Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

features.apmreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 524 posts

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#121

Post by kenjackson »

lr4444lr wrote: post #2

As someone who's both worked as a teacher and as a software engineer, my feeling is that what happened in reading education is roughly what engineers' jobs would be forced by their CTOs to use software methodologies and languages that came from their university professors who've never really spend much time (at least not in well over a decade if at all) doing actual salaried software development where code had to be…

Used that book for my son at around age 4. He never learned to love reading, but he’s a good reader.

One thing that always perplexed me is his spelling/writing. He does very little reading on his own. But he spells and writes incredibly well. He can spell words he has never seen before - I think he can apply implicit rules after seeing relatively few examples.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#122

Post by jrochkind1 »

tomrod wrote: post #34
jrochkind1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I did not learn to read at home, I learned to read in school, in the early 80s, starting with basic alphabet in kindergarden (not before), and serious reading in first grade, which was standard then -- and by third grade was a huge nerd spending many hours a week reading recreationally, and reading "adult" novels like George Orwell. Your story is a good reminder that there may be more than one way…

My story reflects yours (I was a "late" reader by grade but also the youngest in my grade, and voracious after I found the world larger than my tiny country town). Because we read with our kids, all of them were reading by late 3/early 4 years old, by their own desire. While none have had a propensity for George Orwell at the third grade, they do read things beyond their age levels. I was lucky, and my kids are lucky…

I was not considered a "late" reader at all for the early 80s though, at least where I was -- they just didn't try to teach preschoolers to read then and there like they do now. I think what they do now is a mistake... but that could be my own anecdotal prejudices.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#123

Post by Auracle »

nemo44x wrote: post #110
patall wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "before kindergarten" mean? In the mornings? Or before she was old enough to go there? I started kindergarten at age 2 (like described in Wikipedia) and I suspect that is not what you mean.

At least here in the USA, age 2 is generally when you start pre-school. Kindergarten starts at age 4 and lasts for 2 years, K4 and K5. Then 1st grade at age 6.

For what it’s worth, that doesn’t sound typical to me. I’d say pre-school, it’s it’s done at all, is done at the age of 4 - maybe 3 if you’re doing it super early. I’ve never heard of “K4” and “K5,” and most kids start kindergarten at age 5 and only do one year of it.

Where do you live?

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#124

Post by edtechdev »

Educational researcher here. There's no such thing as a "science of reading." It's part of the highly politicized "reading wars" (see also the "math wars" which has been going on for decades). It's no coincidence that Republicans are pushing phonics as the end all be all solution to teaching reading, and you can cherry pick educational research studies that support or disconfirm various teaching strategies. Phonics has its place, contexts where it is appropriate and beneficial, but it is not the sole strategy that works or should be used in every context.

A recent meta-analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338494581_Meta-Anal... and the What Works Clearinghouse have summaries of the evidence for different strategies for improving early reading skills: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/14 Direct Instruction (also championed by one political side) is not an effective strategy: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/EvidenceSnapshot/139

Here's just one post with a little more info on the political context: https://radicalscholarship.com/2023/01/14/does-the-science-o...

A bigger scandal is how states like Florida game the system to make their reading score rankings look higher: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2023/01/05/floridas-educati...

The good news is there are a lot of strategies that help with reading in various contexts. There's even research on how reading to dogs (or even robots) helps students with reading :)

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#125

Post by mcv »

I can't help but think of my youngest son. He's been having language development problems his whole life; barely spoke at 3. He got help, and he quickly become a very adept speaker, using complex sentence structures, though he does have a bit of a speech impediment. I already expected him to have trouble learning to read, and he did. It was hard, he hated it, and we received a lot of help with it.

One thing that struck me from this story is kids only wanting to read books they already know. My son was like that. He loves Dr Seuss books and has read the easier ones a dozen times, so he always proposes to read that instead of the new book we're trying to read.

Still, he reads a lot better now than some of the kids in the story. He's starting to pick up on random texts he runs into, reading subtitles (he's too slow though), so there's definitely progress. He's 8, which I think corresponds to grade 3 in the US system? He's about a year behind in reading, so if American kids a year older than that read worse than he does, that's not good.

Though I do wonder if "sounding out" words might be a less effective strategy in English than it would be in some other languages...

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#126

Post by josho »

stuaxo wrote: post #61

I guess you guys in the US could try curriculums from other English speaking countries ?

American exceptionalism leaves some Americans with the mis-guided belief that there is nothing to learn from other countries. I couldn't help but laugh seeing your comment was downvoted at the time I read this.

What Americans should consider is removing charter/private schools so that rich kids have to have the same experience as middle class and lower income. In my experience wealthy families have time and resources to influence school boards to improve, so get those people improving school for everyone, not just an already elite cohort.

Second, change how schools are funded. Funding should not depend on the wealth of the surrounding neighborhoods (ie. stop funding schools through property taxes). The current model sets up poor families to have worse outcomes as they get less resources, so from the get go we take disadvantaged kids and further disadvantage them.

Unfortunately, Americans love their personal freedoms and as a result none of these options will be implemented.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#127

Post by bradleyjg »

nicwilson wrote: post #120
bradleyjg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if it’s utopian or dystopian but in 20 years we may have the majority of education being done by AIs. That’s the only practical way of getting to 1:1.

> [AI is] the only practical way of getting to 1:1. It is not the only way: getting other students to teach. Yes it has a bootstrapping problem of quality and requires QA on the delivery but it is still definitely doable at scale.

When it works, it’s beautiful. Teaching someone else is such a great way of consolidating your own understanding.

It so often goes off the rails, though.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#128

Post by rahimnathwani »

lr4444lr wrote: post #2

As someone who's both worked as a teacher and as a software engineer, my feeling is that what happened in reading education is roughly what engineers' jobs would be forced by their CTOs to use software methodologies and languages that came from their university professors who've never really spend much time (at least not in well over a decade if at all) doing actual salaried software development where code had to be…

> book: "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons"

> Anecdote: it worked for my kid.

It worked for my kid, too. And it's worked for my friends' kids. And for at least one stranger who read a previous HN comment I wrote.

If you have a child who is 3, 4 or 5, today (or whenever Amazon delivers) is the best time to start.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#129

Post by makomk »

zaphar wrote: post #60
oxfordmale wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UCL researchers are among 250 signatories to a letter which has been sent to education secretary Nadhim Zahawi, calling on the government to allow for a wider range of approaches to teaching reading, which would allow teachers to use their own judgment about which is best for their pupils. It doesn't say phonics doesn't work, it suggests phonics is only effective for a subgroup of pupils. Everyone has their own l…

There is pretty strong evidence[0] [1] [2] that phonics is a critical part of learning to read for everyone no matter who they are or what their personality is. It's not the only piece of the puzzle but if you leave it out you will handicap the student intended to or not. Without phonics when you encounter a new word you can't pronounce it. If you can't pronounce it you can't use it in conversation. You can't use it…

The trouble is that there's a strong tendency in UK journalism these days to treat anything the UK is doing as obviously wrong and any alternative as obviously better and ignore evidence that contradicts this, and the Guardian is one of the worst offenders. (This doesn't just apply to education; for example, the British press like to blame our energy woes on the government focusing on offshore wind and push onshore wind and solar as magical solutions, even though the offshore wind push was a roaring success that other countries want to copy and onshore wind and solar were already struggling even before the shift in focus.)

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#130

Post by nateburke »

No one is talking about the impact of kids seeing parents read on phones instead kids seeing parents read on books. When kids see a parent reading a book there's no doubt as to what they're doing. They are reading.

OTOH, even if a parent is reading the most wholesome text on the most wholesome app, the fact that they are doing it on a phone admits some possibility of confusion in the eyes of the child observing. There is a nonzero chance that it could be interpreted by the child as the parent watching a video. Or playing a game.

Children have a very powerful desire to imitate, and it should not be ignored in the debate on literacy.

Post reply on HN