Why Our Children Can't Read by Diane McGuinness

[skueppers]

I just finished reading "Why Our Children Can't Read and What We Can Do About It: A Scientific Revolution in Reading" by Diane McGuinness. Wow. This is by far the most useful book related to education I've ever read. I wish I had read it before I started teaching my daughter to read, as it would have changed some things about the way I approached it!

 

This book explained almost everything about the learning to read process that was a mystery to me, and backed it all up with scientific research. It explained the history of writing systems, and of our writing system in particular. Some of the insights that I found most interesting were:

 

* The most important factor in learning to read is the ability to split words apart into phonemes (sounds) and combine phonemes into words. Kids need to be able to do things like identify the beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words ("can you tell me the first sound in the word 'dog'?), replace one sound with another ("what word do you get when you replace the first sound in the word 'dog' with the /f/ sound?"), and be able to make a word out of the individual sounds ("what word do you get when you put together /c/, /a/, and /t/?").

 

* Kids should not be told that letters make sounds, but rather that letters are a way of writing down sounds in the words that we say. This seems like a subtle distinction, but that's the way the written language actually works, and I feel like it makes much more sense. It's the difference between talking about different ways to spell the sound /ae/ as in "make", "maid", or "say," as opposed to having to say, "well sometimes, the vowel combination "ea" makes the /ee/ sound like in 'reach', but other times it makes the /ae/ sound like in 'break'".

 

I feel like I've been fumbling around in the dark, and suddenly someone turned on the lights.

 

So here's my question -- are you aware of any criticism of Diane McGuinness's research and ideas? I'd be interested to know if she has any detractors, or if there is conflicting research. I searched on this forum and saw her book recommended a few times, but not much discussion beyond that.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide!

[Capt_Uhura]

Based on the bit you wrote, isn't she talking about teaching phonics rather than whole language?

[Karis]

Based on the bit you wrote, isn't she talking about teaching phonics rather than whole language?

 

 

THANK YOU

 

it really is that simple.

[Shay]

It is a fascinating read, isn't it? I've read portions of my copy many times and I have lots of notes all in the margins. It really goes deeper than just saying phonics is better than whole language. She tells why one should not teach onset/rime and word families, for example (both of which are considered "phonics). One thing I got out of it is that by by-passing teaching of blending/segmenting, you are missing the chance to develop crucial reading skills.

 

Sometimes just mentioning the word "phonics" gives it a bad rap, and I prefer to refer to it as code-based teaching, and in the UK (where Dianne is popular) the programs are called synthetic phonics.

 

Dianne has a newer book about early reading instruction, but I haven't read that one. She is favorable towards Jolly Phonics, I do know that. Dianne's son and daughter in law wrote Reading Reflex, which I *love* and which got my ds up and going.

[Matryoshka]

Sometimes just mentioning the word "phonics" gives it a bad rap, and I prefer to refer to it as code-based teaching, and in the UK (where Dianne is popular) the programs are called synthetic phonics.

 

I think there is a fundamental difference between US-based Phonics programs, and the synthetic phonics programs - I vastly prefer the latter, but that's probably because I read Reading Reflex :001_wub: before I started teaching my kids to read. RR does point out some rather stark differences between synthetic phonics (or, they call it Phonographics) and most US Phonics programs, with all the silent letters and rules to memorize.

 

Dianne's son and daughter in law wrote Reading Reflex, which I *love* and which got my ds up and going.

[Capt_Uhura]

I think the word "phonics" has a host of meanings in the US. Our district said it teaches phonics but it doesn't. On a continuum with whole language on the far left and phonics on the far right, our district is a lot closer to whole language. What they call phonics is "Can you sound out the first letter of the word? /k/. Great! Now what animal do you know that might start with a /k/ sound and looks like this picture?" They never get to sounding out the rest of the word and blending/segmenting words. They don't teach phonemes or spelling rules or syllabication. Yet they will swear all day that they use phonics. HOWEVER, for struggling readers, they pull them out for instruction using O-G approach.

 

I"m not familiar with synthetic phonics. How does that differ from O-G or SWR approach?

[EKS]

I read McGuinness's book when I first started dealing with my son's reading problems in 2nd grade. I like much of what she has to say, but her insistence that dyslexia is nothing more than a symptom of poor reading instruction contributed to a fairly lengthly delay in getting his dyslexia diagnosed.

[mamato3 all-boy boys]

The skills she describes are often grouped together as a bundle and called phonological awareness skills. I was taught about their importance in graduate school (speech and language disorders) in 1989-1991. Their importance IMHO has been documented in research for a very long time, but not often put into practice. We've just moved over to Spell to Write and Read, and these phological awareness skills are included in the pre-teaching work for preschoolers.

[skueppers]

I read McGuinness's book when I first started dealing with my son's reading problems in 2nd grade. I like much of what she has to say, but her insistence that dyslexia is nothing more than a symptom of poor reading instruction contributed to a fairly lengthly delay in getting his dyslexia diagnosed.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience. Yes, I found this idea concerning when I was reading the book. I don't know much about dyslexia, though.

 

It is a fascinating read, isn't it? I've read portions of my copy many times and I have lots of notes all in the margins. It really goes deeper than just saying phonics is better than whole language. She tells why one should not teach onset/rime and word families, for example (both of which are considered "phonics). One thing I got out of it is that by by-passing teaching of blending/segmenting, you are missing the chance to develop crucial reading skills.

 

Thanks for commenting. One of the reasons why I wish I'd read this book sooner is that although we were already using a phonics program (OPGTR), this book has given me a better understanding of how to use it. I think I'm now much better equipped to answer some of my daughter's questions, and to explain things more clearly.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Interesting. I'm planning to us PP with my dc. Does this use the method described by OP?