2 Comments

1. 

   Andrew Chu on November 5, 2019 at 7:30 am

   The “way out” is to conduct a statistically rigorous comparative study of equals. Find groups of elementary schools with roughly equal demographics and reading levels. Put half “randomly” in a classical phonics-based curriculum with lots of “rote” topics surveyed to expand the knowledge base. While we’re at it, let’s throw in some Warriner’s grammar lessons too. Put the other half in whatever is the current expert-advised reading / ELA curriculum. Follow these students for 5 years in a longitudinal study, and then print the test facts for an open discussion.

   If your (our) thesis is correct, the numbers will bear it out. If the differences are statistically insignificant, then we need to consider if other factors- perhaps screen time and cell phone usage as you suggested- are dominant factors.

   I say “randomly” in quotes because in practice it will be extremely difficult to get whole schools to agree to this at random. Frankly, I think union and parent interference will render a study like this nearly impossible to run in public schools where the problem is most acute. Perhaps some charter schools might bite at it (some might be more willing to bet on the “old” or “new” ways more aggressively; find an opposite pair and at least a pilot study could be initiated).

   Reply
2. 

   ponderosa on November 10, 2019 at 12:07 pm

   Great analysis of the commenters’ underlying beliefs about reading! There’s so much really unsatisfying, fuzzy thinking there. Among my colleagues I hear a lot of “the only way to get good at reading is to read”. Every time I hear this I want to ask, “But what is the mechanism? How exactly does that work? Is there some reading muscle in the brain that’s being strengthened? Are new words being added to memory banks, thereby facilitating future reading comprehension? Something else? Please tell me how this works.” Few seem interested in looking under the hood.

   Reply