Live data from Hacker News

How bad are childhood literacy rates?

vox.com

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#11
This seems bad on its face, but I wonder if this is specific to reading comprehension or to all comprehension?

If our society moved from text to video as the primary way to transmit information, would our ability to communicate and comprehend the world necessarily be diminished?

Text has been around for only a blip compared to oral communication. I love reading, and it feels bad to see it decline, but I'm trying to be open-minded about what comes next.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#13
When I was young, I was amazed at how they would try to teach us English grammar and spelling, then have us read books like Huckleberry Finn that undid 6 months to a year worth of English language education. When you are young and you do not really a firm grasp of the right way to do things, being forced to spend substantial time “reading” books that show the wrong way is counterproductive. It was like having a construction crew building a structure by day and a demolition crew destroying it by night.

It is a wonder we learned anything at all and it made English tests a hellish experience, since it was never clear what was actually correct. This was on top of English itself being a confusing language (see all of the words ending in ough if you need an example). English teachers seemed to assume we had some magical ability to know the right answer after confusing us with conflicting examples, and we rarely did. It is no wonder back then that they said the same things about us.

If they want to improve literacy, they should replace the required reading with books that have no flaws in the spelling and grammar to reinforce English lessons. Then we might see student literacy rise as students stop being so confused.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#14
post #3

>>> “A lot of people are thinking about reading in terms of pretty narrow definitions of comprehension,” says Forzani. “But of course we want kids to be able to make inferences and interpretations beyond just literal interpretations, right? We want them to be able to make higher level inferences and to be able to evaluate and critique text.” Forzani points to research from the UK, where reading curriculums were widel…

“They shifted attention to really focus on teaching phonics, which is good and important…we did too much of that focus”. Without knowing the before and after, it’s not safe to say it’s still very early. Few additional weeks? Few additional months? Few additional years? At some point and grade a class should be moving past the time-consuming out-loud reading and pronunciation corrections to timed (and silent, focused)…

Agreed. Phonics is great and how you learn to read, but there is a limit in my opinion. The below is a little long winded, but covers my recent experience with my daughter.

I taught my daughter to read when she was 4 and she was reading ~30 page books in kindergarten. Nothing outrageous, but she was pretty far ahead of her class that were still going over ABCs. This was outside of a few other kids who had parents that also taught them to read that were more or less on the same level as her. I didn't bother trying to teach every last freaking phonics rule, I just taught her the different sounds each letter could make and started doing some 2 or 3 letter words each night where we'd sound out different options if the first attempt didn't work. Eventually we talked about "at" versus "ate" and when it mostly made sense to use short and long sounds. I had to relearn some of this myself while going through it. I had to warn her about weird cases a lot, but she caught on super quick. The whole idea though was to get her into those basic 5 page books and then incrementally up the difficulty rather than memorize a thousand rules up front like some poor student taking latin. Phonics is absolutely essential, but I fear that schools go overboard with it.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#15
post #11

This seems bad on its face, but I wonder if this is specific to reading comprehension or to all comprehension? If our society moved from text to video as the primary way to transmit information, would our ability to communicate and comprehend the world necessarily be diminished? Text has been around for only a blip compared to oral communication. I love reading, and it feels bad to see it decline, but I'm trying to b…

The thing is, back before writing became prevalent, Shakespeare would worry that his plays would be plagiarized by someone in the audience watching a performance, then afterwards, writing down the entire thing from memory.

Similarly, _The Metamorphoses_, and _The Iliad_, and _The Odyssey_ were part of an oral tradition and their structures were created to as to facilitate memorization and recitation --- how many poems can you recite from memory?

Marshall McLuhan warned that each extension of what people can do aided by technology is accompanied by an amputation of what folks will do/learn/be capable of unaided:

https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/05/30/marshall-mcluhan-extens...

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#16
post #11

This seems bad on its face, but I wonder if this is specific to reading comprehension or to all comprehension? If our society moved from text to video as the primary way to transmit information, would our ability to communicate and comprehend the world necessarily be diminished? Text has been around for only a blip compared to oral communication. I love reading, and it feels bad to see it decline, but I'm trying to b…

The problem is text as a form of media consumption is just the easy, arguably unimportant bit. Text comprehension is essential for modern life.

* Understanding legal documents like contracts

* Filing taxes

* Filling out job applications

* Basically all forms of asynchronous communication

* Every form you’ve ever filled out

Like I’ve read tear jerking accounts of how rat fucked you are in life if you can’t read. A brutal combination of being setup to fail in every interaction, general humiliation, and being utterly left out of society to a shocking degree.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#17
post #13

When I was young, I was amazed at how they would try to teach us English grammar and spelling, then have us read books like Huckleberry Finn that undid 6 months to a year worth of English language education. When you are young and you do not really a firm grasp of the right way to do things, being forced to spend substantial time “reading” books that show the wrong way is counterproductive. It was like having a const…

Are you being sarcastic? I completely disagree with you here. Even at a young age people can understand that Huck Finn is a novel told from the perspective of a southern boy in the 1800s, not how you’re “supposed to write” when in another class you have to write and essay about Marie Curie. I think I was like 7 when I could tell this difference. And Huck Finn is for 12-14 year olds.

Books like Huck Finn are critical to building the model in your head that every writer has a different perspective, that they will present differently, and even perceive differently. (Is Huck exaggerating to you the reader? This is a critical intuition to get about all writing to make you more literate, not less.) You learn to understand through different writing styles, which is another absolutely critical step in becoming literate.

Just thinking about a world where we take your advice above makes my stomach turn it seems so wrong to what the point of reading these books even is…

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#18
post #13

When I was young, I was amazed at how they would try to teach us English grammar and spelling, then have us read books like Huckleberry Finn that undid 6 months to a year worth of English language education. When you are young and you do not really a firm grasp of the right way to do things, being forced to spend substantial time “reading” books that show the wrong way is counterproductive. It was like having a const…

I think you’re pointing out a real problem, but the solution is backwards. English, like any language, is not a formal rigid system like a programming language. “Undoing” the supposed ‘rules’ of language with good literature shows that the true rules of language are more complex and nuanced than the heuristics we use to teach children, and that these exceptions create richness, variety, and culture. Ultimately it really is “what sounds right” no matter what the rules say.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#19

Maybe reading books is less important than ever, and the kids are adapting to the new world. I am reminded of this xkcd, which I just realized Im about a decade behind on. https://xkcd.com/1414/

I understand the gist of the comic, but don't think it truly applies.

Each generation has ups and downs compared to those that came before it. In recent times, short tik toks do seem to be detrimental by leading the brain to focus on receiving constant doses of dopamine instead of focusing on something like a book which requires much more focus.

I'm not saying the sky is falling, but it's different from the introduction of newspapers and radio and TV and even gaming. In the 60s I guess you'd watch a program with your family at night (like Andy Griffith). You weren't raised on monetized YouTube ads and then watching Tiktok all day. I don't think they're adapting at all, but not learning the necessary skills to hold a job. This isn't all Gen Z, but a lot have trouble focusing for extended periods of time, not to mention challenges with communication and socializing.

Re: How bad are childhood literacy rates?

#20
post #13

When I was young, I was amazed at how they would try to teach us English grammar and spelling, then have us read books like Huckleberry Finn that undid 6 months to a year worth of English language education. When you are young and you do not really a firm grasp of the right way to do things, being forced to spend substantial time “reading” books that show the wrong way is counterproductive. It was like having a const…

Is English your first language? If it isn't, I completely agree with you.

However if it is, then I would make the argument that it's exactly the right way to teach it, particularly to young people. As you point out, it's a very fluid language with a lot of rules that are completely arbitrary. As a native speaker, it's more important getting to grips with the, I dunno what we'd call it on here, pseudocode rather than formulaic structure? Concepts over syntax maybe.

I'm from the UK. My immediate family is from Dundee and Sunderland. I had inlaws from Liverpool and Bristol. When we all got together, especially after a few drinks, at no point would an outsider think we were even speaking the same language, but we all had the same common grounding.

I agree with you that it's probably a bad way to teach formal grammar. It depends on the context though

Post reply on HN