CONFUSION OVER LEARNING TO READ   

by JANN  FLURY
Columnist EducationNews.org      

October 21, 2002

How, why, when, where, and by whom children should be taught to read remains a confused issue in today's halls of academe.  And the progressive educators don't differentiate between learning and practicing.

To teach reading effectively, teachers must crystallize in their minds the purpose of learning to read and what the difference is between learning to read and practicing the skill.

Learning to read is distinctly different from practicing reading skills. Learning to read is best achieved by "teaching students explicitly to convert letters into sounds (phonemes) and then blend the sounds to form recognizable words." Alas, alack, progressive  educators don't differentiate between the two, distinctly separate, processes of learning and practicing.  Therefore, the way reading is "taught" in the primary grades today makes little sense. In fact, many students never really learn to read at all throughout their public school years. Yet, they are expected to practice reading: a skill they haven't learned. It's like telling the child who has never learned to skate to take hockey practice: talk about a frustrating exercise in futility.

Normal children (99 % of the student population) can learn to read in 60 hours when given intensive reading training, using Systematic Synthetic Phonics exclusively.  Children don't have to come from a family that is hooked on books or whose annual income is over $100,000.  Kids from the other-side-of-the-tracks--the ones branded by modern educators as being "at risk"-- can learn just as readily. They don't have to be "school ready."

Whole-language proponents will say that these claims are all wet.  That's because they make no distinction between learning to read and practicing the skill.  To them, learning to read stretches over an interminable time period. According to them, the skill will be developed automatically as the student blindly winds his way through public school. They believe every student learns to read in his own good time and that parental influences and socioeconomic background govern how soon the student will become a proficient reader.

Learning to read, in the rational sense, means being able to look at a new word and decipher it using its alphabetical composition.  In other words, it means being able to recognize and sound out a word by blending the string of letters it contains into sound.  The learner may not know the meaning of the word or its precise pronunciation, but that's where practice
comes in.

The question of why and when a student should learn to read never seems to arise in the minds of progressive educators: at least they never actively appear to seriously address these consideration.  The progressive educators, who, inevitably, also will be "whole-language" advocates, absolve themselves of all responsibilities dealing with the "how, why, when, where, and by whom" questions about learning to read by reciting well rehearsed, noncommittal litany of excuses.How to teach children to read is hotly debated. In the face of overwhelming evidence presented by many multimillion-dollar scientific studies, the progressive educators maintain that the whole-language teaching method is the only right way:  insisting that they are right and the world is all wrong.  They condemn the quantitative scientific studies and call their own arrogant, self-centered opinions, "qualitative studies," which they consider best, without ever offering a shred of tangible evidence in support of their claims.

Why teach reading? To the modern educator, reading is for entertainment. Even learning to read must be fun and exciting. It's there for pure pleasure: an end in itself.

When should reading be taught, and when should a student know how to read? According to the progressives it's whenever a student wants. Children all learn in their own good time: when they are ready, the educators say.

Where should a child learn to read, if not at school?  According to the modern educator, learning to read is closely associated with home life and the family's socioeconomic status. Educators brand children brought up in a non-reading environment or in low-income families as being "at risk," and who will never learn to read well.  If a child doesn't learn to read, it's because his parents didn't read to it at infancy. However, students that do learn to read well are all to the credit of the excellent whole-language teaching methods used in their innovative schools, educators claim.

By whom should reading be taught?  Educators say they can't do it alone. Parents must get involved: read to the children, encourage them, and support the teacher. If the child learns to read, it's to the credit of the "excellence" of the school; if the child fails to learn, it's due to lack of parental support and  cooperation with the school.

In the real world, the how, why, when, where, and by whom of learning to read can be summed up in concise, non ambiguous terms.  Empirical data from decades ago and recent scientific studies show conclusively that intensive Systematic Synthetic Phonics (SSP) is the most effective and logical way to teach any child to read.  If SSP is taught properly and exclusively, 99% of all children can learn to read in 60 hours (decode words by converting letters into sounds (phonemes) and then blending the sounds to form recognizable words).

Once students have mastered the skill of decoding words, they have learned to read and are then   ready to practice their reading skills.  Learning to read does not have to be made fun and exciting by the schools.  Learning anything new of intrinsic value is by nature exciting for every child.  The teacher only has to elude to the importance of reading for every child to get the message and to recognize the urgency of learning to read.

Reading is the very first step to learning all about man and the world in which we live. It is the key to knowledge: for acquiring information about all the philosophies and knowledge that has been documented in books down through the ages. School work is easy for the child that can read;  for the child that can't read, school quickly becomes a nightmare. Therefore, it's important that children learn to read in grade one, and practice throughout their school years.Parents send their children to school to learn.  So, obvious, the schools must assume full responsibility for teaching children to read. It is downright unethical to blame parents for student failure.  We all know that children come from different walks of life.  Public school is there to give every child an equal learning opportunity, not to slot them into the "haves or have nots."

How and why the logic of learning to read through phonics eludes the modern educators is incomprehensible. To make the point: what is the first step for anyone learning to read, write and speak a foreign language?  Every language book starts with the alphabet and the pronunciation of every letter or combination of letters (phonemes) of the language in question.  This lays the groundwork for speaking whole words that can be decoded through the use of phonics. Once that has been mastered, the learner can read text coherently in the language, even though he is unable to speak the language.  And suppose English were written using the Cyrillic alphabet or Arabic script: The simplest and only practical way to decode words would be to thoroughly learn and memorize the Cyrillic or Arabic alphabet.

Reading is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end.  It is the most basic and most powerful learning tool in the arsenal of our public schools.  Why they misappropriate it is disturbing.

Learning to read is like learning to ride a bicycle: it's a means to and end.  It only takes a short time to learn and can be practices for ever as you meander through the countryside, enjoying  the sunshine and the scent of flowers.  It's not riding the bike, but the scenery and the experience of the journey that is "fun and exciting."