A big part of the issue is a lot of states abandoning “phonic” based teaching for “whole language”. In phonics the focus is on teaching how letters come together to form the sound of a word, while whole language is based on just memorizing the pronunciation of words. kids being taught how to sound out words will take longer to get to a point of being able to read out short simple text, but whole language can get them reading simple stuff with all the words they’ve already been taught very quickly.
The problem is that when you move past simple stuff only using words they’ve memorized, a kid taught to sound out words will be able to figure out words they haven’t seen before, meaning that they can start to learn new words passively just by reading more complex books. The whole language taught kids need to learn every new word by instruction or by just guessing based on context, making it much harder and slower. It gets frustrating quickly and kids taught this way rarely develop a real interest in reading due to that difficulty.
A big part of the issue is a lot of states abandoning “phonic” based teaching for “whole language”.
I don’t think this is accurate for explaining 2015 versus 2025. Phonics was discouraged from maybe 2000 to 2020, and education has moved back towards phonics in the last few years. Most major school systems in the US put more emphasis on phonics now than they did 10 years ago.
An impact on early education stunting people’s reading capabilities wouldn’t show up for about 10~20 years… so… between 2015 and now is where the impact would be most obvious.
There are of course other factors, such as the cost cutting and underpaying of teachers leading to shortages and larger class sizes, but the introduction of whole language absolutely lines up with the dramatic spike seen recently in functionally illiterate young adults/teens, if you account for the fact that the effects wouldn’t be fully manifested until people taught it in kindergarten reached a point where they’re expected to be functionally literate teens and young adults.
The data comes from tests given to students in grades 3-8, so changes in pedagogy should trickle through completely within 8 years or so.
And my point is that anti-phonics advocates started actually phasing out phonics in the 90’s and 2000’s, so that the teachers between 2007 and 2015 (those critical 8 years of instruction for students taking the test in 2015) were probably the most anti-phonics cohort of the historical data.
From that history, I would assume that the 8-13 year olds in 2025 had more formal phonics instruction than the 2015 cohort.
Yes, but the changes will take a few years to truly show. Because young kids won’t really start to struggle until they start getting into the more advanced stuff years later. A change back to phonics a few years ago likely wouldn’t have made a noticeable difference yet, because the kids who learned phonics won’t be old enough to be reading the more advanced stuff yet.
Sure. The underlying study looks at 3rd through 8th grade, so we’re talking about critical literacy education happening between 0-8 years before the testing date.
But phonics fell out of favor by the early 2000’s as many teachers, school districts, and state boards created curricula around whole word recognition and three cueing. Pro-phonics backlash happened around then, too, so plenty of kids were getting side instruction from parents and after school tutoring, if their parents were more involved. But test scores peaking in 2015 doesn’t quite fit the timeline of the anti-phonics movement peaking in the early to late 2000’s. So the 2015 test takers got the most anti-phonics education, perhaps more anti-phonics than 2025 test takers.
Plus, if we’re gonna talk about parental involvement and after school tutoring, one interesting thing about the 2015-2025 drop is that it’s happening across all income levels and most pronounced at middle income levels, where I’d imagine there is a lot of parental and after school support.
The data is interesting, and I suspect there are multiple causes adding up.
They’re not even taught how to use context or subtext to understand a word they don’t know. It would actually be more helpful if they did instead of just letting them go ahead and invent an entire new meaning for words they don’t know.
And then when Bush Jr implemented “No Child Left Behind,” schools had to use certain research-backed curricula if they wanted to keep their funding. So they trusted that the “research” about whole-language reading curricula was true. It took decades to see that it wasn’t the teachers’ implementation that was flawed, it was bad research. The approved curriculum reinforced bad reading practices.
A big part of the issue is a lot of states abandoning “phonic” based teaching for “whole language”. In phonics the focus is on teaching how letters come together to form the sound of a word, while whole language is based on just memorizing the pronunciation of words. kids being taught how to sound out words will take longer to get to a point of being able to read out short simple text, but whole language can get them reading simple stuff with all the words they’ve already been taught very quickly.
The problem is that when you move past simple stuff only using words they’ve memorized, a kid taught to sound out words will be able to figure out words they haven’t seen before, meaning that they can start to learn new words passively just by reading more complex books. The whole language taught kids need to learn every new word by instruction or by just guessing based on context, making it much harder and slower. It gets frustrating quickly and kids taught this way rarely develop a real interest in reading due to that difficulty.
I don’t think this is accurate for explaining 2015 versus 2025. Phonics was discouraged from maybe 2000 to 2020, and education has moved back towards phonics in the last few years. Most major school systems in the US put more emphasis on phonics now than they did 10 years ago.
An impact on early education stunting people’s reading capabilities wouldn’t show up for about 10~20 years… so… between 2015 and now is where the impact would be most obvious.
There are of course other factors, such as the cost cutting and underpaying of teachers leading to shortages and larger class sizes, but the introduction of whole language absolutely lines up with the dramatic spike seen recently in functionally illiterate young adults/teens, if you account for the fact that the effects wouldn’t be fully manifested until people taught it in kindergarten reached a point where they’re expected to be functionally literate teens and young adults.
The data comes from tests given to students in grades 3-8, so changes in pedagogy should trickle through completely within 8 years or so.
And my point is that anti-phonics advocates started actually phasing out phonics in the 90’s and 2000’s, so that the teachers between 2007 and 2015 (those critical 8 years of instruction for students taking the test in 2015) were probably the most anti-phonics cohort of the historical data.
From that history, I would assume that the 8-13 year olds in 2025 had more formal phonics instruction than the 2015 cohort.
Yes, but the changes will take a few years to truly show. Because young kids won’t really start to struggle until they start getting into the more advanced stuff years later. A change back to phonics a few years ago likely wouldn’t have made a noticeable difference yet, because the kids who learned phonics won’t be old enough to be reading the more advanced stuff yet.
Sure. The underlying study looks at 3rd through 8th grade, so we’re talking about critical literacy education happening between 0-8 years before the testing date.
But phonics fell out of favor by the early 2000’s as many teachers, school districts, and state boards created curricula around whole word recognition and three cueing. Pro-phonics backlash happened around then, too, so plenty of kids were getting side instruction from parents and after school tutoring, if their parents were more involved. But test scores peaking in 2015 doesn’t quite fit the timeline of the anti-phonics movement peaking in the early to late 2000’s. So the 2015 test takers got the most anti-phonics education, perhaps more anti-phonics than 2025 test takers.
Plus, if we’re gonna talk about parental involvement and after school tutoring, one interesting thing about the 2015-2025 drop is that it’s happening across all income levels and most pronounced at middle income levels, where I’d imagine there is a lot of parental and after school support.
The data is interesting, and I suspect there are multiple causes adding up.
They’re not even taught how to use context or subtext to understand a word they don’t know. It would actually be more helpful if they did instead of just letting them go ahead and invent an entire new meaning for words they don’t know.
That is actually incorrect. You’re describing the entire point of Whole Language learning.
They are to learn a number of words, and then use their collection of words to deduce other words.
The problem is they don’t necessarily deduce correctly. Who is to say you deduced them correctly?
Also people are lazy. They would rather just leave the blanks than fill it in.
Cool that explains why I’m arguing over the literal definition of words and the context they are used in with 20 somethings constantly.
Wtf this sounds crazy, what asshole implemented this change?
Marie Clay and Lucy Calkins
And then when Bush Jr implemented “No Child Left Behind,” schools had to use certain research-backed curricula if they wanted to keep their funding. So they trusted that the “research” about whole-language reading curricula was true. It took decades to see that it wasn’t the teachers’ implementation that was flawed, it was bad research. The approved curriculum reinforced bad reading practices.
In other words, grifters. As is tradition in America, apparently.
deleted by creator