The National Education Policy Center issued a statement today about teaching reading.
The bottom line: There is no “science of reading.”
It’s time for the media and political distortions to end, and for the literacy community and policymakers to fully support the literacy needs of all children.
Thursday, March 19, 2020
Joint Statement Regarding
“Science of Reading” Advocacy
KEY TAKEAWAY:
It’s time for the media and political distortions to end, and for the literacy community and policymakers to fully support the literacy needs of all children.
CONTACT:
William J. Mathis:
(802) 383-0058
wmathis@sover.net
Kevin Kumashiro
kevin@kevinkumashiro.com
BOULDER, CO (March 19, 2020) – The National Education Policy Center and the Education Deans for Justice and Equity (EDJE) today jointly released a Policy Statement on the “Science of Reading.”
For the past few years, a wave of media has reignited the unproductive Reading Wars, which frame early-literacy teaching as a battle between opposing camps. This coverage speaks of an established “science of reading” as the appropriate focus of teacher education programs and as the necessary approach for early-reading instruction. Unfortunately, this media coverage has distorted the research evidence on the teaching of reading, with the result that policymakers are now promoting and implementing policy based on misinformation.
The truth is that there is no settled science of reading. The research on reading and teaching reading is abundant, but it is diverse and always in a state of change. Accordingly, the joint statement highlights the importance of “professionally prepared teachers with expertise in supporting all students with the most beneficial reading instruction, balancing systematic skills instruction with authentic texts and activities.”
This key idea of a “balanced literacy” approach stresses the importance of phonics, authentic reading, and teachers who can teach reading using a full toolbox of instructional approaches and understandings. It is strongly supported in the scholarly community and is grounded in a large research base.
The statement includes guiding principles for what any federal or state legislation should and should not do. At the very least, federal and state legislation should not continue to do the same things over and over while expecting different outcomes. The disheartening era of NCLB provides an important lesson and overarching guiding principle: Education legislation should address guiding concepts while avoiding prescriptions that will tie the hands of professional educators.
All students deserve equitable access to high-quality literacy and reading instruction and opportunities in their schools. This will only be accomplished when policymakers pay heed to an overall body of high-quality research evidence and then make available the resources as well as the teaching/learning conditions necessary for schools to provide our children with the needed supports and opportunities to learn.
The Policy Statement on the “Science of Reading” can be found on the NEPC website at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fyi-reading-wars
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu
Copyright 2018 National Education Policy Center. All rights reserved.
The National Education Policy Center
School of Education, University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I would say there actually is a science of reading, just as there is a science of biology.
Science is just the method used to study things.
But just as there is a broad spectrum of living things there is a broad spectrum of ways of learning to read, all of which have been discovered through the scientific method.
The much better way of putting things is that there is no one “best” method of learning and teaching reading for all people.
SomeDAM Poet
The most conspicuous pushers of THE science of reading are EdWeek which has editorial content serving the special interests of 13 foundations and The National Council on Teacher Quality which also is also a propaganda mill.
I am really grateful for this report which debunks this recent attempt to revive the reading wars and to standardize reading instruction as if “science” had determined the one best practice for every student.
I will challenge anyone who says there is more than one way to teach the pronunciation of phonemes.
The reading wars have been going on for decades because the pronunciation of phonemes is taught wrongly.
I am trained in the auditing field and stopped working in 2004 when a father wanted me to teach his son to read. The kids had gone to kindergarten for one year and another year in primary one and could not read a single sentence in English.
I decided to do research on why a kid as smart as him could not read in English and decided to do ‘research’ on it.
I have since taught more than 70 kids on a one on one basis and have learned from them why they were all able to read in Malay but not in English.
Those who went to Chinese schools could also read in Romanised Mandarin (Han Yu Pin Yin) but not in English.
These two languages use the same letters as does English.
I have since learned that all the kids I have taught are kids who had shut down from learning to read due to confusion and are wrongly classified as dyslexic.
Do read 3 unsolicited book reviews on Amazon on my book ‘Shut down kids’ and let us discuss this.
“The Science of Reading” is a misused meme by the disrupters to promote standardization of reading instruction with the ultimate goal of teaching beginning reading on-line. This goal has nothing to do with “science,” and it has everything to do with creating a large market for private software vendors.
As a teacher of thirty plus years, I have taught students from many of the poorest countries on earth, most of whom spoke no English and many of whom could not read in their home language when they arrived, I have used a modified balanced literacy approach successfully for at least twenty years. Not only did I have fewer than ten per cent of my students referred for special education services, more importantly, I know that many of my former students lead successful, productive lives. They also developed an appreciation for good literature, and many of them completed post secondary education as well.
All students are not the same. Teachers should assess students prior to instruction. The focus of instruction should be on what they need, not what they may already know. Expose students to real literature, and include real reading and writing in daily lessons. Do not allow disrupters to force you to adopt unsound practice. Students can learn to read using a variety of methods.
cx: arrived.
“This goal has nothing to do with “science,” and it has everything to do with creating a large market for private software vendors.”
I believe so too. I made a few comments in two FB accounts run by advocates of SoR and my comments were removed and I was kicked out of the groups.
I have evidence from students and adults from many countries that most of them learned to read by analysis. They were taught pronunciation of phonemes wrongly and still pronounce them wrongly but are now good readers.
They were able to read a list of nonsense words I had extracted from a book by Dr.David Kilpatrick.
My question to NEPC will be- would you like to discuss how most people around the world have learned to read?
However, my main concern is how do we stop kids shutting down from learning to read and being wrongly classified as dyslexic.
The Chinese will come up with research reports to support my findings because the westerners are not willing to discuss this.
This is so obvious to anyone who reads.
🙂
Sounds right to me: “Education legislation should address guiding concepts while avoiding prescriptions that will tie the hands of professional educators.”
This is correct on many counts, but the regard for professional educators is on-target. For those who are trying to wrestle-away the responsibility and power of the professional educator, “prescriptions” and even “guidance” can be code for “micro-management” where the teacher is slowly marginalized so to finally be ushered out of the classroom.
There also is the difference between teaching children and teaching adults. In my experience (teaching adults) even THEY need a real-live person to be in communication with as they go about their learning.
But the movement from being other-taught as children, and being self-taught as adults (as with a computer) is tied to known human development factors (plenty of theory there). That long developmental movement for human beings seems to be a huge missing piece in tech-everything thinking.
Also, the “teaching methods toolbox” idea speaks to the REALITY of the massive difference between (a) general theory, prescribed methods, and school policy and (b) the also-massive field of particular student differences that professional teachers meet-up with every day in the classroom. (When did we begin to think it’s better for everyone too think alike about everything?)
A live, conscious, professional teacher, one who knows their particular students well, is the only appropriate catalyst for mediating this REAL RELATIONSHIP between general theory and living children, each with their own histories and particular needs.
BTW, teaching children is a little more complex than driving a car (duh). However, the same apparent need to obfuscate the same reality-principle applies with producing driver-less cars: the REALITY of the massive particulars “drive” the need for conscious attention most or all of the time. With children, however, we are talking about children’s lives. CBK
An example from EdWeek’s “Teacher Update”
“TINY TEACHING STORIES
Teaching is packed with powerful moments. Teachers capture them in only 100 words in our “Tiny Teaching Stories” series. Here’s one of those little gems:
“‘This Goodbye Was Special’
“Educators say goodbye to their students every year, but this goodbye was special. One of my students struggled with severe anxiety and acted out when he was overwhelmed. I worked hard to develop a relationship with him, and he became one of my favorites.
“When it was time to say goodbye, I explained that I wouldn’t be returning to school next year because I needed to move back home. As I talked to him, his tears began to flow. I didn’t know until then what an impact I’d had on him. That moment reinforced why I became an educator.
“Brianne McGee
2nd grade
Elkhorn, Neb.”
I read your posts daily and fully your support you position, but this one is insulting to all the Academic researchers who work tirelessly to help us figure out the best way to teach reading. All good quality research is Science. We can’t become Science deniers because we don’t like the outcome of any particular study. Research into education is vast and complicated, but I hope done without bias. We should be able to use good quality research to teach in the most effective ways keeping in mind that all children are different. The best way to teach any child to read is to have that child have a good relationship with a good teacher. Good teachers read research. Good research is Science. Research on reading is Reading Science and shouldn’t be politicized.
Reply
Research on reading shouldn’t be politicized — or monetized — but it is. Research on reading is abused by entrepreneurs and corporations large and small. That is an unfortunate fact. Good teachers read research, but we also have to be active in politics and fight against one size fits all standardization.
77beth77 Well-said. I think you might also agree with this, however?
. . . that ideological tech-heads, who are not also professional teachers and/or non-ideological scientists or authentic RESEARCHERS, are easy to twist research and/or to cherry-pick it (leaving behind crucial critical aspects of it) to fit their ideology . . . political, religious or whatever.
I also think part of the problem is the omission of a right relationship between (a) general science and its various research arms and (b) its applications in the classroom and in life.
Also, the term science seems to have been appropriated by the tech-heads as theirs in true double-speak fashion (which it is not, as your note suggests). So that if WE oppose “reading science,” we are already playing in THEIR ball park as somehow also anti-scientific, not to mention anti-intellectual.
What you imply is right: We don’t want education run by under-educated tech-heads. It’s not science against no science, but rather qualified and open science against ideological driven or badly-grounded “science,” which is no science at all. Let’s we-teachers keep our claim to qualified science, even in reading theory.
If THEY really were scientific, they’d keep their fingers on the pulse of, and implement accordingly, the wealth of human developmental theories which fly in the face of anti-teacher tech-head planning; and where tech-heads don’t seem to know the difference between robots and persons–oh, I forgot . . . except when it comes to their own children. CBK
My doctoral training in Educational Psychology stressed that “Science is always subject to revision,” hence, it’s not, “Our sun has 9 planets, case closed.”
If that did not apply to literacy, too, I probably never would have gotten some kids reading had I stuck with just “good literature” or basal readers instead of encouraging them to read whatever they were personally interested in reading or reading about . That included Key Word vocabulary of their choice, environmental print, menus, the phone book, comic books, the Rules of the Road for Motorcycles, etc.
homelesseducator “Science is always subject to revision.” Your teachers were right.
Science is general and methodical. Right now, your comment about the number of moons is true; but general theory is about principles that govern moons, their history, and their relationship to planets, etc., and so theory can change, as well as the number of particular moons that relate to particular planet. . . . and empirical science as generalized in any data field is designed to change with it. Until we know everything about everything, it’ll stay that way.
New data can be discovered, new techniques to do such discoveries can be developed, and different discoveries in one field can influence and challenge theoretical work in other fields. Scientific openness to change and its fundamental attachment to empirical methods makes for the greater truth of that statement: “Science is always subject to revision.” CBK (a good reading: Thomas Kuhn’s book on scientific revolutions.)
homelesseducator MY CORRECTION.
I misread your note and overlooked your “NOT.” So sorry. CBK
I mentioned the number of planets our sun has, not moons, due to the controversy about whether or not Pluto is a planet because, although it is small, it has its own 5 moons and, while it lost its status as a planet for awhile, it’s now classified as a minor or dwarf “planet” again.
I have studied a great deal about the science of language, which is linguistics, and I am also a certified reading teacher in NYS. Science is evidence based. Trying to tell teachers how to teach and calling it science is a political, not a scientific decision.
The research has clearly shown that there is more than one way to teach reading. For example, Diane Ravitch and I are of the era in which the whole word approach was used in reading instruction. We both learned to read from this approach, but I am sure many poor students would have encountered great difficulty if this was the only option available. Some students need lots of phonics, and other need very little or none. The goal is to allow students to get meaning from print. Frank Smith said, ” Reading is thinking.” The key is for the teacher to figure out what the students need, and then to provide that instruction.
BTW, here’s the Nancy Bailey article that explains what the “science of reading” is all about. https://nancyebailey.com/2020/02/05/the-science-of-reading-plot-to-replace-reading-teachers-with-phonics-on-a-screen/
The researchers who only speak one language – English – have yet to do research on why many smart kids can read in Malay and Romanised Mandarin, both of which use the same letters as English but are unable to read in English.
I have done that research for 15 years with more than 70 kids. When I write to educators in the UK and US they say that there is no empirical evidence to show that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds.
When are researchers going to do research to prove that consonants should not be taught with extraneous sounds?
Why is research required for such an obvious thing?
How naive can researchers from western countries be?
Good point. Is the problem basically poor pedagogy? I’ve seen video clips of little kids chopping the air with their hands as they call out, e.g., “buh! ih! guh!” When you “blend,” you get “buh-ih-guh” instead of “big.” But I also find [googling around] warnings to teachers to pronounce the “pure” phoneme & don’t add a big schwa to a consonant phoneme. Lots of demonstrations at youtube, e.g. this one.
That particular issue goes to teacher qualification and training. I can’t speak to how ed schools train certified elemsch teachers. (To hear the reading-wars ranters tell it, they get no “training in phonics” – whatever that means – at all.) But as a special [Spanish] to regional PreK’s, I’ve observed precisely that wrong method you describe being drilled with 4y.o.’s.
I attribute it to the current pushdown of reading instruction into K. Your typical non-play-based PreK’s inevitably [& mistakenly] pull K content down into PreK to “make sure your kids are prepared for kindergarten.” The PreK teachers I see are mostly accomplished and experienced at socializing kids, but have zero-to-little formal training in early childhood education. It’s sad to see constructive play eqpt replaced by tables/ chairs/ ppwk. Hard on the kids, teachers pressed into work they weren’t trained for, less time to focus on what they’re good at & kids need most.
Thank you, thank you and thank you again.
Excellent response.
I will respond to this separately later today.
Sigh. By your definition climate change ins’t real. There are consensus opinions, largely around decoding. While the simple model of viewing might be more subjective that doesn’t mean that the underlying science it is based on can be discounted.
I would have more faith in the “science” of reading if the process of deciding what research met the standard of acceptability hadn’t been so politicized – and so heavily weighted in favor of commercial interests.
Finally, something sensible. As I have commented a number of times, this thing called SoR is just a rehash of what has been written over the past few decades.
The Reading Wars will go on as long as the pronunciation of phonemes is taught wrongly.
I have written extensively on my findings since 2010 on my blog http://www.dyslexiafriend.com
Do read posts in my blog and grill me.
I haven’t read many of the statements above because the ones I saw just made me angry and confused. Unfortunately, I can’t spell words correctly like I once did, so I rely on my computer to correct me. I am almost 90 years old, and the world’s conditions I see today are completely foreign to me. I’m not even sure I’m alive anymore. (The only thing I seem to be able to do is to correct my missspeeling here, and that has been helped by my computer rather than my brain.). All I wish to say to you is: Hang on. Believe that the world will become real and warm again, and there are still millions of good, healthy, people ready to help us. Although I am just an old fool , I beelive there are many of you who can bring us back to sanity, health, and good will. I ask this sane people to do that and, if they have the time, to help me survive, too.
Joanne
I won’t bother to correct my errors above. Just know that I recognize them.
P.S. I taught reading to hundreds of children when I was a teacher, and that was just getting them familiar with the way words looked. Yet, I was successful, and later became a school principal and President of the National Council of Teachers of English. (I Also wrote and published five books. Today I write a blog in order to help people understand teaching and learning, and I still hope I am right and not caught in the poison of Phonics.
Joanne Yatvin,
“…the poison of phonics’? I believe this is written such because you have not got the idea of how to teach the pronunciation of phonemes.
On the other hand, phonics advocates have been carried away by insisting that sight words should not be learned.
I started to teach so-called dyslexic kids on a one on one basis since 2004 and started a blog since 2010 based on what I learned from my ‘research’ on these students.
They were all shut-down kids who had disengaged from learning to read because of confusion. The confusion is a result of not being able to connect the phonemes to the words taught because the pronunciation of phonemes is taught wrongly.
If teachers teach pronunciation of phonemes correctly and on the outset, kids are told that letters in the English language represent a few phonemes then kids will not disengage from learning to read and will not be wrongly classified as dyslexic.
You are focusing on a narrow piece of a big picture. I found Joanne Yatvin’s Minority Review to the National Reading Panel’s report a helpful summary of the big picture.
Click to access minorityView.pdf
Thank you bethree5 for your comment.
What you have said is akin to saying ‘Look, the foundation for building a house is only a small part of the whole building’.
I am saying it is the most important part. If the foundation is not strong the whole house will collapse.
What the majority of people, who learn regardless of the way they are taught, do not try and understand is why the kids predisposed to shutting down do indeed disengage from learning to read when they are confused. These are the kids who are wrongly classified as dyslexic.
I am trained in auditing and took my first student for tuition in 2004 on the persuasion of his father. He had gone to kindergarten for one year and another year in primary one and could not read even a single sentence in English.
I was curious as to why such a smart kid who spoke good English could not read in English.
I then quit working in the auditing/accounting field to do ‘research’ on this matter.
Since then I have taught more than 70 such kids and have learned from them that they could read in Malay but not in English because they had shut down from learning to read due to confusion.
Kids who had gone to Chinese schools could read both in Malay and Han Yu Pin Yin (romanised Mandarin) but could not read in English.
Let us, please look at the 20% or so smart kids who shut down when things are illogical to them.
Do read my blog posts at http://www.dyslexiafriend.com and then grill me.
I wish you well bethree5.
Don’t know why posting the url resulted in that display – just google it I guess.
I will definitely be reading there soon, Michel Luqman. I am particularly interested in how this connects to dyslexics [actual not misdg]. 2 of my 3 siblings inherited my Dad’s profound dyslexia (which we recognized later on, after dyslexia entered our lexicon]. The elder of the 2 had my same K-1 teacher so I suspect he got competent instruction in what we now call phonics (along w/ Dick & Jane sight words). My mother begged school to let him repeat 3rd-gr [early ’60’s] due to reading issue, but that was a groupthink no-no then. He ended up having to repeat a hisch grade & barely got diploma. An intelligent & disciplined guy, he filled in gaps by himself & became [still is] a voracious reader. The other, yrs later, hit jrhi just after IDEA, was spotted & helped, became dynamo SpEd teacher, has a couple of Masters’ degrees, etc promotions/ positions.
Thank you bethree5.
How was an intelligent guy unable to read if the pronunciation of phonemes was taught correctly?
How did the other brother achieve that success years later?
Do read my blog posts since 2010.
Make any comments you like and my blog is not moderated and I will respond to all comments.
I look forward to further discussion from you.
American grade school has never been an envy of the world (American universities have been, but they are quickly disintegrating). I am not surprised that someone like you with no understanding of linguistics managed to reach the top ranks in the edu-bureaucracy. You are lucky that in our tolerant times openly declaring “poison of Phonics” is as safe as coming out. Still, it is beyond my understanding why you are having a ball on this blog.
Actually, America’s free, universal, democratically controlled schools were the wonder of the world for many decades. Then the politicians decided to badmouth them instead of funding them.
Your post is a perfect example of the polemics used to promote the so-called “science of reading”. You prize linguistics experts [the scientists] over classroom practitioners (whom you scorn). The “top ranks of edu-bureaucracy” are populated by people like Arne Duncan, Betsy DeVos, and state ed depts, to whom the self-appointed ed-industry “experts” peddle policy that sells product, cherry-picking extracts from a vast body of research to sound “scientific.”
A quick google search shows me J Yatvin reached the Natl Reading Panel and NCTE [note: a body of English teachers ] the old-fashioned way: decades in public education as elem, middle & hisch teacher, elemsch principal & distr supt.
The so-called “experts” making these policy decisions have never actually taught a child to read (they have no experience teaching children, at all).
Exactly. AND most of the educators in countries speaking only one language have not taught kids in Malay and Romanised Mandarin both of which use the same 26 letters.
I did research on why many smart kids could read in 2 languages but not able to read in English.
Please step outside the box and try and understand that a majority of kids who leave school as illiterates are actually very smart kids who had shut down or disengaged from learning to read.
I have explained this in detail in my book ‘Shut down kids’.
Do read the unsolicited book reviews on Amazon found here
I would add to the list the so-called experts in reading – David Boulton, Timothy Shanahan, Andrew Johnson, Tim Conway, and many others.
I wrote an article on Betsy DeVos which all of you may like to read and then email her. This will make her respond – hopefully.
https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2020/03/email-to-hon-betsy-devos-secretary-of.html
My response: I never learned what a “Phoneme” was when I was in school, but some how I was able to teach kids to read. It’s a natural human ability. That picture on paper is what we call a “word”. Just get familiar with it, and you will recognize it as easily– and as often– as you recognize your food, home, and parents. That’s why most of us human beings can read. Try it, and you may become a reader and a human being one of these days.
You are absolutely correct. Most of the adults and kids have learned to read through analysis. That is what I have been writing about.
During the whole word period as well as the phonics period the percentage of kids leaving school as illiterate is about the same.
We need to ask why kids left school as illiterates during both periods.
These are the smart kids who cannot reconcile the sounds of the letters taught to the sounds of the words.
I have audio of people who read all the phonemes wrongly and yet are able to read nonsense words with ease. How did they develop this ability? Analysis, of course.
Writerjoney, may I please copy-paste your comment in my blog.
This is good support for my recent findings.
I wish you well.
Yes.
Thank you very much, ma’am. I wish you well.
Treating it as a natural ability is exactly what got us into this terrible situation. You may not realize that when you write ‘just get familiar with words and you may become a human being one of these days,’ it is a cruel attack on anyone with dyslexia and all those who struggle to read.
I ave written a response to this post here: https://pamelasnow.blogspot.com/2020/03/anti-science-and-science-of-reading.html
Thank you for this. Sadly, you are a lonely voice of reason crying in the wilderness.
No, she is not! I have been writing about something similar since 2010 in my blog.
The Caucasians will jump onto anything some bigwig says without the least bit of thinking.
There are two matters that I have been harping upon since 2010.
1. That phonological awareness deficit is not the cause of dyslexia. That theory was debunked in 2015.
2. Reading wars have been going on for decades because (i) the pronunciation of phonemes are taught wrongly and (ii) kids are not told at the onset that many phonemes are represented by each letter. This affects kids predisposed to shutting down who disengage from learning to read due to confusion.
I am willing to be grilled on this by anyone from anywhere.
Please read the unsolicited book reviews of my book Shut down kids on Amazon
See my reply below 3/22
The public library has books that you can download on your smart phone, iPad, or computer using overdrive. They also have audiobooks you can download.
I learned to read using the look see method (think Dick and Jane). Actually, one day I couldn’t read and then the next day I was reading simple chapter books, quickly moving to chapter books, then any book I could get my hands on so that by third grade I was out of the reader and allowed to read whatever I wanted (and I did). Is it a wonder I grew up to be a librarian.
Unfortunately, not everyone learns the same way, Some require direct instruction , including phonics, while others need really concentrated one-on-one help (like my son who after years of work can now read just enough to function in society).
Teaching children how to read is a real challenge. While as a librarian I did my best to develop a love for books, the actual act of reading I happily left to the classroom teacher.
A majority of kids learn to read regardless of the way they are taught.
There are many kids sho disengage from learning to read due to confusion which is a result of teaching the pronunciation of phonemes wrongly.
I am willing to discuss this with anyone with an open mind. I have done my own research on this when I was persuaded to teach a kid who had gone to kindergarten and then to primary one for one year each and could not read even one sentence in English.
Subsequently, I taught more than 70 kids on a one on one basis and realised why they were all able to read in Malay but not in English.
My first student is now doing a double degree in a university in Adelaide.
Feel free to grill me. Let us reduce illiteracy.
I was trained in the Orton Gillingham method to teach reading, a one on one technique which works.
Thank you flos56. It does not matter which method one uses as you very well know. You probably are talking about intervention.
I am talking about kids who require intervention as a result of being shut down from learning to read due to confusion.
Did you ever check why the kids who came to you needed intervention?
I would be grateful if you would like to comment on one of my posts on how pronunciation of phonemes should not be taught.
Let us all know if that is the way phonemes are to be taught.
https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2020/01/phonics.html
You are right. The pure sounds should be taught. I could never sound out a word the way it was taught to my kids – a sort of convoluted puzzle. It’s amazing any of them learned to read.
Wow! This is exactly what I have been writing about in my blog since 2010.
Everyone is an expert. After all, they were once students so they know everything there is to know about teaching.
If everyone is an expert please explain why China is number one in the last PISA test in the language that is spoken by almost all British and Americans.
Read and respond to my blog post at https://www.dyslexiafriend.com/2020/03/programme-for-international-student.html
Let me reword that: Just because you were once a student, doesn’t make you an expert in education.
No! No!. I am definitely not an expert in education. I am far from it.
What I learned is not as a student but from the more than 70 so-called dyslexic kids I taught on a one on one basis since 2004.
I am not a trained teacher but trained in Auditing.
As far as education is concerned I did research only on a narrow subject – why kids were able to read in Malay and romanised Mandarin but not in English when all three languages use the same letters).
My answer to that question came from all my more than 70 students I have taught.
I speak in 4 languages and test my students on Malay and Romanised Mandarin before I ask them to read in English.
I was not referring to you specifically – with your background I do consider you an expert, I was referring to the average person who thinks they know more than the teachers.
Thank you for your kind words, flos56. I wish you well.
Pamela Snow, from your linked blog post (my emphasis):
“scientific endeavours are ongoing, building incrementally on knowledge which is released via academics to practitioners. Practitioners then apply it , to be part of the knowledge translation loop that results in ongoing refinements of theories and their implications for policy and practice. ”
There’s something missing there. It sounds like the adjustments that might be made in a factory molding process consequent to a development in materials science. The material extruded at the front end is modified, put through existing machinery; results are inspected; feedback/ modification as reqd. More or less a top-down project.
I see teaching literacy as building the factory. Ongoing scientific endeavors inform every level of effort– structural principles and design, environmental and materials science, quality assurance and control, engineering customized to site conditions, construction methods and practices (again, adapted to site particulars). There’s another whole level to be considered involving public policy/ legislation with hearings, permitting, inspections, certifications. There are ongoing negotiations, alternatives, compromises up/ down/ back/ forth through these chains as design/ engrg/ construction progresses, dealing daily with unexpected site non-conformities, differences between specified and available materials, fabricator issues delaying construction schedule, e
“One father of ten explained why he and his wife chose to begin teaching their children at home in addition to sending them to school.”
From Catholic Education: Homeward Bound: a Useful Guide to Catholic Home Schooling by Kimberly Hahn, Mary Hasson.
“The pure sounds should be taught. I could never sound out a word the way it was taught to my kids – a sort of convoluted puzzle. It’s amazing any of them learned to read.” (flos56)
This is great for me for a post I intend to write in the near future.
How do the majority of kids learn to read despite teachers teaching-
cuhohtuh is coat
buhluhoo is blue
duhahguh is dog and many others you can find in my blog.
I have gathered and still gathering more audio recordings of teenage students from Australia who sound out phonemes as above but were able to read out the nonsense words in Dr.David Kilpatrick’s book with ease.
If anyone here could also record pronunciation of phonemes of the following consonants I will be grateful – c,f,l,m,s,t.
Students from countries other than the U.K., the U.S. and Australia learn English pronunciation using International Phonetic Alphabet. In some countries foreign language starts as early as second grade, and students have no problems reading English. For them, “blue” is not “buh-luh-oo” but /bluː/, coat is not “cuh-oh-tuh” but /ˈkoʊt/, “there” is /ˈðeə/, “piece” is /pi:s/ and “juice” is /dʒuːs/. Of course, they are taught how to recognize when a particular English letter or combination of letters produces this or that sound. Contrary to what many native English speakers think, written English has few easy to follow rules and very few exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet
Thank you ColorFermet. When I went to school in the late ’50s, in Malaysia, we were taught by teachers who had been instructed by the British how to teach the pronunciation of phonemes.
We had to learn our National Language as well as English right from year one.
Most of us spoke in our mother tongue at home and learning to read in Malay and English were both foreign to us. But we learned with not much problem as we were taught properly.
Today, unfortunately, many children leave school unable to read in English as they are following the way English is taught in the US. They add extraneous sounds to the consonants and that results in many kids shutting down from learning to read.