From a transcript of a panel on reading instruction, here is Dr. Reid Lyon:
The biggest impediment to kids’ learning to read is not biological or genetic: it’s instructional. Instructional casualties account for the majority of that 50–60 percent of our poor kids who can’t read. It does not have to be that way. It’s as simple as that.
The whole transcript is worth reading. I tend to be pessimistic that education can make a big difference. So, although I favor vouchers, I avoid making it sound like I think they would produce miracles.
But I also know that we have never tried to take a scientific approach to determining what works and what does not work in terms of teaching. This panel gives a very optimistic view of what a scientific approach could accomplish. It’s really worth looking over, whatever your point of view.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Griffin
Nov 3 2007 at 1:54am
You say:
“I tend to be pessimistic that education can make a big difference. So, although I favor vouchers, I avoid making it sound like I think they would produce miracles.”
Could you extrapolate on that?
Why doesn’t ‘education’ make a big difference?
What does make a big difference?
(Disclaimer: I am a philosophy student.)
I have always thought: the ‘process’ OR luck/randomness OR clear thinking.
the ‘process’: evolution/’invisible hand’/’the dialectic’ (Re: Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Smith, etc.)
I tend not to place much trust in this as a ‘sufficient’ condition and I want certainty (in so far as I can) in my quest to save the world.
luck/randomness: I tend not to place much trust in this…
clear thinking: this seems to produce change and can produce positive change AND relatively w/in my control AND this seems to be greatly influenced by education (though not necessarily public/formal education).
Sorry for meandering, but I guess I am asking: What’s wrong with “education” (not in reference to its current state, but…as an idea)?
jurisnaturalist
Nov 3 2007 at 9:52am
I think education is great. I’m not convinced that schools are great, though. Public schools for my kids are mostly just free day care. If they are to learn anything, it is my responsibility to teach them.
Most of the time spent in school is wasted. It takes 100 hours to learn to read. It takes 4 months to learn a new language. Most education can occur quickly and easily when everyone faces the right incentives.
Patrick R. Sullivan
Nov 3 2007 at 12:33pm
This is about all you need to read from the transcript:
Matt
Nov 3 2007 at 10:52pm
Parents work in education, and we all know that. It is parents, nothing much more.
Brad Hutchings
Nov 4 2007 at 1:22am
This reeks of scientism and/or quality cultism. I’m not a fan of test-driven processes outside of manufacturing. When they’re applied to human interactions and creative processes, they open up the possibilities of catastrophic failures occurring simultaneously with incremental measurable perfection.
Consider the latest fad in software development of test-driven programming. It tends to be great for average and below average developers by giving them discipline to complete well-defined tasks. For smart creative developers, it’s stiffling. I’ve seen several organizations struggle with their stars moving on when they implemented these childish processes.
Now consider the child learning to read, being poked and prodded so the scientismists can drown in their precious data about progress. It seems very likely that we’ll have kids who are proficient in the skills of reading but hate doing it. We ought to reserve these data intensive techniques for students who require them and not make school suck for kids who are learning just fine the unstructured way. Dog trainers get this concept. Is it too much to expect of educators?
Brent Buckner
Nov 4 2007 at 5:14pm
You write: But I also know that we have never tried to take a scientific approach to determining what works and what does not work in terms of teaching.
Project Follow-Through took a swing at that: link
Tracy W
Nov 5 2007 at 4:28am
I second what Brent Buckner says. Look up Project Followthrough – massive multi-year evaluation of multiple different curriculum. One curriculum, Direct Instruction, brought low-income kids up to performing at the level of average kids (50th percentile, when the control group was performing at the 20th percentile).
9160
Nov 6 2007 at 1:21pm
The teachers that are in public schools now are not really teaching their students. They are more like babysitting these kids until their parents come to get them later in the afternoon. Every school across the nation has a different set of reading level standards. I’ve heard that most northern states have higher standards than southern states, which means that kids in the south may not be reading at their full potential. This seems like a huge waste of time for those kids.
And not only are the reading standards a huge problem, but in a lot of places around the U.S. kids are coming in from other countries not able to speak English. This is keeping the other children, who can speak English, behind in their reading.
Comments are closed.