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

491–500 of 524 posts

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

#491

Post by isaacfrond »

fullstop wrote: post #117
mikeryan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was some bad science that pushed teachers (really administrators) away from teaching phonics as part of the reading curriculum. I have a daughter in third grade who struggled a little with reading (horrible timing too COVID hit at the end of kindergarten so she lost about a third of that year) She fortunately goes to an independent school who, as a result of some of this reporting quickly turned back on “phonic…

I'm wondering if I'm in the minority, but both of my kids learned to read before they started attending school. My youngest was old enough to grow up with Netflix and we always keep the subtitles on, so she learned a ton from that. What she didn't always learn, though, was pronunciation. Some of the shows had no dialogue, but had captions for things which happened. Occasionally she will slip up even today (at ~15) an…

I had a kid that could read at 3 or so. When she reached the age to learn reading at school, she was forced to do the sounding out bit. She frankly found it all an amusing, though a bit ridiculous, charade. Kids will put up with a lot though.

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

#492

Post by fullstop »

isaacfrond wrote: post #491
fullstop wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if I'm in the minority, but both of my kids learned to read before they started attending school. My youngest was old enough to grow up with Netflix and we always keep the subtitles on, so she learned a ton from that. What she didn't always learn, though, was pronunciation. Some of the shows had no dialogue, but had captions for things which happened. Occasionally she will slip up even today (at ~15) an…

I had a kid that could read at 3 or so. When she reached the age to learn reading at school, she was forced to do the sounding out bit. She frankly found it all an amusing, though a bit ridiculous, charade. Kids will put up with a lot though.

Yeah, my youngest learned to read between two and three. I thought that she had memorized books, but she could read me brand new ones which she had never seen before.

She struggled with early education because she didn't like being forced to do things. Every kid is different, I suppose.

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

#493

Post by bluGill »

gladiatr72 wrote: post #486
bluGill wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably - English doesn't have good rules of spelling, so phonetics is not a good approach to learning to read. There are often several different phonetic ways you could spell a world, only one of which is right (to, too, two). In reverse there are often several different phonetic ways to pronounce a written word. As someone with Dysgraphia I often wished we reformed English to be more phonetic (I'm not sure if it w…

Um. You have not read any pre-19th century English-language literature, have you? If you think there are no good rules, expose yourself to how the language was written before there were _any_ such rules. Finnigin's Wake, anything by Cotton Mathers and the like.

The added rules were just memorize the one correct way to spell. Previously it's was phonetic, and everyone used different spellings. Of course it looks less phonetic if you are unaware of how phonics change. (U and V switched roles as one example)

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

#494

Post by bluGill »

Vanderson wrote: post #471
bluGill wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen many "science based methods" in my lifetime, and they are contradictory. I am not an expert in the subject of education, which means I cannot evaluate what is really science based. I could do this of course - but my day job is as a programmer and when I'm done with that I just want to make sawdust or music, not do more research.

Well, by "science based" my understanding is that they could prove the system worked to effectively teach kids to read with predictable results.

Sure, but all methods teach kids to read. Science of education should include effectiveness. Things such as how well they comprehend, how fast they read, what disabilities they have... note that the above list logically should be in conflict and society should debate the best method bases on the different measures to find good compromises.

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

#495

Post by mattmcknight »

camgunz wrote: post #479
mattmcknight wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find anyone out there that advocates teaching only phonics. It's a step in the process of learning to read that, if left to teachers that were taught under a non-evidence based approach, many try to skip.

They don't say "only teach phonics", they say "always teach phonics no matter what even if it fails a significant number of students". It's an issue of forcing teachers to do things they know won't work or aren't working. I'm not saying there aren't bad teachers, and I agree that's a problem and that the solution (get good people to be teachers and give them the autonomy to be good) depends on addressing it. But usin…

> It's an issue of forcing teachers to do things they know won't work or aren't working.

So many teachers at this point have been falsely taught that phonics doesn't work, that many skip thinking they are doing the right thing. We need them to try to teach phonics. Yes, there are some students it won't work for, such as those with hearing problems. However, those students should be in specialized programs already. For everyone without hearing problems, we need them to try.

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

#496

Post by allknowingfrog »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #423
jerry1979 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the easiest way for me to learn about this ideology? Is there a test prep or similar?

I'm guessing it's combo of: - equity and social justice - culturally-responsive teaching - student-centered learning - learning styles

Yeah, pretty much this. It's all part of the "it's a mission" mentality that leads to teachers being over-worked and under-paid. Everyone else has a job. You have a calling!

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

#497

Post by allknowingfrog »

jerry1979 wrote: post #150
allknowingfrog wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was exactly my experience. I had to pass a review board before I began my senior year, and it was essentially an "ideological indoctrination" examination. I said what they wanted to hear. What else was I going to go with the 3 years of education that I had already purchased? I was fortunate to study at a college that emphasized field-based experience, because it was the only degree-related value that I left with…

What's the easiest way for me to learn about this ideology? Is there a test prep or similar?

Oh, it's not a stated set of requirements. I would describe it as more of a culture. The review board didn't hand me a standardized test or anything. They just asked a lot of questions about my personal outlook on the field of education. I already mentioned this in another comment below, but what they really want to hear is "it's a mission".

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

#498

Post by michael_j_ward »

taeric wrote: post #375
Taywee wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is highly non-phonemic. It's not absurd. If you considered English phonetic, you'd have to consider almost every modern language writing system phonetic. The distinction wouldn't mean much.

If it is not phonemic, what is it? It is not necessarily "regular" or "uniform" in the phonemes that are represented, but you can't consider it anything other than phonetic, as the characters represent phonemes. Pretty much period. As said in other threads, you are not wrong that there are more direct 1:1 scripts to phonemes. You are wrong to think that is what phonetic means.

And in the context of discussing "whole word" vs "phonetic" systems of learning the English language, it seems like outright deception.

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

#499

Post by warner25 »

camgunz wrote: post #480
warner25 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I agree. My wife taught in public high schools for a couple years in an economically struggling city. It was so hard (and paid so poorly, especially per hour of labor) that she quit after those two years and is still traumatized by it a decade later.

Oof I'm sorry. But yeah, an all-too-common story. Maybe it's corny but, thanks to your wife for her service.

Funny you say that because I'm an Army officer, so people regularly thank me for my service, but my wife arguably worked harder, had more responsibility, and was contributing more to society while she was in those schools. And she got paid less than a 19 year-old private in the Army. In fact, the principal of the whole school was paid less than I had been paid as a lieutenant in my early 20s.

Anyway, what's hard about teaching is not pedagogy or the subject material itself, but rather the administrative burdens and management of large and diverse classrooms, as you said, unfortunately.

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

#500

Post by kyrra »

syrus wrote: post #390
kyrra wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there aren't many teachers in the first place, and the older ones often lack the motivation to further their own knowledge I'd also say part of the cause of this are the teacher unions. When we don't do merit based promotions and raises, people don't care as much.

Unions are on the rise, and we need them to seize more power in every sector of labor to fight against extreme wealth inequality. I fully support the teacher's unions. More often than not, they include resources for their students in their negotiations.

Teacher unions regularly ignore students (they are there for the teachers), much like Cop unions are there only to protect the cops.

See Teacher Unions pushing to keep schools closed at the detriment of students.

Post reply on HN