4 ms·

I love McWhorter but this is a disappointing mishmash. While it does seem that a lot of new educational techniques seem to be based on skipping past the underly

I love McWhorter but this is a disappointing mishmash. While it does seem that a lot of new educational techniques seem to be based on skipping past the underlying fundamentals and trying to teach kids to immediately start reading by whole words before learning the sounds letters represent and giving the brain a few decades to recognize whole words at a go (as McWhorter describes here), or by doing math by estimation before learning how to add or multiply (and thereby developing an intuition for what estimate to even make) as my daughter faced in elementary school, or as my accounting professor partner struggles with as fundamental textbooks attempt to de-emphasize debits and credits and just skip to the financial report; even so the lesson we should probably take is not “just use phonics dummy!” But rather “maybe use multiple methods and find individual paths for each student to be successful”. We tried to teach my daughter to read using the exact book McWhorter praises when she was that same age. She hated the lessons and didn’t progress, and in fact didn’t learn to read until she was eight years old, and yet somehow she is now, at 17, an avid reader and writer, having completed multiple NaNoWriMo projects, an editor on her high school newspaper, and a star student in every writing class she can get enrolled in. Ultimately she benefitted from patient teachers and a nurturing environment and a heavy dose of innate interest and the right disposition, not from a specific teaching method. The only right answer is that there is no one right answer for every kid.

Iv 7y ago
> Ultimately she benefitted from patient teachers and a nurturing environment All of the calls to alternate education methods fail to recognize the weakest link in the education system: teachers. Teaching methods are not designed just for kids but also for teachers. Almost any method will work wonders with good teachers who know when to wait, when to push, who are competent and empathetic. Methods need to be tested and proved to work with below-average teachers to be considered a solution.
- watwut 7y ago
  For the teacher to have ability to wait or push as needed, the teacher must have quite a lot of autonomy. And a system that rewards teachers for doing own decisions instead of following prescribed methodology.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Good teachers with autonomy get better results than good teachers without autonomy, but bad teachers with autonomy get worse results than without autonomy.
    - watwut 7y ago
      It is impossible for teacher "to wait or push as needed" without having enough autonomy. If you give teachers no autonomy, you will turn teachers who want to wait or push based on situation to the ones who don't. Or they will simply leave. Just like with any other job, you either command details or you have people doing own decisions. Cant have both.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Like most decisions in education, it's the question of what you want to optimize for, minimum, average, or maximum success. That dictates whether you want to separate smart pupils from average pupils, how big your classes should be, how much memorization you require, how much autonomy teachers should have, and many more aspects. The PISA studies provide really interesting data on this.
    - shareIdeas 7y ago
      I ran into the bad teacher with Autonomy. Singled me out because I liked math and she was an English and Spanish teacher. I had never gotten a C before, but that teacher in a panic admitted that "I wasn't good at her class like I am at math". In reality she was targeting me for some reason and giving me minimal participation credit despite participation. By the end of the class, enough students complained she stopped teaching Spanish 1. And she still teaches to this day 11years later.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  The great strength of child centred instead of teacher centred methods is in realising that it doesn’t matter whether a child learns to read at four, or nine, or twelve. Once you really understand that Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development means you can teach it to a four year old in 100s of hours, a six year old in tens of hours and that a nine year old has a decent chance of picking it up more or less by osmosis you wonder why we bother. The hard part of reading isn’t sounding out words, it’s understanding complex thoughts. Four year olds can’t do that. A good teacher can make a big difference to how a child experiences a year of their life but the long run effects on them are unlikely to be large. Children of normal intelligence learn to read easily once they’re ready, just as you can cover grade school math in under 40 hours with a normal twelve year old.
  - ksdale 7y ago
    I didn't know there was a term for this! My children are just starting to enter the education system and I constantly find myself thinking, "Why are we devoting so many hours to learning this (something like the alphabet) when we could just spend a few minutes on it here and there and in 6 months or a year they'll be able to pick it up with minimal effort?"
  - abetterday 7y ago
    While I heartily agree in not forcing the child into a method, it very much matters when they learn to read. Reading is a tool more than a skill. Having the tool earlier is hugely valuable (provided they don't hate it as a consequence.) A reading child can begin to write and type earlier. They can be exposed to complex computer use instead of simplified apps. They can use more advanced materials to learn other skills earlier. They can gain a ton of knowledge from the extra years of reading. And even if they cannot understand much at 4 (which of course depends on the kid), they can at 7 or 8 - being fluent readers by then gives them the advantage of consuming many extra books and richer ones. There are also psychological components. Until school starts the parents have significant influence over 'cool' skills, important values, 'fun' things to do, etc. Schools rarely breed love of learning and peers often push away from it. Learning at 7 creates risks of it being perceived as less cool or being consumed by other activities and not catching. The time before school is hugely valuable imo. And reading earlier gives the parent another tool to teach by providing books. It is true that the earlier you start the more time teaching takes. But this time isn't only teaching reading. It is excellent bonding time if you don't turn it into an authoritarian war zone. It teaches focus, overcoming obstacles, etc. On the whole, I think it at least holds its own with other activities parents spend time on with their toddlers. The bulk of the challenge is getting the kid on board. Buy-in and motivation matter far more than any specific method since without them the risk of the effort hurting the relationship or their love of learning is too high. I used a method of my own making. It probably wasn't the most efficient, but it was always tuned to the kid. My oldest was fully decoding in late twos and reads a ton now in late sevens. He naturally memorized words and we added phonetics later. My youngest is decoding short words with basic sounds in the early threes. He is not a fan of memorizing, but took to phonics naturally.
Vrondi 7y ago
...in my day, the same stuff was accomplished most entertainingly by Sesame Street. "c" "oo" "kie"... "cookie!" Nobody was bored by phonics being screamed by a blue monster.
woodandsteel 7y ago
That's a good point about no particular method working with all children. But first of all, many students are not going to have parents who have the time or the ability to try out various methods until they find the right combination. Like a single mother who doesn't read very well herself, and is working two jobs to stay above water financially. That leaves it up to the teacher. So what is the teacher supposed to do? And what if one methods works with 90% of students, and then there are 5 other methods that each either work by themselves with a small number of students, or only if combined in some way that is unique to each student? And let's assume the teacher has 35 students in their class, and a lot of other subjects to teach them. And that a first grader who is not able to read well enough will fall far behind in other subjects, and likely do poorly in school from then on? And one more point. What if a substantial proportion of the students are, unlike your daughter, below average in IQ? It would seem the smart thing to do is teach them all the 90% success method, and for those it doesn't work for maybe figure out some way to get them instruction in some other method, if that is possible. Pardon me for saying this, but the fact that you didn't address all these issues makes me think you are looking at this whole issue from the perspective of people in a rather privileged position in life, at least relative to a considerable proportion of students.

Iv 7y ago

> Ultimately she benefitted from patient teachers and a nurturing environment All of the calls to alternate education methods fail to recognize the weakest link in the education system: teachers. Teaching methods are not designed just for kids but also for teachers. Almost any method will work wonders with good teachers who know when to wait, when to push, who are competent and empathetic. Methods need to be tested and proved to work with below-average teachers to be considered a solution.

watwut 7y ago
For the teacher to have ability to wait or push as needed, the teacher must have quite a lot of autonomy. And a system that rewards teachers for doing own decisions instead of following prescribed methodology.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Good teachers with autonomy get better results than good teachers without autonomy, but bad teachers with autonomy get worse results than without autonomy.
  - watwut 7y ago
    It is impossible for teacher "to wait or push as needed" without having enough autonomy. If you give teachers no autonomy, you will turn teachers who want to wait or push based on situation to the ones who don't. Or they will simply leave. Just like with any other job, you either command details or you have people doing own decisions. Cant have both.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Like most decisions in education, it's the question of what you want to optimize for, minimum, average, or maximum success. That dictates whether you want to separate smart pupils from average pupils, how big your classes should be, how much memorization you require, how much autonomy teachers should have, and many more aspects. The PISA studies provide really interesting data on this.
  - shareIdeas 7y ago
    I ran into the bad teacher with Autonomy. Singled me out because I liked math and she was an English and Spanish teacher. I had never gotten a C before, but that teacher in a panic admitted that "I wasn't good at her class like I am at math". In reality she was targeting me for some reason and giving me minimal participation credit despite participation. By the end of the class, enough students complained she stopped teaching Spanish 1. And she still teaches to this day 11years later.
barry-cotter 7y ago
The great strength of child centred instead of teacher centred methods is in realising that it doesn’t matter whether a child learns to read at four, or nine, or twelve. Once you really understand that Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development means you can teach it to a four year old in 100s of hours, a six year old in tens of hours and that a nine year old has a decent chance of picking it up more or less by osmosis you wonder why we bother. The hard part of reading isn’t sounding out words, it’s understanding complex thoughts. Four year olds can’t do that. A good teacher can make a big difference to how a child experiences a year of their life but the long run effects on them are unlikely to be large. Children of normal intelligence learn to read easily once they’re ready, just as you can cover grade school math in under 40 hours with a normal twelve year old.
- ksdale 7y ago
  I didn't know there was a term for this! My children are just starting to enter the education system and I constantly find myself thinking, "Why are we devoting so many hours to learning this (something like the alphabet) when we could just spend a few minutes on it here and there and in 6 months or a year they'll be able to pick it up with minimal effort?"
- abetterday 7y ago
  While I heartily agree in not forcing the child into a method, it very much matters when they learn to read. Reading is a tool more than a skill. Having the tool earlier is hugely valuable (provided they don't hate it as a consequence.) A reading child can begin to write and type earlier. They can be exposed to complex computer use instead of simplified apps. They can use more advanced materials to learn other skills earlier. They can gain a ton of knowledge from the extra years of reading. And even if they cannot understand much at 4 (which of course depends on the kid), they can at 7 or 8 - being fluent readers by then gives them the advantage of consuming many extra books and richer ones. There are also psychological components. Until school starts the parents have significant influence over 'cool' skills, important values, 'fun' things to do, etc. Schools rarely breed love of learning and peers often push away from it. Learning at 7 creates risks of it being perceived as less cool or being consumed by other activities and not catching. The time before school is hugely valuable imo. And reading earlier gives the parent another tool to teach by providing books. It is true that the earlier you start the more time teaching takes. But this time isn't only teaching reading. It is excellent bonding time if you don't turn it into an authoritarian war zone. It teaches focus, overcoming obstacles, etc. On the whole, I think it at least holds its own with other activities parents spend time on with their toddlers. The bulk of the challenge is getting the kid on board. Buy-in and motivation matter far more than any specific method since without them the risk of the effort hurting the relationship or their love of learning is too high. I used a method of my own making. It probably wasn't the most efficient, but it was always tuned to the kid. My oldest was fully decoding in late twos and reads a ton now in late sevens. He naturally memorized words and we added phonetics later. My youngest is decoding short words with basic sounds in the early threes. He is not a fan of memorizing, but took to phonics naturally.

Vrondi 7y ago

...in my day, the same stuff was accomplished most entertainingly by Sesame Street. "c" "oo" "kie"... "cookie!" Nobody was bored by phonics being screamed by a blue monster.

woodandsteel 7y ago

That's a good point about no particular method working with all children. But first of all, many students are not going to have parents who have the time or the ability to try out various methods until they find the right combination. Like a single mother who doesn't read very well herself, and is working two jobs to stay above water financially. That leaves it up to the teacher. So what is the teacher supposed to do? And what if one methods works with 90% of students, and then there are 5 other methods that each either work by themselves with a small number of students, or only if combined in some way that is unique to each student? And let's assume the teacher has 35 students in their class, and a lot of other subjects to teach them. And that a first grader who is not able to read well enough will fall far behind in other subjects, and likely do poorly in school from then on? And one more point. What if a substantial proportion of the students are, unlike your daughter, below average in IQ? It would seem the smart thing to do is teach them all the 90% success method, and for those it doesn't work for maybe figure out some way to get them instruction in some other method, if that is possible. Pardon me for saying this, but the fact that you didn't address all these issues makes me think you are looking at this whole issue from the perspective of people in a rather privileged position in life, at least relative to a considerable proportion of students.