Learn to read; read to learn.

As is the nature of complex arguments in political discourse, the problem of students who can't read has been reduced to a saw, a sound bite; learning to read, reading to learn.

Students must learn to read by the third grade in order to read to learn forevermore.

It has a rhyme and rhythm that make it resonate, but the premise is fundamentally and flat out wrong.  Students do not have to be able to read in order to learn.  That non-readers can learn to read is proof.

While reading is a useful skill in learning, and itself an important educational goal, it is not the only way to to learn. For non-readers and less than proficient readers, a textbook is in fact, among the most worst of resources.  The worse the reader, the more useless is a textbook.

Students who want to learn everything else and how to read, should not be held back in everything else until they learn to read well enough to read to learn.  Rather, their interest and enthusiasm in any subject should be recognized, reinforced and exploited by use of any one of a number of other ways to teach and learn.

The modern goal of education is to create independent lifelong learners.  This includes teaching students how to learn by every means available, not just by reading textbooks.  If the immediate objective is to teach reading, is there a worse book to hand to a child than a textbook?

Gov Martinez, Ed Sec Skandera

The textbook and standardized test publishers are a powerful lobby as there are a great many dollars being spent on textbooks and testing.

In her State of the State, Governor Susana Martinez announced her intention that spending on textbooks will increase by 43%; some 9 million dollars.

Am I the only one wondering about the sense in buying books for children who can't read?  How about some videotapes for children who can't see,  or some audiotapes for children who can't hear?

Clearly, learning to read is important.  It is so important that we should be doing everything we can to help students learn how to read well at the earliest opportunity.

But why does all growth have to swing on one hinge?
Why can't growth in every area beside reading continue unabated while the student learns to read?  In particular in elementary school, why can't a student earn an A in math even though they're "flunking" reading?

The problem is the reliance on textbooks as learning tools.  This though they are rarely, if ever, the best tool available.  They can be depended upon for neither currency nor accuracy, and still, they are nearly the only resource available to students and teachers.

Learning, in the context of public education, is about performance on end of course testing.  If a student can pass the end of the course exam, what difference does it make how they prepared themselves for it?




photos Mark Bralley