Phonics: Education bows to Agenda

Teaching kids how to sound out words is a pretty obvious thing to do. But, conservative education reform currently champions phonics to the exclusion of any other teaching methods. The new state of phonics education is anything but obvious.

The emphasis is on “decodable texts”. These are sets of words that a kid has already spent hours repeating the basic sounds of. These words are rarely placed in a narrative setting. Sometimes they aren’t even actual words- just collections of sounds. No sounds that a kid hasn’t already been drilled on are allowed. This makes it next to impossible to use actual books in the curriculum. Instead kids endlessly repeat disembodied sets of sounds.

An individual teacher has no ability to adjust their teaching style to their students. The stifling curriculum is forced on them by the politicians (notice they aren’t educators) who created them. Everything from the “books” they use to what words they allow their children to ask questions about (remember…talking about words that you haven’t drilled on isn’t allowed) is laid out. These teachers spent years in college to learn how to pass out Xeroxed copies of handouts from the reading plan George W Bush devised

Writing is not introduced in any meaningful way until later grades. A kid can go through all of first grade without ever writing a word in any sort of context.

This is absurd. First off, phonics are not the foundation of reading. They are useful, for sure. But good readers do not sound out words individually in their heads as they read. I know someone that is stuck doing that- she has to mentally voice every word- and it reduces her reading speed significantly. How often have you seen a word for years, only to realize it’s pronounced some completely different way? It happens all the time. Reading is not a sound related skill. It bypasses spoken language. There are writing systems out there that don’t have anything to do with the spoken language. While it is helpful to be able to sound out unfamiliar words, endless drills on sounding out familiar words are a waste. And it is certainly not helpful to limit young readers to material they already have phonic mastery over.

And what happened to reading, anyway? Reading is as much about learning to write, understand and appreciate the written language. It’s not about learning to make lists. We learn to read because we want to experience stories, instructions and educational materials, not because we want to be able to connect letters to sounds. We learn to read because we want to be able to express ourselves, and understand others. Early reading should emphasize the fun and adventure of books. It should encourage children to write as much as possible, because clear writing is one of the most important skills a student can learn. Instead, reading is reduced to a set of boring drills, lists of words, and stupid worksheets that teach kids nothing about how to appreciate the beauty and power of language

I agree that phonics are an important part of learning to read. I learned them myself. But I also…well…read. When I stumbled over words, someone was there to tell me how to say them and what they mean. I was challenged by my reading, not just forced to repeat sounds over and over again. I developed a love of literature at a young age, and was encouraged to write (which I’ve never lost) from the moment I could grasp a pencil. I was also taught with the understanding that no one technique teaches a kid everything they need to know, and no single method will work for every kid. The conservative push towards phonics is nothing more than an attempt to demean teachers, reduce their autonomy, and harass kids. Every good teacher knows that phonics are great. Every good teacher also knows that kids ought to be reading books in school.

First off: The English language employs a writing system known as an alphabet. An alphabet is something based on the concept of phonics.

The educational system of the US has been completely changed in the last 2 1/2 years? Damn, that guy is effective!!

Seriously, though, I’m not a teacher but have several friends who are and nothing they tell me jives with your post. Maybe in liberal Santa Cruz, but not over the hill here in Silicon Valley.:slight_smile: I’ve seen my 2nd grade teacher friend grading papers on reading comprehension. Some of those youngsters are pretty darn smart!

Parents should read to their kids from an obnoxiously young age. Solves a lot of these problems.

This seems to be, IMHO, just another step in our social de-evolution into an iconographic society. I mean, for gods sake, how many kids at the age of 3 know that the > on a VCR or DVD player means ‘play’ but won’t be able to actually read that until the 1st or 2nd (or if you’re inner city, tee-hee-hee, 5th) grade.

I joke, but all kidding aside, why can’t we go back to the same type of teaching as was seen in the 1950’s? Pre-high technology, pre-digital devide, pre-cable in the classroom. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic. I mean, look at Barbados. Poor country (I mean dirt-and-grass sandwich poor!) Makes the worst slum look like Beverly Hills. The virtual definition of an impoverished nation. BUT! The students there average roughly 1350 on the SAT’s. (cite: Beard, David “Barbados Kids Learn With Methods U.S. Shuns,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel (June 6, 1997.) Why don’t we go back?

~James

even sven, you’re going to have to identify where this travesty is actually occurring. I am a proponent of phonis, but not to the exclusion of whole language (not sight reading) methods. My kids were taught phonics in a context of whole language skills. They never suffered through the method you have described–and I am still in contact with some of their earliest teachers, so I know that our district uses no method resembling the one you have described.

If true, the method you have described is an abomination. However, without eveidence that anyone is actually employing such a method, it is hard to get worked up over your OP.


Monty, I agree that phonics is important. However, I would be interested to see the phonics rules that you would employ to help a first grader read this sentence, pronouncing each word correctly:
Although a hiccough is loud, it will not sough through the boughs in the slough.

I have to disagree with you on that one. I, for one, find it almost impossible to read anything without “hearing” the words in my mind. Actually, I always assumed that everyone did this (with the exception of the deaf or profoundly hearing-impaired). Was I mistaken? Is there a significant portion of the population that can read a sentence without experiencing any connection to that sentence’s auditory counterpart?

I can. In fact, the only times I “sound out” words I am reading are
-when reading a foreign language I am learning
-when trying to decipher the pronunciation and meaning of an unknown word.
Quite literally, that was my 2 cents’ worth.

Just to clarify, this isn’t “sounding out” words in the sense of having to consciously imagine the sounds in order to read. It’s more of an automatic process where my brain just decides to create an internalized dialogue of whatever I happen to be reading.

I’m pretty sure this is why I often have a hard time reading (or composing SDMB posts) with, say, someone talking on the TV or radio. The external voices tend to push out my mental vocalization, and I lose the meaning of what I’m reading.

There are plenty of non-alphabetic written languages out there. I believe that Chinese writing is only occasionally connected to the sounds of the Chinese spoken languages. Additionally, deaf people learn to read and write quite often without ever having a spoken language to connect things to. It’s harder to learn to read without the help of being able to sound things out, but it’s certainly possible and for experienced readers I don’t think it matters on much at all.

I’m basing my information on theNo Child Left Behind act. This act empasizes “scientifically based” reading methods. In other words, it enforces state mandated cirriculum and denies the teacher the ability to create their own cirriculum. A teacher that decides to read their kids a story and have them write a paper on it is using a “untested” method. A teacher that hands out dittos is not. As we’ll see, the emphasis on “scientific testing” is about one reading system in particular.

The reading componant of the No Child Left Behind Act is called Reading First. This program emphasises:

[ul]Phonemic awareness - the ability to hear, identify, and play with individual sounds - or phonemes - in spoken words.
Phonics - the relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language.
Fluency - the capacity to read text accurately and quickly.
Vocabulary - the words students must know to communicate effectively.
Comprehension - the ability to understand and gain meaning from what has been read.[/ul]
“Phonomic awareness” is where they get into giving kids lists of random syllables and non-words and make them repeat it endlessley. Comprehension, you’ll notice, is at the bottom of the list. Things like “books” and “writing” never even made the list.

Reading First is a “skills based” cirriculum. That means that testable skills (pronouncing random letters, etc) are more important than reading experience, exposure to literature, the ability to write in order to express oneself and other subjective, experience based skills.

And there are few programs out there that fulfill these requirements. Schools participating in these programs (often the poorest schools) must choose from a couple of state-sanctioned cirriculums. This involves handing out their dittos, administering their tests, forceing the kids and teachers to do their activities and abide by their “scientifically tested” rules (such as no texts that are not “decodeable”).

For a detailed look at the lesson plans being pushed, check out this admittedly biased article and the accompanying explaination of the politics behind it. If you don’t believe these articles, check out the pro-phonics National Right to Read Foundation and their explainations of the importance of “decodable texts” and the like.

That would be somewhat advanced for first-grade work. However, phonics works well for first-grade level reading with the “Dick and Jane” series of textbooks that were absent such words as “bough”, slough" and “hiccough”, which would confuse beggining readers.

After the basics were learned, then the exceptions to the rules could be delt with, as they were up until the seventies, when the deliberate dumbing-down of America’s students really went into high-gear.

Yeah, that’s right, DELIBERATE. See, if it wasn’t deliberate, then the law of averages alone would reveal some benefit to at least one of these “new learning methods” that have infected the public education system. Instead, today, it is commonplace to hear of high-school graduates that cannot read or are funtionally illiterate.

Think it’s all happenstance?

Assigning essays would appear to be something you would do after you learn to read. As it would be hard, y’know, write without said skill.

Presumably, Comprehension would naturally come with instruction and practice. If I recall correctly, what you describe and deride is more or less how they taught me to read and write: memorizaation and a lot of practice scribbling. Since this section of the ACT specifically dealt with reading, apparently only up to the 2nd grade, perhaps you need to cool it?

Question: did you just make up the entire problem and then post about it or do you have an actual reason othr than you hatred of the president to post this gibberish?

More evidence of the deliberate dumbing-down of America’s children.

When I was in the first grade, both reading and writing (and let’s not forget 'rithmatic) were part of the curriculum.

I quoted an exact sentence from an assignment my son had in first grade.

There are a couple of different issues in this thread:

The OP seems to be claiming that Bush’s current education initiative will result in widespread destruction of education. However, after the call to arms on the actual OP, we have been given anecdotal evidence that a single (unnamed) school district has implemented one specific plan. We have further been provided with a couple of criticisms of the president’s initiative. It is quite possible that things are as dark as they have been portrayed, however, my contact with the educational community would seem to indicate that what the OP is seeing is some routine, mindless bureaucratic local over-implementation of the initiative. This is tragic for the places that have embraced it (just as it was tragic for the locations that played with “sight reading”), but I have not yet seen evidence that it is a national tragedy.

Monty made a specific observation about phonics. He did not elaborate on that point in relation to the OP. I merely pointed out that phonics is one aspect of English and the learning of English. English is not Finnish or Spanish in which the rules of pronunciation are quite regular. If the U.S. was to embark on the particular method of phonics indicated in the OP, I think that the OP would be a legitimate objection and that Monty’s observation would not be relevant. (We have not, of course, actually determined that the problems indicated in the OP are national.)
Any attempt to teach the reading of English that does not incorporate phonics would be a travesty. On the other hand, any attempt to teach the reading of English as merely phonemic recognition (a point that I do not believe the OP has proven), would also be a travesty.

(And I freely admit that the sentence I borrowed from my son’s course was a bit out there. It was from a lesson, near the end of the year, in which the teacher was making the point that the students had to be careful with some constructions because phonics does not always work. Heck, few of the words are even in a first grader’s reading vocabulary and sough and slough are beyond most adult’s vocabularies, but it was the pitfalls of the pronunciation of read words that was the object of the lesson.)

In case you havn’t noticed, education reform has become a major conservative issue.

Specifically, they believe that education has been hijacked by the left. They charge that the Teacher’s Union is a leftist institution that should be disbanded, that the education majors in college are a sham where they brainwash students and teach them material that isn’t true. "Conservative’ is the perfect word to discuss their approuch to education. Instead of taking advantage of years of human progress and study, they want to go “back to basics”. They reject all new ideas in teaching. They reject all intellectual approuches to human learning. Instead, they push for a “standardized, scientifically tested, ditto-able, testable” material.

And this dogma is making big changes in our schools. Teachers are degreed professionals. They go to school for years to learn to do their job, and they must continue their education throughout their career. And yet teachers are generally regarded as extremely incompetant. Teaching is one of the least respected jobs out there. I was once considering going in to teaching. But I am not going to spend years in college only to take on a job where my individual talents are ignored an in which I have no authority regarding my classroom. “Teacher reform” is about taking control of the classroom away from these professionals and turning them into “delivery systems” for stifiling state mandated systems of dittos and tests. I think this is largely due to the anti-intellectualism plagueing our nation.

And I think it is sad to see children being harmed by anti-intellectualism. We are about to raise a generation of busy-work-doers and test takers, but not a generation of readers, writers, thinkers and life long learners.

Hiccough wiccough slough wough yough gough ghoughoughgoughough!!!

One should note that 60% of the “-ough” spellings or words in the particular example cited by tomndebb are archaic and moving into obsolescence.

ES:

Perhaps this is a good reason to get rid of the DOE and get the feds out of the education business altogether. Transfer educational responsibilities back to the local level, where it belongs.

But I’ve got to reflect back on my personal experiences with teachers I know today. I’ve seen the lesson plans for a 2nd grade public school teacher and was astounded at how many “critical thinking” exercises there were, and how much of the kid’s grade depended on non-rote learning skills. When I was in school, it was pretty much rote learning. Seems like things are much more tilted away from drills and memorization these days.

I won’t give you 60%, because I refuse to acknowledge “thru.” That leaves you with hiccup, sough, and slough–less than 60%

However that misses the point, anyway.
The actual point was merely that English, while it can be taught phonetically, cannot be taught using phonics, exclusively. Those particular examples were chosen because they are not merely not handled well by phonics, they cannot even be handled by a single “non-phonics” rule, (the way that words ending -ight can), since each of the “-ough” words listed has a sound that cannot be rhymed with any of the others.

If you want perfectly legitimate 1st grade (end of year) sentences that defy pure phonics decoding:

*Sally walked right.

Let us break bread.

The toad sat on the broad board.*

Pure phonics does not permit those sentences to be decoded.

If you actually go out into the schools…you’ll find a great many are taking a balanced literacy approach (Google “balanced literacy” and you’ll get scads of primers).

The philosophy was best explained to me by the asst supt of the school district I work for.

He used basketball coaching as an anology.

He equated “phonics” with drills. Free throw shooting…passing drills…screen setting drills. Essentially you’re breaking the game down into it’s critical components. Repetition and correction are key elements.

He equated “whole language” with scrimmages. Here…the focus is on seeing the skills as part of an entire game…it’s also about maintaining enthusiasm for the activity, not nearly as much correction.

Any reading strategy that ignores one of the components, is doomed to be incomplete and not as effective as it could be.

I’ve noticed, through studying the subject and experiences with other people, that those who do “pronounce” words mentally, seem to be poorer readers and learned to read in school with phonics. Those who read before attending school don’t experience this, and are faster and more “fluent” readers. Of course, I may simply be paying more attention to situations that match my experience (as described above).

I remember thinking that phonics was a joke; we were taught it in 1st and 2nd grade, and all of the children in my kindergarten class could read somewhat before going to first grade. I remember this because there was a chart on the wall that your name got added to once you could demonstrate a certain level of reading. At any rate, I agree with tomndebb, in that phonics shouldn’t be a first or major step in learning to read.

I, personally, learned to read on my own, almost purely by sight recognition of words. From there I rather unconsciously built my own phonics rules, which were much more tolerant of exceptions than the class-taught phonics. Other early readers I’ve spoken to have had a similar experience. I do believe that learning to read can be as natural as learning to speak, with children of ordinary or above intelligence, as long as it is encouraged/taught early. Do we learn concepts better by figuring them out on our own, or by repetition of rules someone else has discovered? The former opinion is the reason we have science labs in school, and the Japanese teach math through experimentation before discussing the rules.

even sven, I agree that this (as well as other things you said)would be absurd, but I find it difficult to believe that teachers will actually stop teaching writing due to some guidelines. When, exactly, will children be taught to write? I presume they aren’t going to stop teaching children how to write the alphabet in preschool and kindergarten, and move on to practicing writing words immediately after. Honestly, I imagine most teachers are going to teach essentially the same way they always have, incorporating enough of the “guidelines” to appease the watchdogs, whoever that might be and however that might work in practice. You may have some trouble with recent graduates, though, whom I already feel sorry for with the jumble of techniques, latest fad theories, etc. they are required to learn in college.

(somewhat relevant tangent to follow)
My daughter began writing her alphabet and simple words around the same time she started reading them over a year ago. It seemed the most natural way to go about it, and in fact she started copying letters before I made a point of showing her how. I couldn’t imagine saying to her, “No, honey, stop writing letters until you can read well enough to finish this Ramona book on your own.” I certainly don’t think your average teacher would do that. Nevertheless, given the rapid shifts in teaching methods that have occured over the last 40 years or more, I’m encouraging her to acquire a certain level of reading before she gets to kindergarten…she only has a year left.

Regardless of teaching vogues, I still don’t think there are enough parents who reinforce and supplement their child’s education at home. Even the best schools can’t adapt to each child’s particular talents and styles of learning. If parents acknowledge and accept their own responsibility in their child’s education, a lot of mandated or individual teacher-inspired whimsical nonsense can be virtually harmless to the child. I feel parents simply must be their child’s primary educator, even if the child isn’t homeschooled exclusively.