1/3 of US schools teach reading in a way that doesn't work.

[Roboramma]

That's right, and once you are 'winning' the rest is easy (just look up any word you don't know in the dictionary). But what if you aren't winning? What if you are taught not to figure out unfamiliar words because the same rules might not apply to all of them? I'll tell you what happens - you never learn the most important skill, how to read unfamiliar text by yourself.

You make it sound like Chinese isn't phonetic. In fact that's only half true.

Phonetic Components: The Secret Trick to Guessing the Pronunciation of Chinese Characters.

This (the article you quote) is true, but it's overstating the case.
Chinese characters often have a phonetic component. So 青，请，情，and 晴 and all pronounced "qing". The part on the right tells you the sound the word makes. But, a lot of the time that hint is actually wrong; the word isn't pronounced like that, it might be that it's similar to that (because the spoken language has shifted while the writing hasn't), sometimes is just completely different (the pronunciation component is there but it's shifted so much that it's not even similar anymore), and sometimes there's no component related to pronunciation.
It's certainly useful to see a character and be able to think "the word that might be pronounced 'qing' or something like it and means something related to language", but it's very different from being able to sound out words written with an alphabet.

 

[Samson]

Do you have a cite for that?

Sorry if was in the podcast and I missed it. I don't have the patience to listen to it and the transcript is a mess.

Wendy Pye also did prodigious damage

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Pye

 

[novaphile]

Bet you're wrong. In fact, I know you're wrong in the case of antidisestablishmentarianism, because I do in fact recognize it just by looking at it. But that's because I've seen it enough, and have spent enough time with the English language, to intuit what's happening by the time I've got the first syllable in front of me and the last syllable in my peripheral vision. I absolutely do not need to work through each syllable in order, all the way through the word, to have the entire word whole and complete in my head. It's already there, from my first glance.

And I bet the same is true for acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene-copolymer. I bet career chemists, and other people who spend a lot of their time working with and thinking in terms of the field's technical jargon, can easily intuit the sense of those words at a glance, without having to read each letter out to themselves first.

The question, which educators seem to have answered very badly in recent decades, is how do you get a new reader to transition from reading out each letter in order, to grasping whole words and phrases at a glance.

There seems to have been a fad for insisting it could be done immediately, bypassing the laborious process of rote rehearsal and memorization. But as far as I can tell, the only real way to do it is through constant lifelong practice. The more words you see the more often you see them, the easier it gets.

Re chemists, probably.

I was once looking at a molecule diagram on screen, and a friend (who ended up with a PhD in chemistry) looked over my shoulder and named the substance.

When I asked her how she recognised the molecule, she explained how chemical names often are just descriptions of the molecule.



If you understand the code, the names become things like: two hydrogens stuck on a carbon ring...

 

[novaphile]

I was the same. My parents taught me the alphabet, and would read books to me, and gradually somehow that transitioned to me learning to read the books myself. There was definitely a point at which I couldn't read (I actually have a memory from that time: looking at a road sign and wishing I could decipher it), and then through repetition had memorized the kids' books verbatim without being able to read them (I'm not a genius, this was Dr Seuss level crap), then...the jump, somehow, was made to being able to read new material. I don't remember it happening. My parents didn't do anything beyond teaching the alphabet itself and reading to me, moving their finger along the text as they read. Somehow that's enough, at least it was for me and I doubt I'm particularly special. I'd say that learning to read is mostly automatic, something the brain figures out for itself, given the correct input and sufficient practice!

I could definitely read for real before kindergarten, and was reading well ahead of most of my classmates. In first grade I was into the Hardy Boys (although much of the content of the ancient 1920s editions I had was confusing to me), in third I managed LotR (although it did take me weeks and weeks), and by fifth grade I was pretty much reading the then-sparse "young adult" genre and proper adult books. I remember in sixth grade we got a chance to do our monthly book report on our choice of book and practically everyone did Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and I did Mrs Pollifax.

Hah! We may have passed through similar stages.

I memorised 'Fox in Sox' once, and would perform it on demand.

I can't say for sure that it was before I could read, but I can see that being possible.

 

[marting]

I don't remember learning to read. I just remember reading was fun and activated my imagination. I don't know what technique is optimal for teaching reading but loved SF. Not so much history. Didn't like that much until I was much older when I found it also interesting. Funny how taste changes over time.

 

[Sherkeu]

Im partial to the Montessori program. It is early and uses the sensory stimulation natural for that age. Some people might think learning to write letters, do phonics art, and then maybe "mom" or "dad" before they have mastered the sounds has not seen how magical a child thinks it is! ...and also in cursive. I think kids now dont even learn cursive writing.

The class gets noisy with kids doing their own thing a few hours of the day so there are also a small bank of headphones for read alongs. The kids, even at 3yo, can go over and pick a book, put on the headphones and read along with a story. Most could read simple stories by 4 - 4.5.

I have heard some critics say that this is pushing kids too fast, but they havent seen it. The earlier age is fine and they find it fun.

Fast forward to 3rd-6th grade and she is writing pages of chinese characters? Not so fun. But that was a teacher from China and she did it her way.
She takes Spanish now.

*I also think those letters that stick to the wall of the bath are pretty good. There is time to play around with and teach the sounds. Then they can make their own words.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Wendy Pye also did prodigious damage
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Pye

How so?

 

[Horhang]

Hangul

Hangul does use 'pictograms' (or more correctly logograms) but they represent sounds rather than objects.

Hangul does not use logograms. It has individual “letters” which represent sounds directly which the Wikipedia referenced says is an alphabet or syllabary. I can not type in Hangul on this device, but the given Hangul example in your quoted text is roughly transliterated as “seon mun” the first character is 3 letters. First a placeholder as written Hangul all characters start with a consonant, if the syllable is pronounced as a vowel a place holder consonant is used. The second letter is a vowel usually written in English as “eu” and pronounced roughly as “uh” like when stalling for time. Third letter is a consonant with the sound of an English N. Second character also 3 letters. First consonant roughly the English M. Vowel the equivalent of “oo” in too. Third consonant again the N. These are letters in an alphabet. Hangul does not use pictograms.
Korean does sometimes use Chinese pictograms, with Korean pronunciation for a Korean word with the same meaning. When this is done the word is Korean and could just as well be written in Hangul.

Edited to correct error in romanization of Korean: sun mun corrected to seon mun

 

[ahhell]

Just a minor correction on Korean. It does not use pictograms. It is phonetic and each letter has a unique sound. I learned to read the alphabet in a weekend when I was there.
They do also use Chinese characters for reasons no one could ever give me a reasonable explanation for given Hangul is so easy to learn to read and write.

My understanding is that Korean is written in both Hangul, a native phonetic system and the chinese pictographic system, much like Japanese.

The Japanese have three systems, two relatively simple phonetic sets of characters and about 2000 of the chinese characters. For some reason they are really attached to the complex and difficult to learn character set.

Do you have a cite for that?

Sorry if was in the podcast and I missed it. I don't have the patience to listen to it and the transcript is a mess.

I'm pretty sure I addressed that, this system was created by a women named Maire Clay from New Zealand.

 

[theprestige]

Are you sure about that? You just have to see the first and last syllable of antidestablementarianism to know that it's not antidisectmentarianism or antidisentitlementarianism? If so I'm impressed.

You shouldn't be impressed. Most people fluent in English do it with ease.

Of course, someone can introduce typos, or play silly buggers with long words if they want to, but that's on them. It doesn't actually change the way experienced readers apprehend whole words and phrases in general.

If you want me to understand one word, while you sneakily write another, by exploiting how people actually read, go ahead. I'm not sure how it benefits you. It certainly doesn't harm me. And it certainly doesn't change the way I read long words.

I bet they use abbreviations like ABS in part because they can't easily intuit the sense of those long words at a glance. There are over 30 million organic compounds known, many with very similar names. It might be acceptable to misread a word or two in a fiction novel, but not in the laboratory.

And I bet you're wrong.

 

[Horhang]

Hangul

Hangul does use 'pictograms' (or more correctly logograms) but they represent sounds rather than objects.

My understanding is that Korean is written in both Hangul, a native phonetic system and the chinese pictographic system, much like Japanese.

The Japanese have three systems, two relatively simple phonetic sets of characters and about 2000 of the chinese characters. For some reason they are really attached to the complex and difficult to learn character set.
.

Korean does use Chinese characters for some words in some contexts. Explanations I got for the use ranged from seeking clarity as, much like English they have homonyms, which because Hangul is completely phonetic are also spelled the same: the words for both eye and rain are roughly romanized: nun, pronounced like noon, just because I can not read it in proper romanization without linking it to catholic penguins. Context would generally prevent any confusion. The other explanation I got, generally from younger college students who disliked the work of having to learn the Chinese characters was that it was a holdover from when the ability to read and write in Chinese characters was a sign of education.
Interestingly Korean has 2 sets of numbers, one native the other of Chinese derivation. Both sets are written in Hangul.

 

[Delvo]

The Japanese have three systems, two relatively simple phonetic sets of characters and about 2000 of the chinese characters. For some reason they are really attached to the complex and difficult to learn character set.

A few years ago, I watched a video on kanji, by a Japanese guy who explains bits of Japanese culture for us outsiders. He said most Japanese people can't read kanji in general and only know the handful that they see the most because they're in common phrases or names, like us here recognizing common logos & emojis & punctuation. He walked around in a Japanese city asking people to identify various kanji he showed them, and most of the people couldn't identify most of the kanji. Then he asked them if they knew of any reason kanji should be kept around if they and almost everybody else around couldn't read them, and only a few said they're pointless and they should go. Most people came up with reasons to keep them. The reasons were a mix of uses in poetry which the syllabaries can't duplicate (even though most of them were not readers of such poetry), understanding history (by way of reading old texts which most of them wouldn't read), being able to keep up with information pertaining to China (which practically none of them use kanji for), "tradition", and aesthetics (they grew up in a world that has kanji all over it and think it would look too different, probably too western, without them). But, for routine functions of actual real-world communication, they all agreed that the syllabaries and even the Roman alphabet were superior so that's that they always used.

In short, although nearly all* writing systems began as something more like Chinese (one drawing for one word or idea), everybody everywhere outside China who has been exposed to a more phonetic system has switched over to that instead. Some China-adjacent countries just have a bit of Chineseness leaking into them because China's there, and China itself just sticks with it for written communication between speakers of different languages/dialects within China, and because they hadn't invented or imported something better yet before sudden exposure to the Occident made Chinese writing a bit part of what distinguished them from the Occident and thus became a big part of their "we're not them" identity.

= = =

*Korean is the only one that was invented as a phonetic system rather than simplified down from a picto/ideo-graphic system, but even in that case, the general concept is generally thought to have been inspired by a phonetic system they saw somebody else using, and that would have been one of those others that had already been simplified from a picto/ideo-graphic system before. Japanese syllabaries were reduced from kanji, other southeastern Asian systems like Thai were derived from Indian ones, those date back to ancient Brahmi, and Brahmi came from a late eastern Phoenician or early eastern Aramaic... which also would be derived into Syriac, which would be derived into Mongolian, which would also have been within the realm of Korean experience.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Of course, someone can introduce typos, or play silly buggers with long words if they want to, but that's on them. It doesn't actually change the way experienced readers apprehend whole words and phrases in general.

But we are not talking about experienced readers. The discussion is about methods of learning how to read. To assume they are the same is either naive or arrogant.

 

[theprestige]

But we are not talking about experienced readers. The discussion is about methods of learning how to read. To assume they are the same is either naive or arrogant.

That explains it, then. We were talking past each other. Carry on.

 

[lomiller]

But we are not talking about experienced readers. The discussion is about methods of learning how to read. To assume they are the same is either naive or arrogant.

Here is my post which you were responding to. Given my discussion on how to get new readers get to that point, I think it's clear I was saying that's how experienced readers read.

Ultimately learning to read English requires you to recognize whole words in a way that isn't that much different than cartographic alphabets like Chinese. The real question is how you get there, do you just memorize all the words up front? Do you decode them using phonics knowing you still have to memorize all the words that don't make sense phonetically? Do you use context clues in the test itself to figure out unfamiliar words? Do you teach all the other rules needed to understand English word spelling?

Are you sure about that? You just have to see the first and last syllable of antidestablementarianism to know that it's not antidisectmentarianism or antidisentitlementarianism? If so I'm impressed.

The key to reading any of these is:
anti-
dis-
-arian
-ism
and possibly -ment

These are there to tell you what the word rather how it sounds, so they don't need to make sense phonetically so if you don't recognize the word on sight, just sounding it out probably isn't going to help you. What will help you is recognizing these additions to the root word, understanding how they change the meaning of the word and the rules around how they are written and applied.

 

[deadrose]

I apparently taught myself to read at about 2 1/2, according to my parents. I decoded the letters on the milk carton at breakfast, and there was no stopping me after that. I was reading the same novels my folks read by grade school, which occasionally caused some distress (I'm sorry, there's no way a 10 year old should be reading "The Tin Drum").

At 9 I was working as a sort of teacher's adjunct with the remedial reading kids at the school, helping them get the hang of phonetic reading and moving on from there. There was a lot of "fat cat sat on the mat" stuff at the beginning, but once they got the concept it rapidly moved them to non-phonetic words. They needed the first bit to get to the rest though.

Also, as an end note, on the subject of learning long words, Isaac Asimov mention in an essay that a certain chemical name could be sung to the tune of "The Irish Washerwoman" and as a result I've never forgotten the chemical name.

 

[Bob001]

I don't know anything about this issue. But it should be possible to form reliable conclusions pretty quickly by setting up similar groups of kids who would be taught reading by one method or the other, and looking at the results.

But my impression is that experienced teachers use elements of both approaches, and others, to teach their kids to read. It's hard to believe that this "be avid" business is happening in a lot of places. The fact is that most kids learn to read pretty quickly, so whatever schools are actually doing appears to be working.

 

[psionl0]

It's hard to believe that this "be avid" business is happening in a lot of places.

I don't know about the US but where I live, a massive bureaucracy is forcing teachers to use the bureaucracy's preferred "teaching" methods and is not interested in feedback from mere teachers.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know about the US but where I live, a massive bureaucracy is forcing teachers to use the bureaucracy's preferred "teaching" methods and is not interested in feedback from mere teachers.

Australia has a National Curriculum, whereas in the US, teaching methods and even what is taught is up to the whim of the states or even the school districts. There is no enforced consistency like there is here.

When my kids were being taught to read (early 2000s) we as parents were specifically told not to use phonics at home. We ignored that.

 

[Sherkeu]

I don't know about the US but where I live, a massive bureaucracy is forcing teachers to use the bureaucracy's preferred "teaching" methods and is not interested in feedback from mere teachers.

I have, for the first time, 1st hand exposure to the public system- kid is in 9th grade.
The difficulty in navigating to find even the simplest information is bizarre. I check the board minutes and 90% of it is budget and contracts. 5% is a painfully slow process of hiring/firing due to union rules. [A discussion, then vote, then vote, then adjourn, then have 3 private meetings(redacted), then close all meetings to the public, then come back with something else on the agenda.]
The rest is a review of how great the kids did at something the board never talked about. These are good people with good intentions, in a BAD system.

Our private school last year was always talking about what the kids might need and innovative ways to make it happen. No union, no board, and half the cost the state spends per student- even with a Michelin star chef cooking and teaching culinary classes. It was like a 600 student school family. You knew almost everyone.
Now? I know almost none of the people that I get emails from.

About testing reading...in California, you won't get the scores of different reading systems because the state doesnt report CA private schools. Private schools are not allowed to take the same test as public CA schools.
But, private schools students DO need to take some sort of qualifying test to make sure they are in compliance, so some normative testing is done, nothing is compared.
As you can guess, the scores are always way way higher, so no surprise they dont count them.

eta: her old school had no grades given until 7th grade, and only because the high school required them. Most every kid had a desire to go above and beyond in their work and studies without any grades at all, because that was the culture- and it was FUN! (mostly...sometimes delayed fun as with most things)

 

[ahhell]

Australia has a National Curriculum, whereas in the US, teaching methods and even what is taught is up to the whim of the states or even the school districts. There is no enforced consistency like there is here.

When my kids were being taught to read (early 2000s) we as parents were specifically told not to use phonics at home. We ignored that.

Much more a feature than a bug of the US really. That way when its screwed up, it only effects some kids and if some jurisdiction gets something right, others can copy. Imagin the ******** fights we'd have in congress if we had a national curriculum. CA and TX Reps would come to blows.

Aside from that its only partially true.
Federal funding comes with strings attached, part of this story is that This method of teaching reading had to fight to get that federal funding and thus some of the versions were modified to include phonics.

Most states also have established curriculum of one sort or another, there's a fight about that in FL right now. Which is roughly the equivalent of Australia establishing a national curriculum.

 

[Delvo]

Much more a feature than a bug of the US really. That way when its screwed up, it only effects some kids and if some jurisdiction gets something right, others can copy.

That logic only applies in a country where the education profession is obsessed with constantly changing things just for the sake of changing them instead of sticking with what works or even really researching their own changes first. That description might not fit other countries.

 

[theprestige]

Australia is much smaller, less populous, and more homogenous than the US. It's depressing how few people understand what the US really is. Especially intelligent, informed people who should know better. Probably the closest analog is the EU. Which doesn't have a "national" curriculum, because it's not that kind of arrangement. Rather, each member state sets its own policy. While the two are not identical, the US more like the EU than it is like other, smaller nation-states.

 

[ahhell]

Australia is much smaller, less populous, and more homogenous than the US. It's depressing how few people understand what the US really is. Especially intelligent, informed people who should know better. Probably the closest analog is the EU. Which doesn't have a "national" curriculum, because it's not that kind of arrangement. Rather, each member state sets its own policy. While the two are not identical, the US more like the EU than it is like other, smaller nation-states.

While I agree with our main point, I wouldn't say that Australia is more homogenous than the US. They've also had a great deal of immigration since WWII. I've read that something like half the population is descended from folks who came there in the last 50 years.

Otherwise you are correct, the US should be thought as something more like the EU than any single EU Country. Not quite but sorta, something a little in between maybe.

 

[arthwollipot]

Australia is much smaller, less populous, and more homogenous than the US. It's depressing how few people understand what the US really is. Especially intelligent, informed people who should know better. Probably the closest analog is the EU. Which doesn't have a "national" curriculum, because it's not that kind of arrangement. Rather, each member state sets its own policy. While the two are not identical, the US more like the EU than it is like other, smaller nation-states.

I've long said that the United States isn't one country divided into states for administrative purposes like Australia is, it's fifty more-or-less independent nations that have all agreed to work together in certain limited ways.

There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

 

[ahhell]

I've long said that the United States isn't one country divided into states for administrative purposes like Australia is, it's fifty more-or-less independent nations that have all agreed to work together in certain limited ways.

There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

The primary advantage in the US's case, is that its the only way they would have agreed to it in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

I've long said that the United States isn't one country divided into states for administrative purposes like Australia is, it's fifty more-or-less independent nations that have all agreed to work together in certain limited ways.

There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

The main disadvantage of the second seems to be that everyone keeps imagining it's the first, and misjudging it accordingly.

The primary advantage in the US's case, is that its the only way they would have agreed to it in the first place.

Much like the EU.

 

[ahhell]

The main disadvantage of the second seems to be that everyone keeps imagining it's the first, and misjudging it accordingly.
Much like the EU.

IMHO, this is one of the things that is really driving the tribalism in these days. If we would let states do their own thing more and not try to legislate everything from the feds it wouldn't matter so much what the feds did. I have these political conversations with people and they get up in arms about what's going on in some state 1500 miles away. Usually distorted and exagerated. How much do the French protest about laws in Itally?

 

[arthwollipot]

Much like the EU.

A bit, yeah, but the EU is more an economic agreement and less a federal agreement. The President of the EU doesn't have the same role as the President of the US.

 

[theprestige]

A bit, yeah, but the EU is more an economic agreement and less a federal agreement. The President of the EU doesn't have the same role as the President of the US.

Finally. Comparing the US to the EU, instead of to other, differently organized polities, puts you on the right track, at least.

 

[Sherkeu]

IMHO, this is one of the things that is really driving the tribalism in these days. If we would let states do their own thing more and not try to legislate everything from the feds it wouldn't matter so much what the feds did. I have these political conversations with people and they get up in arms about what's going on in some state 1500 miles away. Usually distorted and exagerated. How much do the French protest about laws in Itally?

Fully agree. The US Dept of Education should be abolished. Leave it to the States and their governors and legislators to decide- as was intended by having a republic. They have the right to compete on this for 'best practice'. If they suck at it, a report let us know. States can defend reasons why and we can decide if valid. People will leave for the better ones til it is fixed.
One size does not fit ALL and hampers timely innovations.

 

[arthwollipot]

Finally. Comparing the US to the EU, instead of to other, differently organized polities, puts you on the right track, at least.

I wasn't the first to compare the US educational standards to Australia. But not all comparisons are invalid.

 

[Sherkeu]

I wasn't the first to compare the US educational standards to Australia. But not all comparisons are invalid.

There is no such thing as a common US standard for curriculum or testing.

It would be more apt to compare all of NSW to Los Angeles County. Or the whole country to California.

 

[arthwollipot]

There is no such this as a common US standard for curriculum or testing.

It would be more apt to compare all of NSW to Los Angeles County. Or the whole country to California.

Yes, that is what the original comparison (which was not mine) sought to contrast.

 

[psionl0]

Australia has a National Curriculum, whereas in the US, teaching methods and even what is taught is up to the whim of the states or even the school districts. There is no enforced consistency like there is here.

This is only partially true. Under the constitution, education is the responsibility of the states.

However, the states and the federal government do get together to work out common goals. A national curriculum was progressively developed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). ACARA was established under Section 5 of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act (Cth) on 8 December 2008. Roll out of the national curriculum commenced in 2012.

https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian-education-system-foundation.pdf

 

[Sherkeu]

Yes, that is what the original comparison (which was not mine) sought to contrast.

gotcha.

 

[Oystein]

...
Of course, someone can introduce typos, or play silly buggers with long words ...

It's possible to mix and garble letters in words quite a bit without making a written text unintelligible:

Fro emxaple I ma suer yuo hvae no pborlme raedngi thsi, rghit?

None of you is deciphering phonems in the above line, none of you is matching words as a whole with remembered words. You suck in a bunch of letters, and somehow the words jump out at you. Your brain is doing a lot of associative work here that doesn't quite match neither the phonetic nor the pictorial approach.

 

[theprestige]

Eaxclty.

 

[novaphile]

It's possible to mix and garble letters in words quite a bit without making a written text unintelligible:

Fro emxaple I ma suer yuo hvae no pborlme raedngi thsi, rghit?

None of you is deciphering phonems in the above line, none of you is matching words as a whole with remembered words. You suck in a bunch of letters, and somehow the words jump out at you. Your brain is doing a lot of associative work here that doesn't quite match neither the phonetic nor the pictorial approach.

<joke>

That only works because we're used to Americans misspelling everything all the time.

</joke.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The difficulty in navigating to find even the simplest information is bizarre.

No kidding. Reason #357 for homeschooling.

We were amazed at how easy it was to blow the "professionals" out of the water. You wonder what they could possibly be doing 7 hours a day.