Grant says that PBS, CPB and the Department of Education put significant funding toward programming that would teach kids how to read — but that's not what Reading Rainbow was trying to do.
"Reading Rainbow taught kids why to read," Grant says. "You know, the love of reading — [the show] encouraged kids to pick up a book and to read."
Seems to me that if more kids had a love of reading, they'd pick up the rest themselves, and the government wouldn't have to focus so much on cramming basic phonics down their throats.
I attribute RR as one of the reasons I had such a high reading level as a child. It made me want to read, so I did. And the more I read, the better I became at it.
It's also a troubling reminder of how when government gets involved in educational programs things can change and potentially for the worse. I have no idea if "Reading Rainbow" is better than things like "Word World" or "Super Why!" (outed myself as a parent no doubt) but it seems as though people could have decided that for themselves.
I don't really care for the new shoes that teach kids how to read though I think that "Curious George" is fantastic. For those who aren't aware it's a trial and error approach to learning where George learns things by experimenting and no one gets yelled at for being wrong.
I think in the end that every time period has hits and misses in terms of shows that actually reach children. Maybe something will come along to replace "Reading Rainbow" when it becomes obvious that a show like that is needed again.
Reading Rainbow was created via government intervention...I'm not sure that's a good example of how government should stay out of education. It seems like government can do a very good job of education sometimes!
Just because it was created for PBS I don't think it's fair to say it was created via government intervention. They get roughly a third of their funding from the state, a third from the private sector and a third through public pledges. It's not like the government has any direct impact on the show.
They are targeted at different ages(at least that is how I interpret them). My 18 month old and 3 year old both love Word World and Super Why. I had expected my 3 year old to move on to something like Reading Rainbow in the near future, but it is too old for the 18 month old.
That's a valid question. I changed it because my point in submitting it was to draw attention to this part of the article:
The change started with the Department of Education under the Bush administration, he explains, which wanted to see a much heavier focus on the basic tools of reading, like phonics and spelling.
So I guess the question is... is this due to a reduction in kids' ability to read or is it that we've just realized now that we're focusing on the wrong thing?
HN is a pretty specialized group so the fact that RR inspired a lot of people here isn't great data.
What utter sadness! I too was inspired to read in mass quantities as a child thanks in large part to this show.
Focus on teaching the mechanics of reading? Not unlike how mathematics is "taught" to kids, draining all of the beauty out of it, only to be replaced with misdirected memorization? No thanks. As dmpayton mentioned, imparting the desire to read is important... the mechanics will be learned with much more joy when there's a purpose in it.
And sure, we can have educational programs about the mechanics; some viewers may need that. But please don't trade one for the other.
I read voraciously as a child because I respected and modeled my parents and they read voraciously. As single-income, lower middle class Americans we couldn't afford a lot of popular luxuries but they would never turn down buying a book--the only exception being cases where a used or library alternative to a new book were readily available.
So, from my point of view, one thing missing from the equation is a focus on increasing adult literacy. Parents who sit around watching TV all day tend to have kids who sit around watching TV all day. Parents who read and write tend to have kids who read and write. And the associated creative and mental talents are sorely lacking in modern middle management in a way that I'd really appreciate seeing corrected over time. And there's room for both liberals and conservatives here: regardless of the argument as to whether government should promote such behavior or it should be entirely a private initiative, everyone can agree that maybe it's a good idea either way.
Sorry if that came off a bit snarky. Sore subject for me.
I think the Harry Potters and Twilights show that kids DO love to read, they just have to have a reason why. When I grew up, no one directed me to any of my favorite reads like 1984 and Catcher in the Rye. Honestly, the whole reading for a grade thing is so stale I can't believe it still exists.
College is much the same way. I just had a class where we read the novel "Pattern Recognition." In this lovely novel they get all excited about some artistic video someone posted to the internet, as if it was worth spending millions of dollars to find out who posted it. Thus, I can understand how kids might feel like some of the shit they have to read is just that: shit.
The article hinted at the decision being motivated by data, but was not specific.
It seems likely that as televisions have become more common, younger children and those from poorer families are watching, and have different educational needs.
It's a shame they didn't have the budget to continue the show and produce more directly educational programming. The sad part is I think they're spot on with the assumptions about childhood literacy. I am not at all convinced it's simply an issue of access to education. There are bigger social issues at play. Access to education is only as good as your motivation to learn and that's what we're missing. Even at <10 years old so kids are already developing a horrible sense of self-entitlement and a backwards culture worship of ignorance.
Going through school I attended two high schools growing up: one was the one of the best public high schools in the nation, the other was one of the worst. The biggest differences between the two schools were not the teachers, facilities or funding. It was hands down the parents and students motivation and commitment to learning. Schools and teachers can only motivate their students so much. The parents and the students themselves must be the ones that drive the commitment and motivation to learn, regardless of the age of the child. When attending the "bad" school teachers devoted significant and resources to the minority of students that were motivated to learn because they were allowed to do so.
Now being a parent with Every Child Held Behind (ECHB), teachers can't afford to spend time with the motivated students to push them even higher. They must dedicate all their time to the kids and parents that have no commitment. My daughter has been in two elementary schools and both have treated her similarly; she can pass the test without help so she's a low priority student. I can't imagine where I would be without extra time spent by my teachers to push me further.
Both of my sister-in-laws are elementary teachers and both have considered leaving the field because of the constraints of ECHB. They can't teach the kids that want to learn, because they need to spend any time they have with "Johnny". When his parents actually bother to show up to a teacher conference, they accuse the teacher of not educating their kid. Ignore the fact that Johnny randomly shows up, is disruptive, is high on sugar and god only knows what else, and exhausted -- that’s not their fault. Johnny can't be moved to a special school or class, because that would hold him behind the rest of the class.
Does Johnny deserve to have access to education and assistance to address his issues - definitely. Does the rest of Johnny's class deserve to be held behind because of Johnny's issues, no they don't. Please can eliminate the failed policies of Every Child Held Behind.
PS - Any failings in my English are my own fault, not the teachers that I had as a kid.
For those of you looking for a possible explanation as to why our education system is such a failure, I suggest Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of Americahttp://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf
'Very'? I couldn't be so generous: it is a conspiracy theory, self-admittedly:
> "Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist
world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists."
I agree that that blurb is a piece of poorly-written rhetoric, but the book is full of damning primary-source material that effectively support the author's points. If you want something less controversial perhaps, look at John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. It is also available in its entirety online, but to spare you the huge download, I will link to reviews from hacker-friendly sites:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/7/27/215225/986http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/06/1722203...
I don't see what's wrong with a conspiracy theory. History is full of conspiracies and any deep study on human nature will point out to you the tendency of humans to conspire.
Sorry, should have mentioned it is a ~7MB book. As far as conspiracy goes, can anyone offer up a mainstream explanation as to why public education is such a massive failure? If there is such an explanation, surely it would have led to reform by now. On the contrary, as public education spending continues to increase, literacy continues to decrease.
I want to echo the other reply -- I've discovered in my life that whenever there is something wrong with a system, it's never a cabal deliberately undermining it. It's always some perverse incentive for a group to act badly. Look for the underlying perverse incentives.
No such explanation is needed; in the lack of powerful motivating forces for education (or anything else) to be good, it will be mediocre. PG makes the point that school is bad, not because it was deliberately designed to be, but because the design spec was to warehouse otherwise potentially disruptive young people, not particularly to educate them: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
"""And as for the schools, they were just holding pens within this fake world. Officially the purpose of schools is to teach kids. In fact their primary purpose is to keep kids locked up in one place for a big chunk of the day so adults can get things done. And I have no problem with this: in a specialized industrial society, it would be a disaster to have kids running around loose."""
Hmm… I can think of one reason. Public school is designed for the bottom 60%. Therefore the top 40% will always be dragged down towards that level.
I also found (this may not be true in general) that the majority of public school teachers come from the bottom 60% and they have a serious lack of ambition.
I can't imagine that quantifying the success or failure of a program like this is even possible. All you can quantify (and quite easily) is its popularity, and so that's probably why it's being dropped.
I don't think thats true. If a show inspires you to love reading, then (as a kid) you'll associate reading with that show and keep enjoying it.
Plus, a show like Reading Rainbow isn't really going to long term viewers, its going for the current generation of little kids.
That being said, if kids love reading before seeing Reading Rainbow, then it will lose popularity, but thats okay because its goal is being fulfilled anyway.
In other news, 'Gravity's Rainbow' is no more; Pynchon no longer assumed erudite.
(I grew up with Reading Rainbow and look what it got me: bouts of graphomania, a lifelong addiction to reading and a sinking feeling when I'm exposed to contemporary long-form writing.)
"Reading Rainbow taught kids why to read," Grant says. "You know, the love of reading — [the show] encouraged kids to pick up a book and to read."
Seems to me that if more kids had a love of reading, they'd pick up the rest themselves, and the government wouldn't have to focus so much on cramming basic phonics down their throats.
I attribute RR as one of the reasons I had such a high reading level as a child. It made me want to read, so I did. And the more I read, the better I became at it.