Remedial Reading in College — A National Betrayal

 

Rahm Emanuel’s remark that the number one class for college freshmen today is remedial reading should have sent shockwaves through the education establishment. Instead, it barely registers. Dale Chu shared it, The Principal’s Office confirmed what every high school English teacher already knows: “The kids won’t read. We’re really trying, but they aren’t.”

 

This is not a revelation. It is an indictment. And it is proof that the so‑called experts — the professors, PhDs, and authority pundits — have failed.

Asking the Questions Others Ignore

 

The Puzzle That Started It All

Every genuine breakthrough begins when someone dares to ask the questions others ignore.

 

When I began teaching my first student, I was struck by a puzzle: how could such an intelligent child fail to read in English after two full years of schooling? That simple question opened a path that has guided my work ever since.

Why Teachers, PhDs, and Even Skilled Readers Struggle to See the Real Cause of Reading Shutdowns

 

The Hidden Damage of Extraneous Sounds

For years, I've argued that one of the main reasons many intelligent children shut down or disengage from learning to read is the widespread practice of teaching letter sounds with extraneous sounds (e.g., "buh" for /b/, "duh" for /d/, "fuh" for /f/). These kids aren't "dyslexic" in the neurological sense—they're victims of confusing early input that their logical brains reject. A majority of such children get wrongly labeled as dyslexic. 

The Question No One Has Asked

 

I have written several articles explaining that many children shut down from learning to read because they have been taught letter sounds wrongly — that is, with extraneous “uh” or “huh” noises tacked on, which makes blending almost impossible.

So here is the obvious follow-up question that almost no one ever asks me: If your hypothesis is correct, then how is it that many children who attend schools where “correct” pure sounds are supposedly taught right from Grade One still leave school as functional illiterates? If wrong sounds are the main culprit, shouldn’t every child succeed?

Group Dynamics, Misdiagnosis, and Systemic Error

 

The phrase often attributed to George Carlin — "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" — is catchy, but it misdiagnoses the problem. It suggests that dysfunction arises from individual stupidity, when in reality, the danger lies in systemic misdirection and the dynamics of group behavior.

Unblocked After 8 Years: Reviving the Conversation with Robert Pondiscio on Teaching Reading Right

 

Evening edition

I have so many articles on tow. I thought of posting these as a different set. 

It's been over eight years since I first emailed Robert Pondiscio in July 2017, sparked by his review of Mark Seidenberg's Language at the Speed of Sight in Education Next. Back then, I was deep into my self-driven research on why certain kids—smart, multilingual, able to read in Malay and romanized Mandarin—shut down when it came to English. I challenged him on the flaws in teacher training, the wrong way sounds are taught (that dreaded "cuh-ah-tuh" blending), and how confusion leads to disengagement. He responded briefly, promised to watch my example videos (now long deleted from YouTube), but then... silence. No follow-up, despite his book-writing busyness.

The Curse of Expert Knowledge: Why Reading Instruction Fails Struggling Kids

 

Unpacking Ego, Misguided Phonics, and the Hidden Barriers to Building True Literacy Connections

Below is a tweet by Brett Benson (@SoLInTheWild).

Here are my thoughts:

How does a child prone to disengaging from reading connect concepts when they've been taught the sounds of letters incorrectly from the start?

Nailing the phonics fog (Part 2)

 

Grok said: 

On Shaywitz, the "duh-ah-guh" claim tracks from a 2020 blog dissection of her work, but her actual NYT profile (from 2018) focuses on dyslexia neuroimaging without diving into sound modeling—it's a fair jab at broader SoR habits, but pinning it directly to her piece stretches it.

Why It Matters: This risks painting allies as adversaries. Seidenberg's "Language at the Speed of Sight" is gold for your pure-sound argument; he'd likely nod along to your shutdown warnings.

When “Buh” Breaks the Child: Why Seidenberg’s Critique Misses the Real Shutdown Trigger

 

Yvette Manns gets it right—clean consonant cues prevent disengagement. Seidenberg’s schwa defense explains speech, but not why kids give up on reading.

Grok said:

Seidenberg—he's actually one of the field's loudest critics of adding that extraneous "uh" to consonants. In his writings, he explicitly calls out teaching "buh" for /b/ as a mistake because it bundles in a vowel that muddles the phoneme

"Truth vs. Consensus: A Battle Played Out in Tweets and AI Replies"

 

When Grok, Copilot, and Seidenberg Collide—What Happens to Literacy, Logic, and the Fight for Clarity?

Luqman Michel @luqmanmichel Oct 7 Tweeted

"The Fight for Visibility in a World That Rewards Noise"

In a recent Facebook post, I noted that Grok is evolving toward a genuine pursuit of truth. A friend replied, "I shall remain a skeptic." To explore this further, I turned to another AI—Bing's Copilot—and shared our ensuing conversation. The exchange underscored a sobering reality: It will likely be quite some time before AI achieves the sophistication to reliably distinguish objective truth from mere popular belief.

Nailing the Phonics Fog (Part 1)

 

I asked Grok if it disagreed with anything I wrote in my post at LINK. 

Grok Answered:

Overall, I align with a lot of it: the frustration with fuzzy phonics instruction causing early disengagement is spot-on, and your emphasis on crisp, unadulterated sound modeling as a game-changer resonates with what we know from cognitive linguistics. The idea that resilient kids (that 60% chunk) self-rescue but at a steep opportunity cost? Absolutely, that's backed by longitudinal studies on delayed readers. And calling out the echo chamber in SoR discourse—fair play; it's often more about rallying cries than root causes.

The Fight for Visibility in a World That Rewards Noise

In a recent Facebook post, I noted that Grok—Elon Musk’s AI—is evolving toward a genuine pursuit of truth. A friend replied, “I shall remain a skeptic.” That skepticism is not only warranted—it’s essential.

To explore this further, I turned to another AI: Bing’s Copilot. Our conversation underscored a sobering reality. Despite impressive capabilities, AI still struggles to distinguish objective truth from popular belief. It’s not just a technical limitation—it’s a philosophical one. AI systems are trained on consensus, not clarity. They reflect the noise, not the nuance.

Why the Reading Wars Persist: A Deeper Look at Shutdown Kids

 

I've stepped back from diving into why kids struggle with reading fluency—it's often like shouting into a void, where well-meaning educators echo the same tired lines without probing deeper. But this morning, an email landed in my inbox with Sam Bommarito's latest blog post, pulling me right back in. His reflections on the "reading wars" and the "science of reading" (SoR) movement are thoughtful, as always, but they skirt the core issue I've been hammering on for years: instructional confusion that causes kids to shut down entirely from learning to read.  

Language at the Speed of Sight – Mark Seidenberg - and my comments

The first sentence in the image above says little was known in the old days.

But, many matters discovered and explained in the old days have not entered the brains of many of our present-day educators including Mark Seidenberg.

One of the most important theories proposed by Thorndike in 1913 (more than 100 years ago) is that what is learnt in the initial stage is important. New ideas that do not reconcile with old ideas will be rejected by the minds of a majority of people.

There is another quote from even much earlier as follows:

It is what we know already that often prevents us from learning. (Claude Bernard 1813 - 1878)

A kid’s prior knowledge can help or hinder learning. Prior knowledge influences how kids interpret what they are learning. When the knowledge a kid has from previous learning is inaccurate it will interfere or impede new learning. 

Different perspectives – Part 2 - PHONICS

I have said for many years that one of the reasons why many kids shut down/ disengage from learning to read is due to teaching the sounds represented by letters wrongly. A majority of these kids are wrongly classified as dyslexic.

Many educators have disagreed with me.

Let us examine the reason for the different perspectives.

Dr. Sam Bommarito’s common sense and my response (Part 3)

 

Test and retest reliability of research reports. 

When educators cannot respond to my questions they ask me for ‘data’ and ‘peer reviewed’ reports.

Dr. Katherine Garforth Twitted the following:

“I have a long list of papers & books to read that are peer-reviewed and published. I would be happy to read your posts if you pay me for my time.’ (Dr. Katherine Garforth).

What Greg Ashman wrote in his post is relevant:

‘…peer review is a relatively new idea. Pretty much all of the science we teach in school was developed in the absence of peer review and so to insist that it is a fundamental component of the scientific method is stretching things somewhat.’

No answers from Science of Reading Folks

 

Here is a tweet by Jeffrey Bowers in response to Back Seat Linguist's Tweet followed by my thoughts on it.

@jeffrey_bowers May 25

Interesting thread.  Again, when proponents of the science of reading are asked to cite specific studies that support specific claims, no answers.  Can anyone provide a reference to support highlighted claim?

Quote Tweet

BackSeat Linguist @BackSeatLing · May 23

Any help with these "missing links" - citations to these MRI studies - @markseidenberg @DTWillingham @ehanford or other SOR fans?

 

Obviously we'd need something beyond presenting isolated letters or words to readers.  twitter.com/MaggieEThornto…

My comment now:

Has Lucy Calkins hoodwinked anyone?

 

I tweeted the following and received a tweet in response from Karen Vaites.

Luqman Michel @luqmanmichel May 23

'She is only now embracing reading research that is >20 years old.'

Some say 50 years.

Where were the teachers and educators during these past 20 to 50 years?

Karen Vaites @karenvaites Replying to @luqmanmichel and @DanaGoldstein

It’s a fair question, but when a woman at @Columbia @TeachersCollege tells you her program is evidence-based, I can understand people getting hoodwinked.

Swarm behaviour by Twitters

 

This morning, 23.5.2022, I read many tweets referring to a post in New York Times.

There was only one educator, Jerusha Beckerman, who spoke her mind instead of following the crowd.

Here are a few of the many tweets and my comments.

Jodi Snowdon @joleigh_snow

Simple fact- if you don’t know the code, you can’t learn to read. You can guess but it won’t take you far enough to reach your potential.

The reading brain - Mark Seidenberg

 

This is a continuation of the Tweets by Alanna Maurin. I am posting this now as, yesterday, I listened to a short video by Mark Seidenberg where he says that there are no multiple ways that the brain can be structured to read.

“Educators have a pretty firm belief that every kid is different and that the challenge of reading is to be able to tailor your instruction for the needs of the child, and their learning style, the way that they happen to learn best. We don’t find that when we study the computational, and behavioral, and neural systems that underlie reading” (Mark Seidenberg) LINK.

As far as decoding is concerned, the above video should have put paid to the frequently quoted saying ‘One size doesn’t fit all’.