3 ms·
It looks like based on the article it was more like schools had more flexibility in choosing how they would teach their students to read, and individual schools
by SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
It looks like based on the article it was more like schools had more flexibility in choosing how they would teach their students to read, and individual schools chose to drop phonics. This change would force schools to choose from a select set of teaching materials, all of which would include phonics. (But, if the school already has a literacy rate above a certain threshold, they can apply to be exempt).
Idk this just seems sensible?
- tsukikage 3y agoThe problem with the "don't actually try to read; instead, guess what the word might be based on things other than the actual letters it's actually composed of" approach is... it doesn't teach kids to read. It does, however, teach kids to skim and guess and parrot, which, given a bit of coaching and upfront memorisation, is perfectly sufficient for passing a literacy test by rote despite, in fact, being unable to actually read. So we end up with perverse incentives for the school and kids with unfortunate gaps in their life skills.