Posts
It was published in 1955, which I thought was interesting in itself, because it seems like a lot of people think of the fifties as "back when schools were so much better."
What's also particularly interesting is that he wrote a sequel in the early 80's called "Why Johnny Still Can't Read."
In the first few pages of the original 1955 book, he says:
I was born and raised in Austria. Do you know that there are no remedial reading cases in Austrian schools? Do you know that there are no remedial reading cases in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Norway -- practically anywhere in the world except the United States? Do you know that there was no such thing as remedial reading in this country either until about thirty years ago? [This statement was made in the 1950's.]
If this is true, that is staggering in its implications. Especially for someone like me who has worked for years in "good schools" and has seen how students read (and spell -- oy!) and how sometimes as many as 30% of kids in my music class would have an IEP (ie, be considered "Special Ed.")
But what blows my mind even more is his description of visits to several first grade classrooms. (In fact, he also cites many similar examples from third grade classrooms.) He makes it clear that he has visited many many classrooms, in many different schools, and this is completely typical. [Again, this is in the early 50's.]
Of course [the students] make mistakes. That is to be expected, since they are learning. But perhaps you are still not prepared for the kinds of mistakes they make. One girl read "said" instead of "jumped" with full conviction that "said" is the right word. The next child is stumped by the word "truck" and simply stops, completely helpless ...
Obviously, that girl who confused thought the word "jumped" was the word "said" could not read. At all.
But a six year old girl not being able to read is really not so terrible. What is terrible is that she spends time every day "learning to read" by wildly fumbling around and guessing, and that apparently that's the reading strategy she will continue with for years.
But little Peter doesn't start with "One morning Alice" [as the story in the reader begins.] He puts his finger under the first word and begins, "One ... two ... three." The teacher tries to explain to Peter that he has made a mistake. It isn't "One two three." It is "One morning Alice." Peter obediently repeats, "One ... morning ... Alice ..."
What is striking to me here is that what Peter read is wildly incorrect, yet the teacher does nothing, points out nothing, explains nothing, other than tell him what it actually says.
[Charlie reads], "Jerry ... took ... him ... to ... the ... to .... the ..."
[The teacher says], "What's the next word, Charlie? You know the word, don't you? We've had it several times." Charlie can't remember. Peggy raises her hand and says, "pet." Charlie continues: "To ... the ... pet ..." He doesn't know the next word either. The teacher asks him to look at it. The word is show. Charlie looks at it, then searches his memory. "Fish?" he says.
Charlie looked at the word "show" and said, "Fish?"
He looked at the word "show" and said "fish"!
This is so sad to me. Notice that Charlie doesn't/can't even make the beginning sound when he gets stuck on the word "pet."Can you imagine what it must be like for him (and I assume many many others like him), to have to struggle and stumble through this kind of activity day after day? In front of peers, no less?
And again, what an unbelievably strange response from the teacher. She doesn't make a single reference to either letters or sounds but simply says they've "had" that word before.
If you're floored (as I was) by these teachers' responses, this might help you understand them. Flesch cites several "experts" and professors in the teaching of reading at the time, who say things like this:
"Current practice in the teaching of reading does not require a knowledge of the letters."
"The skillful teacher will be reluctant to use phonetic method with all children."
"Little is gained by teaching the child his sounds and letters as a first step to reading. More rapid results are generaly obtained by the direct method of simly showing the word to the child and telling him what it is."
I am really really curious what other people think of all this.
If you're an elementary school teacher, is that how you were taught to teach reading?
If you have a child in school, is that how they're being taught?
This is harder to answer, but is that how you were taught when you were a kid?
Why in the world would so many educated "professionals" adamently believe and preach this kind of thinking when it seems so ridiculous?
Is there anyone out there who believes it's not so ridiculous, and can explain and defend it to me and other readers?
Thanks for cashing in with any thoughts!
6 comments:
Hi~ Found you through your FIAR post.
That is astounding. I think I'd be interested in reading that book. I'll check our library.
One the one hand, the idea of NOT teaching letters and sounds seems counter-productive. We're basically expecting a child to memorize every word in the English language. While that might be okay for some kids who have good retention and are visual learners, I'd expect that that would not work for most kids. Phonics are a foundation, they don't have to be (can't be) the entire teaching method.
On the the other hand, in the English language, there are almost as many words that DON'T fit the rules as there are that do. So I can kind of see how educators would lean that way. How hard would it be to teach a class full of children all the "rules". But in my opinion, teaching phonics leads to kids being able to read BASIC words and therefore being able to read basic books. If they can read, they can be exposed more often to the words that don't fit the rules and eventually learn those by sight.
It's been my opinion that the process of learning to read takes BOTH phonics and the knowledge of sight words.
I'd be really interested to see how kids in other countries are taught to read...and to see if the method stated in the book is still being used in schools. We're teaching phonics...I can't imagine having success any other way.
Keep in mind that 30 years prior to the 50's, were the 20's. MANY, MANY children did not go to school on a regular basis. Most of the same children that have trouble today in schools are from the same types of families/situations that just DIDN'T go to school back then! Of course there were no remdial classes! There weren't actual remedial students because they simply didn't continue in school!
Additionally, "remedial" students were simply kept at their actual GRADE level, rather than with the age peers and supplied with remedial help.
It IS an interesting book and there are definitely things worth considering.
It is such a sad state that schools are in. Poor kids being forced before they are ready.
Reading can be learned naturally just like everything else. Natural, unschooling,people need to really examine the learning process in each child.
You know we are unschoolers, you know my kids read and that I didn't *teach* them.
I don't believe you can actually *teach* someone to read unless they are already at the point where they are ready. It's a process that unfolds as they grow and live in a world full of words.
It's easy for some and hard for others but when allowed to learn in their way and in their time, they do in fact learn to read.
I also just refound the book Why Johnny Can't Read and I was surprised to see that it was written already in 1955. It reinforced what I have been thinking for some time - that what we call "learning disabled" pupils are the victims of poor teaching. Instead of remedial teaching, we should put effort into emphasizing phonics in the first place. I once heard that the "whole word" reading method has been outlawed in some states. Does anyone know if this is true?
"Obviously, that girl who confused thought (sic) the word "jumped" was the word "said" could not read. At all."
That's completely untrue.
I homeschool my son, who struggles with reading. We use Phonics Pathways for reading instruction. He is 8 and is now reading Henry and Mudge books.
He occasionally substitutes an incorrect word when reading, and when I point it out, he is sometimes unable to read the correct word.
This is NOT because he can't read at all. It's because he gets frustrated when he makes a mistake. It's because he gets embarrassed when he makes a mistake. It's because he feels pressure to keep up with his twin sister, who reads better than he does. It's because, like all people who read, occasionally his brain sees a word that he thinks should be there and not the word that is actually there. That happens to me sometimes, too.
I'm not surprised that beginning readers in any type of classroom make mistakes and can't correct them when they are having read-aloud time. It's a high-pressure situation that some kids find extremely uncomfortable.
I think whole language instruction is dumb, and I wholeheartedly support phonics instruction. But your idea that kids make common mistakes because they can't read. At all. is not valid.
Hi Anonymous, thanks, and you make a good point. I was perhaps too brash in that statement.
However, after some thought, I still believe that in the context of the entire chapter, THAT GIRL could not read at all.
You're right; even adults sometimes substitute one word for another.
But the chapter was filled with students constantly substituting one wildly different word for another, with no full belief that they read it correctly. The only teacher help being either "we learned this word last week" or just telling them the word.
The point I was making in that brash statement is: These were not children who were just starting to learn to read. Those are not young children making mistakes. Those are not [the way it was described] children who were a little nervous. It was clearly a classroom full of kids who were stumbling around guessing and memorizing words, which is NOT reading. At all.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment