Like every other profession or occupation, education has its own jargon, its own linguistic mishmash that serves to mystify (and sometimes alienate) outsiders. Most of it is harmless, but some of what educators say covers up what ought to see the light of day. Below are three examples, one fairly harmless, one potentially troublesome, and the last genuinely harmful to young children.
“RIGOR” and “RIGOROUS” Some educators and politicians who concern themselves with education are fond of these two related words. Generally the folks who use them want the process to have more rigor or be more rigorous. If they are trying to say that they want education to be more challenging and demanding, then we can forgive them for not having looked up ‘rigor’ and ‘rigorous’ in the dictionary. Had they looked, they would have seen ‘harsh,’ ‘unyielding,’ and ‘painful’ as some of the synonyms.
On the other hand, if they have chosen their words carefully and actually want the educational process to become even more painful, I suggest they do not belong anywhere near children or schools.
Whenever you hear an educator use those words, ask politely, “Do you mean ‘rigor’ as in RIGOR MORTIS?”
“OUR TASK AS EDUCATORS IS TO GET YOUNG CHILDREN READY TO LEARN” I have heard too many educators say this. This is NOT harmless if the speaker actually believes it. In fact, it is both arrogant and dangerous. As a species, we humans are born ‘ready to learn.’ Young children are sponges.
The adults in charge of education have to get young children ready for school, but that’s very different from getting them ready to learn. School means rules, certain acceptable behaviors, et cetera, et cetera. One hopes that the rules and procedures fan the flames of their curiosity, instead of putting out the fire.
If you hear this, ask for clarification. “Aren’t children almost always ready to learn?” If the guy (usually a man) doesn’t get the distinction, head for the hills (or another school).
“IN THE FIRST THREE GRADES CHILDREN LEARN TO READ; FROM THEN ON THEY READ TO LEARN” People who say this are treating reading as an end goal, instead of recognizing reading for what it really is: a means to an end, with the end being understanding. This is dangerous nonsense: Children learn to read because they want to learn more about the world around them, because that gives them more control over their environment. Both at the same time! Dividing them, treating them differently, actually impedes learning to read, and learning generally.
Imagine if those same deep thinkers were put in charge of teaching children to walk. They’d have kids walking in place for a year or two (learning to walk), after which they could walk around (walking to get somewhere).
I think this nonsense has its roots in an official attempt to evade responsibility for our failure to teach young children to read with confidence and comprehension. Basically saying “They haven’t learned to read very well yet because it’s a much longer process. Give us more time.” But the truth is, children haven’t learned because we haven’t been teaching them properly!
The story is a bit complicated, but it goes back to the system’s embrace of a flawed approach to reading instruction known as Whole Language (and later as its clone Balanced Literacy). These two approaches deny the importance of Phonics and Phonemic Awareness as the fundamental engine of reading. Whole Language stresses word recognition and guessing based on context (including pictures). Phonics teaches that letters make sounds, and the sounds change depending on the arrangement of the letters.
While English has lots and lots of exceptions to the rule of Phonics (say ranger, anger, and hanger aloud, for example), we learn to recognize the exceptions, but we don’t ignore the rules.
(A number of readers have brought up the issue of ‘Scripted Phonics,’ arguing that excessive scripting is mind-numbing. I agree, and I appreciate the correction. Their comments reminded me of some reporting I did for NPR back in the late 70’s from Connecticut, when Scripted Phonics temporarily ruled. As I recall, the idiots-in-charge had divided reading into about 20 discrete steps, and children were being taught those steps. They learned the steps, the idiots-in-charge declared that, because the children could pass the tests on the steps, they were–roll of drums–readers! Truth is, the children had learned to HATE reading.)
Educators have been fighting The Reading Wars for more than 75 years, but–unfortunately–teacher training has been and is dominated by Whole Language advocates, meaning that most of our elementary school teachers weren’t taught about the importance of Phonics. The good ones–and there are plenty of them–had to learn about Phonics on their own. The best teachers I’ve seen use a combination of Phonics and Whole Language, but Phonics is the fundamental building block.
People who talk about “Learning to Read, then Reading to Learn” belong in some other line of work. Full stop…
You may have other examples to offer. I’d like to hear them, so please feel free to share….