My piece was titled “Our Schools Are Skilled At Making Sure Boys Don’t Read." It’s longer, more aggressive, with more suggestions on how to deal with this very huge problem, namely, that boys don’t read well or they don’t read at all. (Also, my article drew helpful comments from readers in several countries.)
Now I want to mention the big difference between my article and the one in the Times. Kristof earnestly discusses theories about why boys can’t seem to keep up with girls. It’s helpful to discuss these theories, and as much as I like mocking the New York Times, Kristof deserves credit for that.
But Kristof doesn’t mention the essential problem, which is that reading methods used in public schools are often ineffective. Specifically, the Education Establishment still pushes sight-words and Dolch words. All the phonics people say that the very process of memorizing these words will prevent the child from becoming a good reader.
Let’s say a boy is 10 or 12 years old and he doesn’t like to read. You don’t actually know whether he is avoiding books as a matter of preference, or he is unable to use books as a matter of never having been properly taught. This is a HUGE distinction. If the Times had thrown its authority behind investigating this distinction, we might make some progress. In any event, my piece on CanadaFreePress ends with some quick diagnostics you can use on this hypothetical boy so you know what his problem really is...
No comments:
Post a Comment