'Reading Rainbow' Reaches Its Final Chapter
npr.org
npr.org
"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.
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.
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.
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.
HN is a pretty specialized group so the fact that RR inspired a lot of people here isn't great data.
Very good point.
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.
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.
It seems likely that as televisions have become more common, younger children and those from poorer families are watching, and have different educational needs.
If that's not authors any more, then it's up to the authors. Not to the TV.
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.
So wouldn't that mean RR should continue? The whole point is to get kids to want to read, which should get them to want to learn how to read.
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.
However, that being said, can we keep in mind as we reap our scorn on the powers that be that this is a tv show that talks about books.
There is a much easier way to foster a love of reading in a child. Here's only one of many starts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottes_Web
- The PDF you linked to is massive
- The book, and the sites its homepage links to, seem very conspiracy-oriented
"""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."""
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.
> "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 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.
(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.)