At a Loss for Words: A flawed idea is teaching kids to be poor readers (2019)
Parents vs. Schools: Who’s Responsible?
- One camp argues “the buck stops at home”: early exposure, nightly read‑alouds, enforced reading time, and free‑choice books are seen as the main determinants of strong readers.
- Others push back that many parents lack time, skills, or interest, and that societies should be able to demand that schools reliably teach reading and math.
- Several note that reading to kids is not “jamming them up” but one of the most important things parents can do, even if schools remain primary for formal instruction.
Phonics, Three‑Cueing, and Whole Language
- Many recall learning via phonics: letter–sound relationships, “sounding out” words, then gradually recognizing words by sight.
- The criticized “three‑cueing/whole language” approach teaches kids to guess from pictures, context, and first letters rather than decode every word; commenters compare this to “grifting” or to how LLMs autocomplete.
- Supporters of phonics see it as evidence‑backed and essential, but some cite UK data suggesting phonics‑heavy policy hasn’t improved long‑term reading scores and may plateau without other elements.
Beyond Phonics: Automaticity and Phonemic Awareness
- Several argue phonics is necessary but not sufficient. Fluent reading depends on “orthographic mapping” and automatic retrieval of words; decoding that remains slow undermines comprehension in later grades.
- Phonemic awareness deficits (difficulty manipulating sounds within words) are highlighted as a major, often ignored source of reading difficulties; targeted exercises can help but are labor‑intensive.
Individual Differences and Dyslexia
- Experiences vary: some learned early almost without formal instruction; others only clicked in school.
- A dyslexic commenter found phonics painful and instead relies heavily on whole‑word shape; slower, less skimming‑oriented reading may boost comprehension of dense technical text.
- Several stress that different kids respond to different methods; one‑size‑fits‑all approaches mis‑serve both struggling and advanced students.
Language Structure and Cross‑Linguistic Insights
- Comparisons across Russian, German, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean show that more phonetic orthographies make phonics straightforward and spelling bees unnecessary, while English’s irregularity constrains phonics and demands memorization.
- Chinese literacy shows that non‑phonetic systems can work, but require far more time and character memorization, often supported by auxiliary phonetic systems like pinyin or bopomofo.
Systemic and Pedagogical Critiques
- Commenters describe education as fad‑driven, resistant to evidence, and shaped by incentives (testing, teacher training markets, therapy “industries”).
- Some criticize “lying to children”–style pedagogy and oversimplified “do what feels right from context” instruction in both reading and music, seeing it as confusing and even harmful.
- Others emphasize that boredom, struggle, and “coercion” (in the sense of consistent expectations and practice) are hard to avoid if real learning is to happen.