 2020, I was invited to a Zoom meeting by a Podcaster who happened to have read some of my Tweets. It was a half hour interview and I answered all his questions. He was jovial and our zoom meeting ended on a good note.
On 26.12.2020 I received the following email from him.
On 12.1.2021 I Tweeted the following:
‘Interesting find.
I just realised that one Gale Morrison @GaleMorrisonEd, Parent education advocate, has blocked me. Why do people block me? I believe I am a threat to their business.’
Here are some extracts from a post by Greg Ashman and my comments. I have told this guy to stick with what he is good at - Math and Physics – and not to stick his fingers in what he knows nothing about but this guy is just too stubborn or naive. I have not seen his tweets for a long time as he decided to mute me for asking questions he could not respond to. He has learned well from the ostrich.
This book is
written by Mike Thomas who is a dyslexic.
Here are a few extracts and my comments/questions which I hope Mike will respond to.
The second time through the 4th grade I started listening more closely to what the teacher was saying and focusing harder on the material I was studying. As a result, I did start to get a little better at reading. Sure, I was still very slow at reading, but now I tried concentrating on memorizing exactly what each word sounded like as I was looking at it; linking the sound of the word with the image of the word.
This seemed to work, but I had to literally hear every word
in my head as I read it to know its meaning.
I thought that was just the way
everybody read, hearing each word in their heads as they read.
