The further I get into this series, the more evidence there is that decisions about reading instructional methods were based on feelings, not facts. People who called themselves liberals were so convinced that people who called themselves conservatives "didn't care about poor minorities" and "only cared about money" (because that's what they told themselves, one 'liberal' to another), that they actually did something that was destructive to the groups they claimed to care about, while people whom they held in high esteem because of the way they made them 'feel' about reading instruction fleeced them.
While very few podcasts get my attention these days, I will give it a listen. If the assumptions from the intro hold true, it is another story of how letting BIG (gov., ed., academia, pharma, pub/priv.) take control, to make "progressive" change, leads to a mediocrity of society (which many will contend is the actual plan all along).
If you have not already done so check out Glenn Doman's book on how he teaches brain injured babies to read, IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES way before their able brained peers.
There should be a lesson there for schooling techniques.
Some people think the solution is to just "go back to phonics." I'd say this isn't actually such a good idea, because so many phonics-based reading programs and teaching practices are over-detailed, tedious, and confusing for kids.
I divide phonics-based methods into two categories: (1) "Cognitive phonics" teaches kids technical terms like "vowel" and "consonant" and "diphthong", along with assorted rules, most of which kids don't need to know in order to learn to read fluently. Cognitive phonics programs usually teach kids to say the sounds of letters in a word separately instead of teaching kids to rapidly *blend* sounds to produce recognizable words. And often, consonant sounds are taught with an unnecessary and confusing "uh" sound -- so that a child sounding out the word "cat" would say "kuh-a-tuh" instead of "kat." (2) "Neurological phonics" programs essentially "program" or "condition" kids to say the sounds of letters (or letter combinations) in words with no extraneous "uh" sounds, and to rapidly blend the sounds so that the result is a recognizable word. Rules, and unnecessary terms like "vowel" and "consonant" are not taught.
In my opinion, the best published programs for teaching kids to read English are the Direct Instruction programs developed by Siegfried Engelmann and his team. There's a book for parents to use to teach their kids titled "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons", a computer-based program titled Funnix (which can be used in schools or by parents), and reading programs for use in schools published by McGraw-Hill. These programs are in the "Neurological Phonics" category but also carefully develop other needed skills such as comprehension.
I think of Engelmann as "the King of Necessary and Sufficient." His programs concentrate on teaching (precisely and clearly so that kids experience no confusion) only what is necessary and sufficient for kids to learn in order to become good readers.
Engelmann wrote a very interesting book titled "War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse" which is in part about the conflict between his Direct Instruction programs and Whole Language in the state of California. If you want to understand Engelmann's work, I recommend this book along with the introduction to his book "100 Easy Lessons."
The further I get into this series, the more evidence there is that decisions about reading instructional methods were based on feelings, not facts. People who called themselves liberals were so convinced that people who called themselves conservatives "didn't care about poor minorities" and "only cared about money" (because that's what they told themselves, one 'liberal' to another), that they actually did something that was destructive to the groups they claimed to care about, while people whom they held in high esteem because of the way they made them 'feel' about reading instruction fleeced them.
This podcast was FANTASTIC!
While very few podcasts get my attention these days, I will give it a listen. If the assumptions from the intro hold true, it is another story of how letting BIG (gov., ed., academia, pharma, pub/priv.) take control, to make "progressive" change, leads to a mediocrity of society (which many will contend is the actual plan all along).
The Whole Language method wasn't a profoundly bad mistake, but enemy action. When does the relevant part of the Podcast begin?
Decline in American literacy as a result of public schooling predates Bush's presidency.
Crap. Is that why we have a new "Science of READING" curriculum change now?
Could we PLEASE just go back to PHONICS???
If you have not already done so check out Glenn Doman's book on how he teaches brain injured babies to read, IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES way before their able brained peers.
There should be a lesson there for schooling techniques.
Some people think the solution is to just "go back to phonics." I'd say this isn't actually such a good idea, because so many phonics-based reading programs and teaching practices are over-detailed, tedious, and confusing for kids.
I divide phonics-based methods into two categories: (1) "Cognitive phonics" teaches kids technical terms like "vowel" and "consonant" and "diphthong", along with assorted rules, most of which kids don't need to know in order to learn to read fluently. Cognitive phonics programs usually teach kids to say the sounds of letters in a word separately instead of teaching kids to rapidly *blend* sounds to produce recognizable words. And often, consonant sounds are taught with an unnecessary and confusing "uh" sound -- so that a child sounding out the word "cat" would say "kuh-a-tuh" instead of "kat." (2) "Neurological phonics" programs essentially "program" or "condition" kids to say the sounds of letters (or letter combinations) in words with no extraneous "uh" sounds, and to rapidly blend the sounds so that the result is a recognizable word. Rules, and unnecessary terms like "vowel" and "consonant" are not taught.
In my opinion, the best published programs for teaching kids to read English are the Direct Instruction programs developed by Siegfried Engelmann and his team. There's a book for parents to use to teach their kids titled "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons", a computer-based program titled Funnix (which can be used in schools or by parents), and reading programs for use in schools published by McGraw-Hill. These programs are in the "Neurological Phonics" category but also carefully develop other needed skills such as comprehension.
I think of Engelmann as "the King of Necessary and Sufficient." His programs concentrate on teaching (precisely and clearly so that kids experience no confusion) only what is necessary and sufficient for kids to learn in order to become good readers.
Engelmann wrote a very interesting book titled "War Against the Schools' Academic Child Abuse" which is in part about the conflict between his Direct Instruction programs and Whole Language in the state of California. If you want to understand Engelmann's work, I recommend this book along with the introduction to his book "100 Easy Lessons."