Lindamood Bell

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Remedial Reading

MEMBERS

5 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Remedial Reading Chatboard

Lindamood Bell

by Jan

Oct 25, 2012

Would like to hear what people think about this program.

Comment

(9)

report post

view previous comments

Ann Just wondering what type of phonics program you use and also do you use it for all grades (first, third, etc).

On 10/26/12, Nicole/MO wrote: > READING WRECKOVERY--Is it still the same? > > I'm still boggled by the fact that Reading Wreckovery is still > used in schools. I know plenty about the program because I was > trained...See MoreJust wondering what type of phonics program you use and also do you use it for all grades (first, third, etc).

On 10/26/12, Nicole/MO wrote: > READING WRECKOVERY--Is it still the same? > > I'm still boggled by the fact that Reading Wreckovery is still > used in schools. I know plenty about the program because I was > trained and certified in Reading Wreckovery (yes, it should be > recovery, but my term may be better fitting) over 10 years > ago. > > Most schools in my area abandoned it a few years ago because > it is so terribly expensive (RR for one students can exceed > the amount spent on the average student for the entire school > year), is based on many principles of whole language, lacks > the necessary components to make it a scientifically based > research reading intervention, and the discovery that the > Reading Recovery Institute's own reports, research, and claims > were faulty. > > After one year as a Reading Recovery teacher, I knew something > wasn’t right with the approach. I had a lot of questions > about the structure of the program and wanted to change the > lesson components and/or routines. The phonics approach was > opportunistic and the leveled readers had too many words that > couldn’t be easily decoded. These leveled readers did not > contain phonic correspondences that were controlled or > sequenced. Many students in Reading Recovery were making > reading into a guessing game since they were encouraged to > primarily use picture and context clues. When this started > to happen, I dismissed my trainer’s advice to not > teach “sounding out.” That is, after all, how I learned to > read quickly and successfully. Over time, it seemed Reading > Recovery was just whole language with some warped sense of > phonics added. > > My mentor, a Reading Recovery teacher/trainer, dismissed my > concerns and seemed annoyed that I would even question or > consider altering this “successful and sensibly perfect” > approach. Her attitude was that most teachers had no clue > how to really teach reading and that we should feel special > for having the “secret knowledge” (gained from RR training) to > unleash reading success among lower performing students. She > was so mesmerized by RR and continually dismissed other > methods/approaches as ignorant or gimmicks. > > Since I was denied my wish to make any slight alterations, I > requested and got permission to only use RR during my morning > sessions. I was assigned to teach small groups of lower > performing first and second grade students the rest of the > day. It was assumed that I was using Reading Recovery > teaching methods/strategies with my small groups since I was > trained. So, I began the year using Reading Recovery methods > only on T/Th. The other three days I implemented systematic, > explicit work in phonemic awareness and sound letter > decoding. This helped me gain a better understanding of what > was really needed to help students improve. Reading Recovery > wasn’t it! > > After a few months, I stopped teaching using RR methods and > intensified what was really helping students progress: > synthetic phonics. The school never questioned a thing > because the students reading scores rocketed. However, it led > my mentor and the school to believe that their investment in > Reading Recovery teaching was really paying off. I tried to > clear the air on that one and make my case for synthetic > phonics teaching, but my attempt (especially as a newer > teacher) went on deaf ears. > > Hence, I decided to teach in a different district the next > year. Even though it was poverty stricken, I was thankful > that they had never heard of RR and were more accepting to > what really worked. I challenged and overturned all my > training and drilled in beliefs about balanced literacy and > Reading Recovery by learning about other approaches. Some > teachers still have a hard time challenging their own thinking > about reading instruction and are resistant to change. > > I am wondering if, ten years later, RR has improved as a > teaching/remedial program. Does it now include much more > phonics than it did in the early days? > > Back then, a typical lesson would include: > 1. Rereading two familiar books > 2. Reading the previous day’s new book > 3. Practicing letter formation > 4. Writing a story by analyzing sounds in words > 5. Reassembling the words of a cut-up story or sentence. > 6. Reading a new book. >

Nov 10, 2012

report post

MichelleAZ ABeCeDarian Company Providing a research-based reading program for parents & teachers Michael Bend, Ph.D., Founder and President

This is a wonderful easy to use program. I've been using it for YEARS with success. It is fast, cheap, easy.

Michelle AZ

On 11/10/12, Ann wrote: > Just wondering what type of phonics prog...See MoreABeCeDarian Company Providing a research-based reading program for parents & teachers Michael Bend, Ph.D., Founder and President

This is a wonderful easy to use program. I've been using it for YEARS with success. It is fast, cheap, easy.

Michelle AZ

On 11/10/12, Ann wrote: > Just wondering what type of phonics program you use and also do > you use it for all grades (first, third, etc). > > On 10/26/12, Nicole/MO wrote: >> READING WRECKOVERY--Is it still the same? >> >> I'm still boggled by the fact that Reading Wreckovery is still >> used in schools. I know plenty about the program because I was >> trained and certified in Reading Wreckovery (yes, it should be >> recovery, but my term may be better fitting) over 10 years >> ago. >> >> Most schools in my area abandoned it a few years ago because >> it is so terribly expensive (RR for one students can exceed >> the amount spent on the average student for the entire school >> year), is based on many principles of whole language, lacks >> the necessary components to make it a scientifically based >> research reading intervention, and the discovery that the >> Reading Recovery Institute's own reports, research, and claims >> were faulty. >> >> After one year as a Reading Recovery teacher, I knew something >> wasn’t right with the approach. I had a lot of questions >> about the structure of the program and wanted to change the >> lesson components and/or routines. The phonics approach was >> opportunistic and the leveled readers had too many words that >> couldn’t be easily decoded. These leveled readers did not >> contain phonic correspondences that were controlled or >> sequenced. Many students in Reading Recovery were making >> reading into a guessing game since they were encouraged to >> primarily use picture and context clues. When this started >> to happen, I dismissed my trainer’s advice to not >> teach “sounding out.” That is, after all, how I learned to >> read quickly and successfully. Over time, it seemed Reading >> Recovery was just whole language with some warped sense of >> phonics added. >> >> My mentor, a Reading Recovery teacher/trainer, dismissed my >> concerns and seemed annoyed that I would even question or >> consider altering this “successful and sensibly perfect” >> approach. Her attitude was that most teachers had no clue >> how to really teach reading and that we should feel special >> for having the “secret knowledge” (gained from RR training) to >> unleash reading success among lower performing students. She >> was so mesmerized by RR and continually dismissed other >> methods/approaches as ignorant or gimmicks. >> >> Since I was denied my wish to make any slight alterations, I >> requested and got permission to only use RR during my morning >> sessions. I was assigned to teach small groups of lower >> performing first and second grade students the rest of the >> day. It was assumed that I was using Reading Recovery >> teaching methods/strategies with my small groups since I was >> trained. So, I began the year using Reading Recovery methods >> only on T/Th. The other three days I implemented systematic, >> explicit work in phonemic awareness and sound letter >> decoding. This helped me gain a better understanding of what >> was really needed to help students improve. Reading Recovery >> wasn’t it! >> >> After a few months, I stopped teaching using RR methods and >> intensified what was really helping students progress: >> synthetic phonics. The school never questioned a thing >> because the students reading scores rocketed. However, it led >> my mentor and the school to believe that their investment in >> Reading Recovery teaching was really paying off. I tried to >> clear the air on that one and make my case for synthetic >> phonics teaching, but my attempt (especially as a newer >> teacher) went on deaf ears. >> >> Hence, I decided to teach in a different district the next >> year. Even though it was poverty stricken, I was thankful >> that they had never heard of RR and were more accepting to >> what really worked. I challenged and overturned all my >> training and drilled in beliefs about balanced literacy and >> Reading Recovery by learning about other approaches. Some >> teachers still have a hard time challenging their own thinking >> about reading instruction and are resistant to change. >> >> I am wondering if, ten years later, RR has improved as a >> teaching/remedial program. Does it now include much more >> phonics than it did in the early days? >> >> Back then, a typical lesson would include: >> 1. Rereading two familiar books >> 2. Reading the previous day’s new book >> 3. Practicing letter formation >> 4. Writing a story by analyzing sounds in words >> 5. Reassembling the words of a cut-up story or sentence. >> 6. Reading a new book. >>

Nov 17, 2012

report post

Michael Waters On 11/08/12, Reading Teacher To Go wrote: > On 10/25/12, Jan wrote: >> Would like to hear what people think about this program. > > I also went to the Lindamood Bell Training on Seeing Stars. I > feel there are other programs out there that are more > successful than this one-such as WIlsons or O- G and have > better success...See More

Jun 7, 2014

report post

Michael Waters I have been a teacher 32 years. I have never seen worse than Lindamood Bell. Seeing Stars is very expensive, and what you get is nonsense words on cheap card stock. Be very suspicious of any reading program that does not contain BOOKS.

On 11/08/12, Reading Teacher To Go wrote: > On 10/25/12, Jan wrote: >> Would like to hear what ...See More

Jun 7, 2014

report post

Jared On 6/07/14, Michael Waters wrote: > I have been a teacher 32 years. I have never seen worse than > Lindamood Bell. Seeing Stars is very expensive, and what you > get is nonsense words on cheap card stock. Be very suspicious > of any reading program that does not contain BOOKS. > > This is the first honest review I've ever read abo...See More

Jun 27, 2014

report post