My Response to Savannah's Comment

                                                                Savannah Jackson NGO

'Great work requires being stubborn about your goals but flexible about your methods. The best people I know stick relentlessly to what they want to achieve, but quickly adapt how they'll achieve it when they see a better way. Most people do the opposite - they cling to their methods even when better options appear.'

I recently posted an article quoting Siegfried Engelmann's statement that there is a procedure for teaching reading that can reach virtually 100% of children. Savannah, a teacher, responded with her own experience:

Savannah's Comment:

"My experience has been a bit different from yours. From my work in schools, I've seen wide agreement that sounds should be articulated correctly when teaching kids to sound out words. That doesn't mean everyone does this or knows this, but it's typically the inexperienced teacher who has not learned the concept and needs coaching on the topic. I got such coaching during my student teaching year. I think what folks are saying when they talk about fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension is that reading is more than just decoding. It's not an either-or issue but a both-and issue."

 

My Thoughts:

Savannah's point about the importance of articulating sounds correctly when teaching kids to sound out words is well taken. Many teachers from various countries have echoed the same sentiment.

However, the central question Savannah needs to ask is: If teachers are teaching the correct sounds, then why are schools not reaching 100% of kids, as Engelmann proposed? The lack of common sense among educators is the root of this problem that has persisted for decades.

Children require protection and care, and should not be thrown into something confusing and left to figure it out on their own.

I have repeatedly referenced the ideas of Charlie Munger and Claude Bernard, who emphasized how existing knowledge can often prevent us from learning new things. Even Thorndike, as early as 1913, spoke about the importance of early input, which I likened to pouring a little poison into a cup - how much water would you need to pour in to remove the poison without discarding the entire contents?

I have challenged teachers to test kids in grades 2 and above who cannot read at grade level, as I believe they will likely sound out letters with extraneous sounds. But I have yet to hear if Savannah, Ethan Lynn, or any other teachers have conducted such tests.

Savannah has joined the ranks of educators who have told me the same thing since 2010 - that teaching correct sounds is not the only important factor, as comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency need to be considered as well. I view this as akin to telling a child learning to walk that they also need to learn to jump, run, and skip simultaneously.

Of course, reading is more than just decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are all important. But, I have yet to hear about kids disengaging from learning to decode and blend due to difficulties with those higher-level skills. My focus is on eliminating the sources through which kids can learn the wrong sounds of letters before entering grade one, which I believe is the key to achieving the 100% success rate Engelmann proposed.

I have asked many educators, including Savannah, if kids leave their classes unable to read at grade level, but I have not received any responses. This raises the question of whether there is a "puppeteer" pulling the strings of these educators, who seem to be singing the same tune repeatedly.