“A new study found that California schools got positive results from a targeted investment in the science of reading — even with the challenges of pandemic recovery”: “What Costs $1,000 Per Student and Might Help Children Learn to Read?” (The New York Times, gift link).
But — sigh — my daughter Rachel points out that the photograph accompanying the article shows the “whole language” approach to reading instruction in practice — the opposite of what “the science of reading” is all about.
The best place to begin learning about the work of teaching children to read: the podcast series Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong.
Related reading
All OCA literacy posts (Pinboard)
[Yes, I e-mailed the Times.]
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
Investing in reading
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
comments: 6
This is all I have to say.
Which state, Joe?
I am annoyed at wikipedia, which has. let me down before, saying that whole word is from a recent (20th century) decade. Not so!
A big best seller back in the 1950's was Why Johnny Can't Read, a book that empowered parents to be skeptical of whole word.
The article says it became “a major model for education” in the ’80s and ’90s but never really explains when it began. Certainly Dick and Jane books came long before. What the differences are between “whole language” and “whole word” are — if there are differences, I don’t claim to know.
It’s amazing to think that education is just now figuring out the things Flesch wrote about so many years ago.
Michael, I was referring to California.
Now I understand — I was unaware of the new new math. Thanks, Joe.
Post a Comment